"In the best interest of the children."
I have discovered that there is an undermining of the legal process going on but it's difficult to detect. Every time I'd come across it, I would ask with disbelief, "why ?" That's a question I found no answer to for a very long time.
In some of my case investigations, I found a strong bias from professionals against the Targeted Parent ( T.P. ). {1.} That was a shocking revelation to me.
I work exclusively in cases involving Parental Alienation. This is a problem that will surface in the most difficult kind of family law case's. I'm a consultant in hostile custody disputes. The parents are constantly at war over visitation and many other kinds of shared custody issues. The parental alienation becomes a medical problem for the children caught in the middle.
The litigation is costly for both sides but normally one side has more money to put up a fight. I noticed an interesting pattern, even when the alienating parent (A.P.){2} didn't have money, they still obtained the favoritism of the professional's. In a legal fight if one side has money and the other doesn't, the side with the money normally wins. I wanted to understand why and how the A.P. always seemed to get an upper hand ?
I would often think, "Why is it that so many professionals are unable to see through the machinations of a parental alienator ? " I'd ask myself, " Why doesn't the judge recognize the proof of the parental alientation ? " To my way of thinking, the courts should side with the T.P. and try to do something to protect the children. It was very frustrating to feel helpless in the face of a problem where all I wanted to do was help rescue a child from the emotional abuse.
Frequently in custody cases a Judge will rely on an independent authority to provide guidance to the court, in part because both parents are in gridlock about everything. When cases spins out of control, a Judge might turn to the service of a Parent Coordinator, or a Guardian Ad Litem. { 3. }
The role of a P.C. { 4.} has become an emerging solution for Family Law Judges. The P.C. is a professional from the mediation and arbitration industry, many are never monitored for ethical and professional standards. The certification of P.C.'s started in 2003, so not a lot is understood about their role, even by many family law attorneys.
A Judge decides the need for counseling in custody disputes and they will often order a child to obtain individual therapy. Sometimes a Judge will also order the parents to get counseling. In custody disputes, there's a little trick that an attorney will often try to get away with. It's a stipulation in a court order requiring a T.P. to first have one or more sessions with the child's therapist, before their visitation can begin.
Once this stipulation is planted in a court order, the T.P. goes through one game after another trying to stay in compliance and this becomes a way to block the T.P.'s visitation.
Given the fact that a T.P. only goes through this court room drama once in a lifetime there's no way to know all the various things that are a part of the litigation playbook. Without someone to guide the targeted parent, they're at the mercy of whomever the control is shifted to ( the Parent Coordinator, therapist, supervisor of visitation, etc. )
Anyway, let me go back to my earlier point in the article about the mystery of success for the alienating parent. Regardless of the A.P.'s financial resources, and in spite of any intervening court authorities like a parent coordinator, G.A.L.{ 5. } the therapist, the alienating parents always seem to get what they want, the control and custody of the children.
Then one day I was working on a case that unraveled the mystery.
The lawyers on both sides were working against the targeted parent. They had a plan to put the T.P. in a negative light. If it worked the visitation rights of the T.P. would come to an end. Both lawyers talked it over and decided it was in the best interest of the children to bring the case to a close.
The lawyers sided in favor of the A.P. because they believed that there was no way to change the abusing parents behavior and they also felt that the judge would not substantially change the T.P.'s visitation schedule. From their point of view ( and I don't think they should have taken the law into their own hands ), they were only trying to be realistic. They were also trying to take into consideration the fact that the targeted parent had both the desire and the ability to pay for a protracted legal fight.
The lawyers were also aware the children in the case were suffering from the conflict. The longer the T.P. kept up the fight the more difficult it got for the children. In their minds, the only right thing to do was hand the children over to the A.P. and close the case. In doing this they could put a stop to the parental tug of war.
After I discovered the undermining in this case I went back to examine this scenario in some of my other cases. I found evidence that it was widespread. I've now come to understand these parental alienation cases in a new context. It now seems that many of the well meaning, good intentioned doctors, therapists, P.C.'s and G.A.L.'s, really do understand and recognize the damage caused by parental alienation, but because Parental Alienation Syndrome is not in the DSM or because the Judge won't accept a PAS { 6. } conclusion or because the targeted parent won't give up the fight, but most of all because the children are in the middle of a mental collapse, these professionals believe it's fair and right to put a faster end to the conflict and by any means possible. Even if it does mean siding with the A.P.
I have therefore come to the belief that behind the scenes, the lawyers, the doctors, the Guardian Ad Litem's, the Parenting Coordinators and anyone else in a power brokering position might ( if not stopped ) side with the A.P. (the alienating parent ). I don't think that's fair to the child or the T.P. and recent studies by Amy Baker,PhD have validated that adults of parental alienation suffer throughout their life because of this problem.
Given the breakthrough in now understanding the way in which these cases are being manipulated, I was armed with the fact that exposing a ring of conspirator's can very well lead to license suspensions for many of these professionals. This is a new and serious problem, but at least now I had knowledge of something I did not know before.
Now that I knew what was going on behind the scenes, I started to calculate ways to expose the conspiring parties. Let me put it this way, there are some things that are better left unsaid in this article because there are on-going strategies that are now in effect to alter this course of undermining within the courts. I want to send a message to targeted parents ... there are some of us that know how to find the truth, but you'll have to trust your medical legal consultant because sometimes he or she is really the only one on your side.
1. T.P. is an abbreviation for the term targeted parent. The targeted parent is the non-abusing parent in cases of Parental Alienation.
2. A.P. is an abbreviation for the term alienating parent. The alienating parent is the one abusing the child in the cases involving parental alienation.
3. Dr. Richard Gardner, the founding father of P.A.S. believed that Guardian Ad Litem's only made a bad situation worse for alienated children because they overly empowered the child.
4. P.C. is an abbreviation for the term Parent Coordinator. These professionals are court appointed to assist with custody disputes.
5. G.A.L. is an abbreviation for the term Guardian Ad Litem. This court appointed authority is the legal representative for a child. This person is typically a lawyer, but it could be a professional such as a doctor.
6. P.A.S. is an abbreviation for the term Parental Alienation Syndrome. This is a medical disorder affecting a child in the context of a divorce.
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?
“Relationship Estrangement and Interference is a form of Domestic Violence using Psychological abuse.”
ReplyDelete~ Joan Kloth-Zanard of PAS Intervention.
www.pas-intervention.com
PAS Intervention stands for Parental Alienation Support and Intervention. It is an International Non-profit organization to End Child Abuse and Parental Alienation.
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."
“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