We Are NOT Gonna Take It Anymore

Everyone loses when parental alienation gets nasty

Dear Readers: The ugly parental alienation issue blew up at Christmastime with many hurting and angry readers writing in. The spark was a letter from a separated man, Dad at the End of His Rope, whose heart was breaking because his ex had bad-mouthed him to his children (all over the age of 18) to the point they won’t talk to him anymore. During the marriage, he made big money working out of town. He was away three weeks a month and home one week. During his time at home he and his wife would fight often. He supported his wife and three kids then, and still does. He feels the kids have been taught to hate him and yet he pays and pays. He says he’s just the "bank machine." Here are some of the responses from other readers.

Dear Miss Lonelyhearts: You wanted to know why Dad at the End of His Rope is still paying child support for offspring 18 and older, asking if they are going to university? And, you asked if was planning to pay spousal support forever? The way you worded it, a potential deadbeat dad might take this to mean he doesn’t have to pay while they are in university.

As far as the spousal support, this woman raised his children to adulthood, and that was a job. He may have to pay her spousal support according to an agreement until she is 65, like another person I know who was a stay-at-home mom and wife. Why shouldn’t she deserve this? Should she be expected to live in a tiny studio apartment now that he has decided he wants out?

I don’t receive spousal support, but I do get child support, and it struck a sore point with me because I have to go to a lawyer in January because my crazy ex thinks he doesn’t have to pay child support while our son is in university and only gave me cheques to last until my son turns 18 next summer.

— Sore Point, Manitoba

Dear Sore Point: It’s understandable you’re upset. You need to see your lawyer and review your original agreement to see what you actually signed for. As for the woman who has been fully supported until now, yes, that was her job as her husband was away 75 per cent of every month, but he was far from being a deadbeat dad. Now these parents have split, the kids are legal adults and expectations of this man need to change. This newly separated woman, whether she likes it or not, needs to get training and get a job or start a business for her own independence, her self-esteem and her new social life. Why should she get a free ride from her ex-husband until she’s 65? She could be in her late 40s or early 50s at this point.

Everybody in that household should have been working at least part time by the time they were 18. It’s not good for grown kids, or even moms, to have no work experience of any kind to put on a resume. Maybe this well-heeled ex-husband would like to make a big one-time settlement offer that would cover his ex-wife’s education or start-up money for a small business, and then be free.

Money talks for this bitter lady. After she is paid off, maybe then she can stop bad-mouthing him and the kids can start having relationships with their father again. Couples counselling didn’t help before; it really sounds like the wife needs personal counselling on her own to get through her anger and bitterness. See the important letter below from a woman who alienated her children from their dad.

Dear Miss Lonelyhearts: Hopefully these children of his will come around, and maybe parental alienation will no longer be the dark side to this situation. This wife is a catalyst and needs therapy, and he should stop making all payments where lawfully possible. It’s so sad the children can only hear when money speaks. Parental alienation is about a parent and child’s love, not a bank account.

I too have first-hand experience. Many years ago I went through a terrible divorce and convinced my children their father was a horrible person and they went years not communicating with him because of me. A couple years ago, he suddenly passed away, and now I’m left with broken children who are in counselling, full of regrets and blaming me.

I know of many other nasty divorces in which children have being manipulated and convinced into taking sides. I know a 10-year-old, a 20-year-old and even someone in their 30s who is in this situation. Too many parents like myself become selfish and want everyone, including their children, to hate their ex. That benefits no one, especially the children. Parents need to keep the kids out of all the details pertaining to a divorce and stop bad-mouthing their exes. This just screws up their children’s heads and doesn’t enable them to have healthy relationships in the future. You can’t erase regrets.

— Many Regrets, Winnipeg

Dear Many Regrets: Your kids need to hear about your regrets, and you need to correct the exaggerations you made and tell them how sorry you are. Don’t try to justify the nasty things you said, instead help to rebuild a realistic picture of their deceased father with all his good points. They may be furious with you at first, but if you can restore a better image of their father it will help them heal, and after some time, they will heal towards you.

It’s hard to face up to the fact that you loved this man you ended up divorcing. You loved him enough to choose him above all others, to marry him and have children with him. You might start by writing him a letter, which of course you can’t send, thanking him for the love you had in the beginning, the children and remembering some of the good times. Someday you might want to show that letter to your children, or you may not. Either way, it will help to melt some of the bitterness away for you, and perhaps for your children.

By: Miss Lonelyhearts

Please send your questions and comments to lovecoach@hotmail.com or Miss Lonelyhearts

Tort Remedies For Interference With Parenting Time (Visitation)

Family court is the greatest fraud

ever perpetrated on the American 

Public.  Family Court / Family Law 

is a made-up business of 

consumer fraud and racketeering



Divorce is rarely easy. Occasionally there will be a tale of couples who amicably splits their assets, share their children, and are successful in co-parenting and raising children who are psychologically sound and happy. They might even vacation together, or be friends. They might share holidays.

What happens when that doesn’t happen — when the opposite occurs? Perhaps there is mental illness, substance abuse, unresolved anger, conflicting beliefs regarding ethics and religion, financial woes, and square in the middle are one or more little people. When divorce that involves child custody turns ugly, is that all there is to it? A divorce that just went very wrong, like the marriage before it?

According to echo.net, clinical psychologist Dr. Craig Childress says it is a situation in which one parent consciously or subconsciously turns their shared children against the other parent, through various means of manipulation. It often involves the premise that one parent falsely accuses the other of abuse and indoctrinates the child into believing that abuse took place, whether it be mental, physical, sexual, or a combination. While there are true cases of abuse, and even times when either parent may have behaved in a way that was not appropriate, what is key is to look at the childrens’ behavior, says Dr. Childress.

Eventually, children can become so indoctrinated and eager to please who they view as the “powerful parent,” they may start hating, harassing, or abusing the targeted parent themselves.

What drives a parental alienator? Most commonly, some type of narcissistic personality features, says Dr. Childress. According to Dr. Childress, parents who indoctrinate children into alienating the other parent are linked to narcissist borderline pathogenic parenting.

The symptoms of narcissism include: grandiosity, entitlement, absence of empathy, haughty, arrogant behavior and delusional belief systems. Although narcissistic personality disorder is listed in the DSM-5, which is considered to be the “Bible” of Psychiatric Disorders, so far Parental Alienation Disorder is not listed. Researchers expect that to soon change.

The late author and child psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner coined the term Parental Alienation Syndrome more than 20 years ago. He characterized the breakdown of previously normal, healthy parent-child relationships during divorce and child custody cases. His definition of parental alienation is simple — one parent deliberately damages, and in many cases destroys, the previously healthy loving relationship between the child and the child’s other parent.

This can be very difficult to prove, although it has been successfully used in the United States to win child custody cases, with custody going to the targeted parent. The reason it is difficult to prove is that one symptom is the child steadfastly refuses they are being indoctrinated by the other parent, and claims their hatred of the other parent is of their own will.

Researcher Amy Baker says that parents who try to alienate their child from the other parent subtlety, or not so subtletly gives a three-part message to the child.

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1730517/parental-alienation-syndrome-researchers-say-the-struggle-is-real/#TgdDgt1EIOGUpF3q.99

Tort Remedies For Interference With Parenting Time (Visitation) | Parental Alienation Syndrome Awareness | causes.com

Courts generally grant non-custodial parents reasonable Parenting Time rights so that they can maintain and develop their relationship with their children after the marriage has dissolved. The custodial parent, however, may interfere with the Parenting Time forcing the non-custodial parent to seek alternative ways to maintain the parent-child relationship. The traditional remedies are to seek a contempt order, modification of the custody decree, or withhold support payments. The new tort remedies are for intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with Parenting Time.

A. Traditional Remedies

Traditionally, the following three options existed for the non-custodial parent whose Parenting Time rights have been violated: 1) institute an action for civil contempt; 2) seek a modification of the custody decree; 3) withhold child support. These options have proven inadequate for compelling the custodial parent to comply with a court-decreed Parenting Time schedule.

1. Contempt Order

The most familiar remedy used to prevent a violation of Parenting Time rights is to institute a contempt action to compel the parent acting wrongfully to comply with the court ordered Parenting Time schedule. While this is a relatively simple procedure, it does not always prove to be an effective deterrent of future violations and also will not compensate a parent for the injury already realized from the deprivation of their Parenting Time with the child.

2. Modification of Custody Decree

Another remedy that a non-custodial parent may use to prevent interference with child Parenting Time is to ask the court to modify the custody decree and grant them joint or sole custody of the children. Courts have been reluctant to modify custody decrees reasoning that the modification would disrupt the children’s lives and in effect punish them for the custodial parent’s wrongful conduct.

3. Withholding Child Support

When a custodial parent continuously prevents the non-custodial parent from exercising his Parenting Time rights, the Court may allow the non-custodial parent to withhold child support payments as a means of compelling the custodial parent to cooperate with the Parenting Time schedule. This is not the optimal remedy, however, and courts are reluctant to grant this remedy. The primary rationale for this reluctance is the existence of a potential catch-22 situation: child support is withheld because of Parenting Time violations, and Parenting Time is violated because child support is being withheld. The ultimate loser in this situation is the child(ren), therefore courts generally hold that Parenting Time rights are independent of child support payments.

B. Tort Remedies

The traditional alternatives available have been ineffective in preventing the recurrence of Parenting Time violations. Non-custodial parents therefore have turned tort theories to recover damages from the custodial parent and to accomplish uninterrupted Parenting Time. The current trend suggests that the threat of financial liability will discourage a custodial parent from interfering with Parenting Time rights.

1. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

The first case to recognize a non-custodial parent’s cause of action based on the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress was Sheltra V. Smith, 392 A. 2d 431 (Vt. 1978). In this case, the non-custodial parent brought suit for damages alleging that:

“defendant willfully, maliciously, intentionally, and outrageously inflicted extreme mental suffering and acute mental distress on the plaintiff, by willfully, maliciously, and outrageously rendering it impossible for any personal contact or other communication to take place between the (plaintiff and child).”

Id. at 433.

The Superior Court, Caledonia County, dismissed the complaint for failure to state of cause of action on which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court of Vermont, however, found that the plaintiff stated a prima facie case for outrageous conduct causing severe...

Related articles

• Kelly Rutherford's appeal to win back child custody denied
• The parental rights of unwed fathers
• The DSM 5 will drug America to death
• We must stop turning children against divorced fathers
• Can you tell your story one more time? - 100's of true Parental Alienation stories
• Caseloads leap as judges retire, forcing long wait for family court cases
• Child Custody for Fathers
• U.S. senators say federal action may be needed to curb 're-homing'
• Difficulties in the Family Courtroom ~ Disparities in State Family Courts
• Respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.

Key Issues Leading to the Feeling of Rights Being Taken Away

This sentiment that I am expressing touches on a deep and emotional issue that many parents, particularly divorced or separated parents, grapple with. The feeling that a parent’s "fundamental right" to raise or maintain a close relationship with their child has been undermined by legal or court systems is a pervasive concern. In many cases, especially in contentious divorces or custody disputes, parents may feel as though the system has failed to recognize or protect their parental rights.

Understanding Parental Rights in the Context of Divorce

In most legal systems, parental rights are grounded in the idea that both parents have an inherent right to raise and care for their children. These rights include the ability to make decisions about the child’s upbringing, education, health, and other fundamental matters. However, when a divorce or separation occurs, those rights can sometimes be altered, especially if there are concerns about the child’s well-being, such as:

• Custody battles: When parents disagree on custody arrangements, courts are tasked with making decisions based on the best interests of the child. This often results in one parent being awarded primary custody while the other has visitation rights, leading some parents to feel that their relationship with their child is unfairly limited.

• Child support and financial arrangements: In many cases, child support payments and visitation or custody schedules are linked. If a parent feels the financial aspect is unfair or the visitation rights are too limited, they may feel that their fundamental rights to a meaningful relationship with their child have been diminished.

• Allegations of abuse or neglect: When one parent makes allegations of abuse or neglect, even if they are later found to be false or unsubstantiated, it can lead to a temporary suspension of the accused parent’s custody rights, sometimes with the burden of proof placed on the accused parent to restore those rights.

Key Issues Leading to the Feeling of Rights Being Taken Away

1. Unilateral Decisions: Sometimes, one parent may make unilateral decisions about where the child lives, goes to school, or spends their time, especially if there is an imbalance of power or communication in the relationship. This can leave the other parent feeling sidelined and marginalized, as if their role as a parent has been reduced to that of a visitor rather than an active, decision-making member of the child’s life.

2. Parenting Time and Visitation: Many divorced or separated parents feel that the custody or visitation arrangements do not adequately allow them to be as involved in their child's life as they would like. Shared custody (which is ideally the default in many legal systems) may not be available in every case, leaving one parent with significantly less time with the child.

3. Parental Alienation: In some high-conflict divorces, one parent may try to alienate the child from the other parent, either through manipulation, negative comments, or other strategies. This can result in one parent feeling as though they have lost their child, emotionally or physically. Courts often do not act quickly enough to address parental alienation, and many parents report feeling that the legal system doesn’t adequately address this issue.

4. Bias in Family Courts: There is a well-documented concern about potential gender bias in family law, particularly regarding custody decisions. In many cases, mothers are still more likely to be awarded primary custody, which can lead fathers to feel that their rights as parents are not being equally considered. Conversely, some mothers feel that their rights are undermined in cases where they lose custody or are forced to accept less-than-ideal visitation schedules.

5. Legal and Financial Barriers: Some parents face significant legal and financial barriers to gaining or maintaining access to their children. The cost of legal representation can be prohibitive, particularly for lower-income parents, which may prevent them from having the resources to fight for a fair arrangement. This can leave them feeling like their fundamental rights to be a parent have been effectively "bought out" by a system that favors wealthier parents.

The Emotional Impact of Losing Parental Rights

For parents who are marginalized in custody decisions, the emotional toll is significant. These parents often feel:

• Disconnection: The inability to spend quality time with their children can create a feeling of emotional disconnection and loss, especially if the relationship was once strong.

• Anger and Resentment: Many parents feel anger or resentment toward the other parent, the legal system, or both for what they perceive as an unjust outcome. This can lead to ongoing conflict, further straining the relationship with the child.

• Isolation: In some cases, a parent may feel isolated, especially if the child is living primarily with the other parent or if the legal system has placed restrictions on their ability to interact with the child.

What Can Be Done to Protect Parental Rights and Parent-Child Bonds?

1. Shared Custody as the Default: Many family law experts advocate for shared custody (or joint physical custody) to be the default arrangement in divorce cases, unless there are compelling reasons not to (e.g., domestic violence, abuse, neglect). Shared custody recognizes that both parents play an important role in the child’s life and ensures that no parent is unduly marginalized.

2. Reforming Family Courts: There is a growing push for family court reforms to make decisions more equitable, with a focus on reducing bias, improving handling of parental alienation, and emphasizing mediation and co-parenting rather than adversarial litigation. Courts may also need to adopt more modern, flexible approaches to visitation, recognizing that every family is unique.

3. Improving Parental Alienation Awareness: As parental alienation becomes more widely recognized as a serious issue, courts may begin to take more decisive action to prevent or address it. Educating parents and legal professionals about the impact of alienation and offering therapy or counseling may help protect the parent-child bond.

4. Promoting Co-Parenting and Mediation: Programs that encourage cooperative co-parenting and mediation can help parents work together to make decisions in the child’s best interest. Mediation allows parents to have more control over the outcome and may prevent contentious litigation that harms the parent-child relationship.

5. Support for Parents: In many cases, providing more support for parents (financially, emotionally, or logistically) can help preserve the parent-child bond. This could involve subsidized or free legal services for low-income parents, access to counseling and mental health services, or the implementation of more flexible visitation arrangements.

6. Legal Advocacy for Parental Rights: There are advocacy groups and legal professionals who work specifically to protect parental rights in the context of divorce and custody disputes. These groups often advocate for reforms that emphasize fairness and the importance of both parents remaining involved in their child’s life, even after separation or divorce.

Final Thoughts

The idea that millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental rights to their own children "taken away" reflects a very real and painful experience for many. It highlights the emotional weight of losing not just access to a child but also the ability to be an active, guiding figure in that child's life. While family law systems are designed to protect the well-being of children, the system is not without flaws, and many parents find themselves feeling marginalized or sidelined in the process.

The challenge moving forward is to ensure that the system works in a way that is fair, equitable, and, most importantly, centered around the best interests of the child. At the same time, it’s critical to recognize and respect the rights of both parents to maintain meaningful relationships with their children, whenever possible.

Do you think reforming the family law system could better protect the parent-child bond, or are there other ways to address these concerns?

Reform Conference -- DIVORCECORP.COM

By Phyllis Schlafly

Debates about same-sex marriage and gay adoptions always include the argument that a child has the right to both a father and a mother.

.... If that is true, why is a child usually deprived of that right when heterosexual couples divorce?

It would seem that maintaining the father's love and authority would be crucial when a child's life is turned upside down by divorce. Yet, family courts routinely deprive children of one parent, usually the father, restricting his time with his child to about six days a month.

The courts pompously assert they are invoking "the best interest of the child," but how can it be in the best interest of children to make them forfeit one parent?

We hear many pious comments about the need for fathers to be involved in the upbringing of their children. This need should be even more important in times of emotional stress, such as divorce, than the need for fathers to play ball with their kids in an intact family.

Some states are considering legislation that establishes a presumption of shared parenting whereby divorced parents divide equally both time and authority over the children. This enables children to maintain strong ties to both parents.


When primary or sole custody is given to the mother, the father becomes merely a visitor in the child's life (that's why it's called "visitation"), whose only value is to mail a paycheck and be an occasional baby sitter. The father loses his parental authority and fades out of his own child's life.

An argument is sometimes made that shuttling back and forth between two homes might be upsetting or a nuisance, but there is no more shuttling with equal custody (where parents, for example, get alternating weeks) than with the typical mother-custody/father-visitation schedule (where the father gets two weekends a month plus some Wednesday evenings). Do the math; both plans have about the same number of shuttles between homes.

An argument is also made that giving custody primarily to the mother promotes stability, but the need for stability is really a reason forshared custody. The stability of parental relationships is a great deal more important than contact with material things.

Americans have always assumed that parents share decision-making authority because only parents can determine what is in the best interest of their own children. As recently as 2000, the Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville reaffirmed this principle and rejected the argument that a judge could supersede a fit parent's judgment about his child's "best interest."

Nevertheless, in what Stephen Baskerville calls a "silent revolution," millions of divorced parents have had their fundamental right to decide what is in the best interest of their own children taken away and given instead to a vast array of government officials and so-called "experts" such as judges, lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, parenting classes, and feminist groups.

This shift began in the 1970s after the spread of unilateral divorce was followed by the creation of a giant federal child support-enforcement bureaucracy. The notion that this mix of government officials and government-appointed advisers can dictate what is the best interest of the child rather than a child's own parents is how liberals and feminists are fulfilling their goal that "it takes a village (i.e., the government) to raise a child."

An example of the bias against fathers can be seen in the Responsible Fatherhood Act of 2007 recently introduced by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind.

Read more: http://​nationalwriterssyndicate.co​m/content/view/145/2/ 

• Fathers' Rights Attorney Jeffery M. Leving Interviews President Barack Obama on Responsible Fatherhood

Related articles

• Some Facts About Divorce: Eye-Opening Divorce Statistics
• "Justice" doesn't favor the children.
• How Does Paternity Factor Into A Child Custody Case?
• Family Court Reform and Parental Rights | Petition2Congress
• It's a trillion dollar industry getting more barbaric by the day, and we have to join together nationwide to save lives. Here's the proof:
• DadsDivorce Live: Co-Parenting Through Conflict
• Apply Civil Rights to Family Law - End the Dysfunctional Family Court System
• "Best interests of the child."
• Difficulties in the Family Courtroom ~ Disparities in State Family Courts
• Respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.

The Truth Behind Who "WINS" A Custody Case

THE TRUTH BEHIND WHO "WINS" A CUSTODY CASE

by Wendy Archer

Written by Wendy Archer

Organizer & Host of Bubbles of LOVE Day DFW

contact information: wendyarcher@rocketmail.com

The truth about litigation and the conduct of family court judges is not pretty. In fact the truth is so downright ugly that it is literally unbelievable to most people who have not experienced it firsthand. Most of us were raised to believe that our justice system ensures that in the end justice is served. Of course we know that there is misconduct and even corruption in some situations but surely that would not be true in cases involving child abuse, so we assume. Everyone knows that child abusers are considered to be on the on the lowest rung of the ladder in any and all social groups and surely no judge would knowingly and intentionally put a child into the hands of an abuser, right? Wrong. In fact, grossly wrong.

The truth is that child abusers are awarded full custody of the children they abuse on a regular basis and in many situations the family court judges KNOW they are putting these children into the hands of their abusers.

Unbelievable? YES. True? YES. But HOW and WHY can this possibly be true you must be wondering if you are one of the lucky few who has not witnessed this very sick operation of our family court system.

The HOW and WHY can usually be boiled down to a few simple factors. FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS.

One very common scenario is as follows...

There is a couple who has been divorced for several years. They share exactly equal parenting time per court orders, an exact 50/50 split of time. One parent is extremely narcissistic, very emotionally abusive and unusually wealthy. The other parent is mild mannered, compliant and very financially poor. The extremes between the two parents' personality traits and financial situations make the conditions right for a contentious custody issue to surface at any time, especially if the differences become more and more extreme over time. 

Narcissist personalities have an unbridled sense of entitlement. If they want it, they feel entitled to it. Period. Narcissistic personalities also lack any fear of consequences, including consequences as serious as jail time. When these traits are combined with unlimited financial resources, the results can be horrifying. For example, if a narcissistic and wealthy parent decides they want to violate court orders and withhold a child from the other parent they will do so with bold entitlement and without fear of any consequences. In fact they will probably even act proud of their illegal and unethical actions. This happens all too frequently. It seems the remedy would be simple in that the victim parent would seek legal assistance and the parent in violation of court orders would be swiftly corrected and punished by a family court judge.

Shockingly and sadly, that is not the reality of what most often happens. After attempting to beg, plead and reason with the narcissistic parent to stop violating court orders, the victim parent usually does hire an attorney and naively assumes that a family court judge will act swiftly with integrity. After all, that's what the family court judges are there for. Little does the victim parent know that the outcome of the case might very well have nothing at all to do with laws or ethics or what is in "the best interest of the children." With the "right attorneys" and unlimited financial resources, the narcissistic parent can and very often does ultimately purchase custody of the children.

Even in situations where it is 100% documented and 100% indisputable that the children have been abused by this person AND that the victim parent is the only mentally healthy and safe parent...even confirmed by the unbiased and objective expert opinions of doctors who have evaluated the children and even confirmed by the abuser's own admission... it is not only possible but likely the narcissistic wealthy abusive parent will obtain full custody of the children. The narcissistic parent will use their most coveted skills and weapons; charming people and money. The abusive parent's narcissistic skills combined with the legal tactic of financially and emotionally destroying the victim parent during litigation is very effective. With their financial resources, the narcissistic parent can hire a literal army of attorneys and you can be certain that they will hire attorneys who have very close relationships with the judge and are most likely some of the judge's top campaign contributors (yes, they really can do that.) This alone will almost assure the narcissistic parent of purchasing custody of their children.

However, narcissists derive intense pleasure out of harming their victims. Therefore, they usually take full advantage of their attorneys' strategy of draining the victim parent of every single penny they have until the victim parent simply has no choice to but sign a "settlement" under extreme duress.

Remember, the victim parent had little or no money to begin with. With the help of their "judge friendly" attorneys and the judge it's only a matter of time before the narcissistic parent has the victim parent financially devastated to the point where they literally can't provide food, clothing or shelter for the children. Many of these victim parents lose everything, every cent they ever saved and even their homes. Their credit is destroyed. They literally can't buy food or clothing for the children and must resort to assistance from various organizations to survive.

Again, this destruction of the victim parent is an INTENTIONAL ACT by the narcissistic parent.

The narcissistic parent WANTS to make the victim parent unable to provide food and clothing and shelter for their own children. 

The narcissistic parent has the power to stop this cruelty against their own children at any time. 

When the situation reaches this point of crisis, the victim parent simply has no choice but to face the fact that if they continue with litigation that they WILL end up homeless and unable to provide ANYTHING for their children including food. It is at this well-timed point of the planned attack that the narcissistic parent will present a "settlement offer" to the victim parent, knowing that the victim parent literally has no choice but to sign what in truth is a cruel and abusive ultimatum. 

The narcissistic parent will take full advantage of the situation to ensure that the new modified orders will solidify their ability to abuse the children with provisions such as giving the abusive parent "exclusive psychological control of the children" and "exclusive educational decision making." 

The abusive parent realizes that this is their opportunity to have it "ordered" that they can abuse their children, even going so far as to make it clear that they want it ordered that they can have 'full mind control' over their children.