A self-censored chronicle of family court dramas, lived by parents who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence
I know I can never fully fathom what my Father went through, let alone the pain that is in all of your hearts, after being separated from your children - it's absolutely devastating, and sickening that mothers can turn so manipulative and mean, and cause so much pain, using children as a manipulation tactic against you.
I know even after all of my Father's rights were taken away (literally, from weekend visits, to supervised visits) because my Mother, like many of your ex's lied to the court system, and completely eradicated any rights he did have.
My father once fought to the extremity to just even see us, call us, talk to us for five minutes on the phone, and it makes me so sad to know how much time had been wasted, not being able to even connect with my Father.
With that being said there is hope, and this is what this comment was about.
I know usually it does not come granted through the court system, since it's completely biased, and one sided, but there is hope. Never give up, because your children, everyday, think about you. Miss you, love you, and you are in their hearts and you will forever have a place there, there is nothing in this world that could replace you, you are planted there, like a tree, with roots of love that will never be eradicated by any court system, any manipulative mother, any lies, distance or time.
I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the handling of Mr. David Inguanzo’s case (Case No. 2008-029595-FC17) and the treatment he has received in the courtroom.
I am specifically troubled by the tone and conduct directed toward Mr. Inguanzo by Circuit Court Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr, as reflected in the official court transcripts. Mr. Inguanzo has consistently maintained that he has been the victim of false statements, including a documented false report made by Ms. Nixa Rose to a Miami-Dade Police Officer, an act that constitutes a felony under Florida law. The court’s apparent lack of acknowledgment of these concerns raises serious questions about fairness, impartiality, and due process.
In light of these issues, I respectfully request the following:
That Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr recuse herself from further involvement in Mr. Inguanzo’s proceedings to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the judicial process.
That the Court evaluate her continued role as Presiding Judge of the Family Division, given the gravity of the concerns raised.
That Mr. Inguanzo be immediately reunited with his daughter, Zoraya Inguanzo, through an order restoring normal and reasonable timesharing consistent with Florida law and the child’s best interests.
These requests are made in the hope of restoring confidence in the fairness of the proceedings and ensuring that all parties—especially the child—are treated with justice, dignity, and respect.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
STOP Denial of Reasonable Parent/Child Contact #StandUpForZoraya - PETITION
The Cause "Stand Up For Zoraya" celebrates the love fathers have for their daughters, inspiring them to embrace the important role they hold in their daughters' lives and to provide the love, nurture, and emotional support that only they can give. www.causes.com/campaigns/44302-stand-up-for-zoraya
Find Court Qualified "Supervised Visitation Monitor" - Once a week (for one hour) in Miami-Dade or Broward County. As Ordered by Judge Manno-Schurr on February 2nd, 2015. WILL PAY - Contact Stuart H. Abramson, Attorney at Law at (305) 270-7796
Obtain a Pro-Bono Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). See a photo of Dad's Motion for GAL Appointment filed by dad and denied by Judge Scott Silverman.
Dad initially (on 12/4/2008) petitioned the court for three things: 1. Pay Child Support 2. Shared Parental Responsibility and 3. Normal and reasonable Time-sharing. On July 8th, 2010 Dad was granted by Judge Maria Espinosa Dennis: 1. Child Support 2. Shared Parental Responsibility Judge Dennis stated in the Final Judgment that "Normal and reasonable time-sharing", like the one dad has with his son since 2004 from his divorce, will be granted upon absolute compliance with all items listed in Paragraph number 29 of the Final Judgment.
Dad has been in Family Court compliance since October of 2010.
Judge Manno-Schurr It is in the child's best interests that contact and visits be restored SWIFTLY and FULLY11th Judicial Circuit Family Court - Inguanzo vs. Rose 08-29595 - Began: 10/27/20082012 -
Linda J Gottlieb LMFT LCSW -
Resumption of Visits ~
It is in the child's best interests that contact and visits with the alienated parent be restored SWIFTLY and FULLY once the suspended contact was determined to be the result of unfounded DV allegations and/or because the alienating parent had unilaterally prevented the contact.
One of the more pernicious and destructive alienating maneuvers is the leveling of false abuse allegations against the targeted parent.
This emotional form of child abuse is by the alienating by a parent, then the traumatic results are equal to those of children who actually had suffered abused.
Exacerbating the damage, such allegations generally lead to the immediate suspension of all contact between the child and the targeted parent during the ensuing investigation. Not only is contact missed, it allows for the poisoning to continue with no possibility for the antidote of the meaningful contact between the child and the targeted parent. Furthering the damage to the child of the suspended contact, the alienating parent invariably informs the child that she/he has been abandoned by the targeted parent!
Paving the way for the resumption of visits and contact. Oh, really? Not so fast. This rarely happens because the alienating parent declares to the child's attorney (Liar Greenberg) and to the family court that the child is too afraid to have contact resumed with the targeted parent; and naturally these sentiments are validated by the brainwashed puppet child.
So the attorney for the child and the attorney for the alienating parent recommend the very slow resumption of contact----generally slower than watching grass grow. Some attorneys for the targeted parent have conveyed to me that this situation places them in a double-blind: if they ask for normal resumption of contact, the judge may deny everything. So frequently, the attorney for the targeted parent has little choice but to agree to the resumption of contact at a snail's pace and sometimes supervised.
We are born for a higher destiny than that of earth, there is a realm where the rainbow never fades, where the stars will be spread before us like islands that slumber on the oceans, and where the beings that pass before us like shadows will stay in our presence forever.
All of us at one time or another find ourselves in front of the family court. THE FAMILY COURT in Dade County is abusing children; either by ignoring their cries, as in this case, or by appointing Guardians that take money , are personal friends of the Judgesand who just want a pay day. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? These people believe they are protected by the law, no one can stop them and they are G-d's. Well, we have given them this power...WE VOTED THEM INTO OFFICE. PLEASE HELP STOP CHILDREN ABUSE IN THE DADE COUNTY FAMILY COURT. SIGN OUR PETITION AND ASK THE Govenor office to Investiage Judge Scott Bernstein and Dr. Miguel Firpi.
Demand Congressional Oversight Hearings on Family Court's Child Custody Practices
There is a cover-up occurring in another powerful, venerated, institution, which in many ways mirrors the practices that facilitated the Catholic Church child abuse scandal. For decades, in Family Courts across the nation, women who have tried to protect their children from an abusive father have been attacked and battered by a ruthless system which dismisses or ignores physical abuse, verbal threats, and even documented criminal histories of fathers in a obsessive effort to attain their stated goal - joint custody at all costs. Money too, fuels the atrocities in the courts.
This isn't about good fathers, it’s about the money used to facilitate abusive men. Father's Rights groups (often fronts for male supremacists and abusive men who want to control their families or strike back at the mothers) have fought vehemently to cement shared custody as the default mandate in Family Courts and although their agenda seems reasonable and their image as good, fit fathers benevolent, it belies an ugly essence of hatred, misogyny, and revenge.
These cases are often euphemistically described in the media as "high-conflict," but the reality is that the father is often abusive, controlling, and dangerous, something that Family Court refuses to acknowledge as they push for shared custody.
Endemic legislative policies and procedures in Family Courts endanger and destroy children's lives, and in the worst cases lead to their murders. Family Courts operate with impunity and no oversight, disregarding existing laws designed to protect victims of domestic or child abuse. Institutionalized policies and doctrines countenance and enable the perpetrators while the system covers up illegal rulings and criminal conspiracy by imposing gag orders, fines, threats of loss of custody time, or jail time on women and their children and serve to justify enforced, continued contact with the abuser.
The sensational cases that are covered in the media, where abusive fathers fight for custody and obtain custody then shoot, stab, beat, strangle, drown, throw the children off bridges or high rises, burn them to death, or “merely” rape, sodomize or otherwise physically abuse their children (two out of thousands of examples are, "Killer wins custody of children after 10 years in prison; guardian fights decision,"and "Slaying Suspect's Wife Warned of Risk to Children" , are seen as anomalies and unavoidable atrocities, but in reality it is the fundamental flaws in the institution, the systemic practices and policies, and the endemic graft of complicit cottage industries that result in the murders, suicides, and continued abuse of children. Just as Fathers Shanley, Porter, and Geoghan were seen as aberrations ("bad apples") in the Catholic Church scandal rather than manifestations of a debased system, the media does not link the vast numbers of cases which follow the same identical pattern to the individual cases covered in the stories, thereby unmasking an appalling system that is awarding rapists, registered sex-offenders, domestic violence abusers, drug addicts, and even convicted murderers joint or sole custody of their children. These cases are symptomatic of the underlying dysfunctional and corrupt processes of all Family Courts in every state in this country (and the many other places around the world).
There are many highly esteemed authorities who have correctly identified the Family Court “epidemic of judicial abuse” and extortion by court assigned experts, all operating without accountability. Congressmen John Conyers, Jim Costa, and Ted Poe have hosted Congressional Briefings on this issue. Former Attorney General Eric Holder stated at the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment on June 2009, “Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts…?”
Conservatives aren't just fighting same-sex marriage; They’re also trying to stop divorce?!
For years, social conservatives have been fighting to prevent certain people from getting married. But they’re waging a parallel battle, too: Trying to keep married couples together.
In cooperation with the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, socially conservative politicians have been quietly trying to make it harder for couples to get divorced. In recent years, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced bills imposing longer waiting periods before a divorce is granted, mandating counseling courses or limiting the reasons a couple can formally split.
States such as Arizona, Louisiana and Utah have already passed such laws, while others such as Oklahoma and Alabama are moving to do so.
If divorces are tougher to obtain, social conservatives argue, fewer marriages will end. And having more married couples is not just desirable in its own right but is a social good, they say. During his presidential campaign, former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) emphasized finishing high school and getting married as cures for poverty. “If you do those two things, you will be successful economically,” he declared at a 2011 event in Iowa.
A legislative movement against divorce may seem like a non-starter in a country where half of married couples avail themselves of this right, but as with legal challenges to Obamacare and the rise of the tea party movement, today’s fringe idea can quickly become tomorrow’s mainstream conservatism.
Divorce has long been a cultural touchstone in America. Social conservatives regularly advocate a return to a more traditional system of divorce — namely that it be extraordinarily difficult to get. For example, the only way an Alabamian could get a divorce under the state’s original 1819 constitution: “No decree for such divorce shall have effect until the same shall be sanctioned by two thirds of both Houses of the General Assembly.” Even a battered wife — who, of course, couldn’t vote — would have to petition her all-male state legislature and get supermajority approval before being freed from matrimony.
For most of American history, to obtain a divorce, one party had to prove to a judge that the other party was at fault, meaning he or she had committed certain grievous acts that irreparably harmed the marriage, such as adultery or being convicted of a felony. Emotional or physical abuse wasn’t always enough; even adultery or abandonment could be insufficient if a spouse reluctant to get divorced convinced a judge that his or her partner was similarly culpable. And as historian Glenda Riley showed in her 1991 book “Divorce: An American Tradition,” loveless couples often found creative ways to persuade judges to end their marriages: As recently as the 1950s, some couples would stage a bust, complete with hotel room, “mistress,” photographer and private detective who would testify in court about the husband’s (or wife’s) supposed illicit deeds.
This system began to crumble during the 1960s. In 1969, California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorces — permitting divorce without requiring proof of wrongdoing such as adultery — in the Family Law Act, signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan. Within a decade, 45 other states had joined California. By 1985, 49 states had legalized no-fault divorce; New York did just four years ago.
No-fault divorce has been a success. A 2003 Stanford University study detailed the benefits in states that had legalized such divorces: Domestic violence dropped by a third in just 10 years, the number of husbands convicted of murdering their wives fell by 10 percent, and the number of women committing suicide declined between 11 and 19 percent. A recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress found that only 28 percent of divorced women said they wished they’d stayed married.
Family Law: Requiring a court to consider certain alimony factors and make specific written findings of fact after making specified determinations; requiring a court to make specified findings before ruling on a request for alimony; creating a presumption that approximately equal time-sharing by both parents is in the best interest of the child; providing that a party may pursue an immediate modification of alimony in certain circumstances; providing that a collaborative law process commences when the parties enter into a collaborative law participation agreement, etc.
Effective Date:Except as otherwise expressly provided in this act, this act shall take effect July 1, 2016
Last Event:09/17/15 S Referred to Judiciary; Appropriations Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice; Appropriations on Thursday, September 17, 2015 1:54 PM
WHAT EVERY PROFESSIONAL WHO INTERVENES IN CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT PARENTAL ALIENATION/PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
by Linda Gottlieb, LMFT, LCSW-r
Much controversy surrounds a family interactional pattern first labeled in 1985 by child psychiatrist, Richard Gardner, as the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This interactional pattern is, specifically, a cross-generational coalition of one parent with the child to the deprecation and rejection of the other parent. But this specific family interactional pattern, characteristic of the PAS, had been noted dating back to the 1950's by numerous, independently practicing child psychiatrists upon observing their psychiatric child patients on the hospital wards during family visits. These child psychiatrists, Nathan Ackerman (1958, 1961, 1965); Murray Bowen (1971, 1978); Don Jackson (1971); and Salvador Minuchin (1974, 1978, 1981, 1993, 1996; et al.), who later founded the family therapy movement, have observed and written extensively about this family interactional pattern. Murray Bowen (1971, 1978) labeled it the "pathological triangle" and Jay Haley, (1963, 1968, 1973, 1977, 1990) labeled it "the perverse triangle," which, in the extreme situations, caused a psychosis in the child. This long history of documented triangulation was extensively validated by second generational family therapists (Andolfi 1983, 1989; Angelo, 1983; Boscolo, 1987; Gottlieb, 2012; Nichols, 1992, et al.), although the psychiatrists and therapists in the family therapy movement did not apply the label of parental alienation syndrome to this family interactional pattern. But hey, when there has been 60+ years of observable and scientific supporting data, what's in a name? And that is the point: it is unnecessary to become side-tracked by and hung-up on a label when there is such extensive empirical evidence for the existence of this dysfunctional family interactional pattern and its adverse effects on children.
This cross generational cannot be a good outcome for any child who is caught in it. It empowers them and gives them a sense of entitlement, and it creates a double-bind as they have to reject one half of themselves to satisfy the co-opting parent. Or, if they refuse to join in a coalition, the co-opting parent usually rejects the child. Double-binds are crazy making behaviors that create severe disturbances in those who are victimized by it. I have written a chapter from my book documenting how this coalition, which I will refer to as parental alienation syndrome, is a form of emotional child abuse.
Any prudent parent’s perception and any prudent professional’s perception would have to agree with Christopher Barden, PhD., JD., who has received 2 national research awards in psychology and a law degree with honors from Harvard Law school, when he stated, “There can be no credible controversy about the power of parents to influence children.” (The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome, p. 420.) And we would also have to agree with Barden when he stated that custody cases require “the critical obligation to carefully review the influence of parents, therapists or other adults on the attitudes, beliefs and memories of children.” (pp. 419-432)
Given how children are so powerfully influenced by parents and given what Minuchin and the other family therapists described as the negativity on children of triangulation, any prudent person and any prudent professional would also have to agree that, in typical cases of divorce, children are negatively affected even more from triangulation----or what I would also label “destructive parenting,” “hostile parenting” or simply “crappy parenting.”
I would further like to confirm that hatred for and rejection of the parent is anti- instinctual. I have reached this conclusion in part due to my training as a family therapist but primarily as a response to having worked for 24 years with a foster care population numbering in the thousands of children. Not one of these many children, who had been removed from their home due to adjudicated neglect and/or abuse, ever expressed hatred for her/his parents or refusal to visit. Indeed, the two most frequently asked questions were, "When can I go home" and "When is my next visit with my mom/mommy or dad/daddy?" I am therefore unequivocally certain that there is only one explanation as to why a child expresses hatred for and refusal to have contact with a parent: the child has been programmed by the other parent and is receiving sanctioning by that parent to reject the targeted/alienated parent. You have to be carefully taught to hate and fear---- especially a parent. I am quite concerned that our customary professional response to a child's refusal to have contact with a parent is to support the refusal or at least to sanction it. It is not healthy to conduct one's life feeling hatred for parent or believing, as in the case of alienation, that one hates a parent. Remedy must be reunification therapy between the child and targeted/alienated parent. Additionally, the programming parent must be made to understand that they are engaging in emotional child abuse by facilitating an alienation, and remedy must be the same as for any form of child abuse---even including transfer of custody for failure to cease the abuse. References in this Article as well as other important readings Ackerman, N. W. (1958). The psychodynamics of family life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Ackerman, N. W. (1961). The emergence of family psychotherapy on the present scene. In M. I. Stein, (Ed.), Contemporary psychotherapies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. - Ackerman, N. W., & Franklin, P. (1965). Family dynamics and the reversibility of delusional formation: A case study in family therapy. In I. Boszormenyi-Nagy & J. - Baker, A. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome. New York, NY: Norton. Barden, R. C. (2006) Protecting the fundamental rights of children and families: Parental alienation syndrome and family law reform. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & L. Lorandos (Eds.), International handbook of parental alienation syndrome (pp. 419-432). Sringfield, IL: Thomas. - Bowen, M. (1971). The use of family theory in clinical practice. In J. Haley (Ed.), Changing families: A family therapy reader (pp. 159-192). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. - Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Jason Aronson. Gottlieb, L. (2012). The parental alienation syndrome: A family therapy and collaborative systems approach to amelioration. Springfield, IL.: Charles. C. Thomas. - Gottlieb, L. (2012) The parental alienation syndrome: A family therapy and collaborative systems approach to amelioration. Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Haley, J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. (1st ed.) New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. Haley, J., & Hoffman, L. (Eds.). (1968). Techniques of family therapy. New York, NY:Basic Books. - Haley, J. (1971). Changing families. New York, New York: Grune & Stratton. Haley, J. (1973). Uncommon therapy. New York, NY: Norton.Haley, J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J.Weakland (Eds.), The interactional view (pp. 37-44). New York, NY: Basic Books. - Haley, J. (1990). Strategies of Psychotherapy, Rockville, MD: The Triangle Press. Jackson, D., & Weakland, J. (1971) Conjoint family therapy: Some considerations on theory, technique, and results. In J. Haley (Ed.), Changing families (pp. 13-35). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. - Kopetski, L. (2006). Commentary: Parental alienation syndrome. In R. Gardner, R.Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International handbook of parental alienation syndrome (pp. 378-390). Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Lorandos, D. (2006). Parental alienation syndrome: Detractors and the junk science vacuum. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome (pp. 397-418). Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Lowenstein, L. (2006). The psychological effects and treatment of the parental alienation syndrome. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International handbook of parental alienation syndrome. Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. - Minuchin, S., with Baker, L., & Rosman, B. (1978). Psychosomatic families: Anorexia nervosa in context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Minuchin, S., with Fishman, C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. - Minuchin, S., with Nichols, M. (1993). Family healing. New York, NY: The Free Press. Minuchin, S., with Lee, W., & Simon, G. (1996). Mastering family therapy. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. - Sauber, R. (2006). PAS as a family tragedy: Roles of family members, professionals, and the justice system. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International Handbook on Parental Alienation Syndrome (pp. 12-32). Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Steinberger, C. (2006). Father? What father? Parental alienation and its effect on children. Law Guardian Reporter, 22 (3). New York, NY: Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court of New York. - Warshak, R. (2001). Current controversies regarding parental alienation syndrome, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(3), 29-59. - Warshak, R. (2006). Social science and parental alienation: Examining the disputes and the evidence. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International handbook of parental alienation syndrome (pp. 352-371). Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Warshak, R. (2010). Divorce poison. New York, NY: Harper.
It’s just not possible that intelligent lawyers like judges don’t understand exactly what goes on in their courtrooms, yet they allow it to continue.
This judicial collusion is far more serious crime than even the fraud of divorce attorneys themselves.
We need reform toward a more humane family dispute resolution solution. They’ve treated us as enemies of the state. When we thought we’d be welcomed, or at least heard, we’ve instead become targets of prosecution and terrorist threats. They've assaulted us, harassed our members including threatening “gun cock” and death threat late night phone calls, attacked our businesses, professional licenses, and threatened to jail and extort us with further crime.
It’s outrageous that our own government allows this to happen, and we’re asking the federal court to protect our members as we pursue the civil and criminal charges against the courts. A complete set of filings and exhibits is available from CCFC’s Facebook page at www.Facebook.com/ccfconline ~~ Grandparents and Grandkids World4Justice2016 ~ GR Vid2 -- www.facebook.com/Grandparents4Justice
Dr. Richard Warshak of the University of Texas has just published a new paper in the journal, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, entitled, “Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies that Compromise Decisions in Court and in Therapy.” Parental alienation is a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents have been engaged in a…Read More
Isolation. The act of isolating, or the state of being isolated, insulation, separation; loneliness. Manipulation. A method of changing an individual’s attitudes or allegiances through the use of drugs, torture or psychological techniques, any form of indoctrination, alluding to the literal erasing of what is in or on one’s mind. Brain Washing…Read More
Many of our members are mothers, fathers, and children who have withstood abundant hardship resulting from the current practices of what is generally described as the “Family Law Community.”
These injuries and insults include fraudulent, inefficient, harmful, and even dangerous services; an institutionalized culture of indifference to “clearly-established” liberties; insults to the autonomy and dignity of parents and children; extortion, robbery, abuse, and more, delivered at the hands of eager operators within the divorce industry. ~~ CPRW Vid1 - 2016
Amber Dawn ~
