THE FATHER’S RIGHTS MONTHLY
March 2019
ISSSUE 8
Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Is It, and Who Does It? What kind of parent lies to turn their kids against the other parent? By Susan Heitler Ph.D.
I have had a run recently in my clinical practice on cases of parental alienation syndrome. Instead of talking cooperatively in the manner I teach, these spouses and exspouses interact as adversaries toward their partner. Worse, they develop an exaggeratedly negative view, more fiction than reality, of the other partner. So what is parent alienation syndrome? And who does it? Parent alienation syndrome Parental alienation syndrome, a term coined in the id 1980's by child psychiatrist Dr. Richard A. Gardner, occurs when one parent attempts to turn the couple's children against the other parent. A parent who is angry at the spouse or ex-spouse accomplishes this estrangement by painting a negative picture of the other parent via deprecating comments, blame and false accusations shared with the children. They may also hoard the kids, doing all they can to thwart the other parent's parenting time. In my clinical practice, the mother most often has been the alienating parent, turning the children against their Dad. At the same time, I also have had multiple families in which Dad is the toxic parent, poisoning the children against their mother. In general, the alienating parent is the least emotionally healthy, and often the more wealthy (to be able to afford legal challenges). The sad reality is that parents who poison their children's natural affection for the other parent are doing serious, even abusive, damage. PT blogger Edward Kruk, PhD updates the research on this important point: "A survey taken at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ annual (2014) conference reported 98% agreement “in support of the basic tenet of parental alienation: children can be manipulated by one parent to reject the other parent who does not deserve to be rejected.�
Page | 2
For the child, the biopsychosocial-spiritual effects of parental alienation are devastating. For both the alienated parent and child, the removal and denial of contact in the absence of neglect or abuse constitute cruel and unusual treatment. ... . As a form of child maltreatment, parental alienation is a serious child protection matter as it undermines a basic principle of social justice for children: the right to know and be cared for by both of one's parents. An alienating parent usually shows narcissistic and also borderline tendencies. Narcissism is selfishness on steroids. Narcissistic individuals tend to be selfabsorbed. Most centrally, they show deficits in ability to listen to others' differing perspectives. Instead they hyper-focus on what they themselves want, think, feel and believe without taking into consideration others' desires and ideas. A narcissistic alienating parent uses the children as weapons, pawns in his/her battle to destroy the other parent. They claim to be protecting the children against the evil other. In fact, by using the children in their perpetual fight to hurt the other parent, they show little capacity for taking into consideration what is in the best interests of the child. Kids need both parents. They do not however benefit, and indeed are harmed, when one of their parents portrays the other in a relentlessly negative light. They do not need parents who fight their way through divorce and post-divorce. They are harmed when parents put them in the middle of their power battles. They are harmed when a parent uses them to accomplish their own angry agenda, ignoring the needs of the children. The central element in borderline personality disorder is emotional hyper-reactivity. The excessively intense emotion often gets expressed as anger. In addition to getting emotionally aroused too often, and too intensely, people with this disorder often have difficulty self-soothing. Their distress thus tends to be longer-lasting than the distress that most people experience. In this regard, they have deficits in emotional resilience, in the ability to recover once they have felt frustrated or disappointed. They become at risk therefore for developing a victim self-image, blaming others for whatever goes wrong—which in turn enables them to victimize others. "I'm a victim so I have a right to victimize you." Borderline disorders become evident in the way that an alienating parent twists reality. They offer trumped up accusations against the healthier parent, accusations that actually are projections of how they themselves are. “Your dad is selfish,” says the actual selfish parent. Or “Your mother is crazy,” says the dad who is himself emotionally unhealthy.
Page | 3
Alienating parents typically also engage in another quintessential borderline pattern, a habit that therapists refer to as splitting. They enlist others to join their side in fighting against the supposedly evil other, splitting the family into us against them. Individuals with borderline personality features get mad when someone of import to them won't give them what they want—e.g., a spouse who has decided to leave the marriage, generally because the alienating partner was not capable of healthy, loving and collaborative partnership. Their goal then becomes to destroy the other parent's relationship with the children. They corral in the children to join them in this battle as a fighter for their side. They do all they can to deprive the other parent, their enemy, of being able to continue to be a parent.
Page | 4
Parental Alienation and the Judiciary By Dr L F Lowenstein, MA, Dip Psych, PhD
Increasing numbers of cases are coming before the Courts where one parent feels displaced in relation to the children in the family. The syndrome, parental alienation (PAS),' as it is now called, is not a new one, but its importance is being highlighted in the United States as well as in the UK. Judges are often uncertain as to how to treat the situation where one parent seeks to make contact with the children following an estrangement, separation, or an unusually unpleasant and vicious divorce. There is some pressure on the Judiciary to keep the child or children with the person who has major control, usually the mother. Parental alienation however, also affects some mothers denied contact with their children who are resident with the father. On the whole, it is the male member of the partnership who suffers from the alienation situation. In recent cases in which I have personally been involved, I had the opportunity of talking about PAS and its problems with two judges, on different occasions. The dilemma is how to deal with the case where the resident partner i.e. the alienating partner, fails to co-operate with the courts in providing adequate access for the other partner. I will recreate the general conversation, on an informal basis and hence no names can be mentioned. Interestingly, similar conversations were repeated with both judges, one male and one female, demonstrating how similar problems are often faced by the Judiciary in parental alienation cases. Psych.: Your Honour, this is a case typical of parental alienation and I feel it is only right that the alienated parent should have contact with the child in question. Judge: But the mother says that the child does not want any contact with the boy. Psych.: This is because there has been a considerable amount of programming, I have discovered through my assessment, to make the child respond in this manner. Judge: This may well be so but how do I deal with this situation when mother stubbornly refuses to allow contact of the child with the father? Psych.: It is a difficult situation, your Honour, but the question remains: should justice be done or should it be ignored? Page | 5
Judge: it is not as easy as that. I have spent time with mothers, even sitting in a cell, to try to get them to see reason to allow their former husbands to have access to a child. Sometimes this has worked while at other times, there has been a refusal. This puts me he a very awkward position since I must consider carefully, first and foremost, the children concerned and they are, after all, in the care of their mother who, if they are deprived of her, due to her being sentenced for failing to follow instructions, will lose a mother vital to their welfare. Psych.: Again it comes down, your Honour, to considering the question of failure to comply with the Court ruling. If an ordinary criminal fails to obey instructions of the Court, some punitive action is taken. Should not some punitive action also follow when a mother, or father for that matter, refuses to accede to the ruling of the judge and the Court? Judge: Well, I will see what I can do on this particular matter and the case before me but I still feel that it is a difficult one to settle, when one of the partners is totally opposed to contact with the child and the child in question has decided openly and before me, to refuse to have any contact with the other parent. Are you suggesting that I fine the mother in question or place her in a prison for failing to adhere to my instructions and that of the Court? Psych.: I personally see no other alternative. It may well be that if such a threat is made, the alienating parent may, in due course, accept what has been recommended by the Court and there will be no need to take the action which you and I both feel is undesirable and may even be counter-productive. Both judges agreed the case before them was typical of parental alienation and the difficulties they faced are only too obvious. Their first concern, and also that of myself, was the children. If the children have been "brain-washed" and "programmed" in a particular direction, this made the judge's decision all the more difficult. It is my view that no exception can be made for failing to adhere to the ruling of a court and that justice must be done however painful this may be. It may well be that the alienated parent should eventually gain access following a period of therapy between the psychologist and the child or children in question, to make them aware of what is happening. If older they themselves may well be able to put pressure on the alienating parent to see sense. Page | 6
From the conversation, it can be seen that many judges are undoubtedly unsure how best to deal with alienating parents - this usually being the mother. Judges are often saved by the fact that fathers cease to pursue their role of wishing to play a part in their childrens' lives. This is due to the resistance they meet from the former spouse, who has often formed a new relationship and wishes the new partner to take over the role of father. I have even known cases where the mother insisted the child call the new husband "dad" and the natural father by his first name. Fathers who pursue both their right and their sense of responsibility through the courts are relatively few. Many opt out due to the resistance they meet from their expartners, the programmed child and the reluctance of judges to give them justice. This is undoubtedly due to the following: 1. Judges are reluctant to punish and most especially incarcerate obdurate mothers who refuse to comply with a judge's decision that they must allow access with an estranged father. 2. Judges often are reluctant to ignore the view expressed by children that they do not wish to meet their fathers, despite the fact that such children have been "intensively programmed" to respond in this way by mothers and the mother's relations. 3. Judges are reluctant to advise that therapy should take place, despite the fact that when such alienation occurs, children are damaged. Such therapy is often recommended by expert witnesses such as a psychologist or a psychiatrist. Such recommended periods of therapy for the child and mother are viewed by judges (with the aid of the mother's Counsel!) as likely to damage further the children who are involved in this conflict and hostility between the parents.
Page | 7
Despite such reservations, judges have a moral duty to provide justice for the alienated party, this usually being the father. The threat of punishment for the alienator must be supported by punishment, including removing the child from mother's care to a neutral place or to the alienated parent, and to use incarceration when necessary. Failure to carry out this distasteful, but necessary, action against the obdurate party would constitute a mockery of the judicial system. It is my experience as an expert witness to the Courts as a forensic, clinical psychologist, that most alienating parents, whether mothers or fathers, will obey a court order if punishment is threatened for failure to adhere to the ruling. Hence the carrying out of the various possible measures is rarely necessary. In connection with PAS many judges have, without always being aware, adopted a double standard. They see mothers who are alienators as "victims" to be protected even when they have committed what can only be described as a form of "emotional abuse". They have abused their powerful position by influencing the young children and turning them against the other parent. They have usurped the role of the other parent or given it to yet another partner with whom they have become associated. In this way, they have, by destroying the right of the other parent taken away that parent's opportunity to contribute to the child's welfare. This is at a time when we are seeking to promote the equality of the sexes. Partners should have equal power and responsibility toward their children. PAS, when it has been proven, is a vicious form of gender opportunism or gender apartheid, which those seeking through justice can no longer ignore. Judges must stop worrying about public outcries if they remove a child from the care of a vicious programming parent who is showing their hostility toward the former partner. I therefore suggest that the alienated parents, be they fathers or mothers, be protected. In so doing we are also protecting the children of such a relationship from a gross and calculated mis-use of power or position, that of the resident care giver. Judges in cases of proven PAS should act as decisively as they would if judging a case of proven crime such as rape or murder. They must remove the child from the emotional damage being heaped upon it, to a safe place, where the non-alienating parent, with the help of therapy for the child, can have his influences felt by the child. At the same time, it is necessary to help the parent who has alienated the child in the first place. He or she has undoubtedly suffered from a considerable amount of pathological hostility towards the former partner. By removing the child, or children, from the influence of the "brain-washing" alienator, the child has the opportunity of experiencing the dedication of the previously alienated parent and to develop a less biased view of that parent. Also the Page | 8
child can develop a positive view of both parents despite them being at war with each other. This will do much to ensure for that child that both parents, although hostile towards one another, care and are devoted to him/her. This provides the child with a reasonable start in life, which he or she would not have had, had the influence of the alienator been allowed to continue along with a failure to have any contact with the alienated parent at the same time.
FAMILY COURT JUDGES by Amy J. L. Baker, PhD Okay so this may not be the nicest blog I have written but really, I am tired of dealing with family court judges (names will not be named) who refuse to take action even after making it clear that they believe that alienation is occurring in a family. What I have found is that there is a ready-made rationale for not taking action regardless of the circumstances. It goes something like this: Yes, I see that alienation is present. This mother/father is one of the most aggressive alienators I have come across. This parent is not going to cooperate with the other parent. BUT the child is doing well in other areas of his/her life. The child is captain of the soccer team and has friends and is getting good grades. Therefore, how bad could the alienation be? Let’s not rock the boat since everything is really ok. OR it goes something like this. Yes, I see that alienation is present. This mother/father is one of the most aggressive alienators I have come across. This parent is not going to cooperate with the other parent. BUT the child is not doing well. The child is fragile and is not emotionally strong enough to handle the shock of change. Let’s not rock the boat right now. Thus, no matter what the circumstance, the judge has an excuse for doing nothing even after declaring that the favored parent is in fact an alienator and the child is in fact alienated. For this reason, when I work as an expert witness, I view my job as not just explaining what alienation is (the general function) or how alienation is present in the current case (the specific function) but – most importantly – why the court should intervene.
Intervention Isn't a Custody Battle
Page | 9
Just to be clear intervention does not always mean transfer of custody. Sometimes intervention means sanctioning the parent if the alienation occurs. Sometimes intervention means assigning a parental alienation-savvy parenting coordinator. There is no cookie cutter response to alienation. The only thing that should be a given is that something needs to be done.
When Inaction Is the Riskiest Action When I train judges, I usually at some point look at them and tell them “You are lazy cowards� and you know what? They shrug their shoulders and sheepishly agree. They know that they are risk aversive. So my secret weapon against risk aversion is to educate them that to do nothing is a choice also and in the case of alienation, a choice that has known negatives consequences associated with it. So, judges beware! I am going to scare you into taking action. Parental alienation is child abuse and cannot be allowed to continue even if acting makes you uncomfortable.
Page | 10
Parental Alienation – A Corrosive Legacy The declaration of war by one parent on another creates radioactive fallout that contaminates the family for generations. By Judge Michele F. Lowrance (ret)
I was a judge on the divorce bench for 20 years, and I watched the wreckage of the corrosive legacy of parental alienation and visitation interference play out over decades. We have no statistics for measuring this group because the number of victims is too vast. But the concentric circles include the children, the grandchildren, and the extended family as well. The declaration of war by one parent on another creates radioactive fallout that contaminates the family for generations. The alienating parent treats the target parent like a disease in the child that must be removed. They make the child’s survival contingent upon such removal. So the child must extricate the parent without the privilege of grieving the loss. These are crippling circumstances. I have witnessed impassioned declarations of love for a child by an alienating parent to masquerade the venom he/she feels for the other parent. Parents who do this are not interested in mere control. Their stakes are higher: total annihilation of the target parent’s bond with the child. Little by little, alienation in a divorce case starts to take root. And when it fully takes root, I see the child’s boundaries collapse before my eyes. Soon the child forgets how to protect him or herself, and must align with the alienating parent as if life depends on it – because it does. Perhaps curing this degenerating influence may, in the future, be addressed by therapy. But for now, we can and we must do better. I want to tell you how to be proactive in court, and how to fight against the inclination to give up like so many hurt, alienated parents – who are, frankly, not always welcomed in the courts. Why Cases Involving Parental Alienation are so Difficult Here are some reasons parental alienation cases are so difficult, and why judges often have no love for them: 1. Combative parents present conflicting stories of “he said / she said,” and make it very difficult to determine who is telling the truth. Often an alienating parent comes to believe what he or she is saying, and their presentation seems authentic. 2. When targeted parents present their side of the case, they are often angry and frustrated – and as a result, they don’t present very well in court. Judges often consider attitude as influential as content.
Page | 11
3. The children often support the alienating parent by telling the judge, their attorney and mental health professionals how they have been treated badly, and of their dislike, for the target parent. The reasoning skills of alienated children are often compromised, as is their ability to choose freely. 4. Alienated children often won’t cooperate with therapeutic intervention, and courts have difficulty enforcing these orders. 5. Judges like to believe that what they do works and it is the right decision. When their decisions don’t work, they often get exasperated with both parties. What You can Do in Courts Despite these difficulties there is plenty that you can do. Here are some suggestions for handling parental alienation in the courts: 1. Create an alienation map or chart for the judge, which shows him or her in five minutes what couldn’t be said in five hours. This map should include all missed visits, and a list of all the denigrating phrases made by alienating spouse to the children, including the friends and/or extended family of the hated parent (if they are admissible in evidence). If you know how to make a graph, you can show the increase in missed visits in a very compelling and impactful way. 2. Most judges aren’t warm to the phrase “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. Instead, ask the judge to please keep an eye open for visitation interference as the case progresses, and describe for him or her the maligning behavior. 3. Get a court order for parenting therapy as soon as possible. 4. If orders are violated, go to court on a “Rule to Show Cause” for violation of the order as soon as possible. If you can’t afford an attorney, then do this yourself. Write a “Petition for Rule to Show Cause” for a visitation violation, for family therapy, or for makeup visitation. Your local courthouse should be able to supply you with a sample form or even a packet showing you how to fill out this Petition. You may be among the many alienated parents I have known, who have grown weary due to the repetitive stress fracture on your heart. Each time your visitation is interfered with, it has a cumulative hyper-sensitive, which easily magnifies your emotional response. Because your emotions are flooding your ability to reason, writing and rewriting a petition with your attorney is a rational thing to do and gives your thoughts “breathing time.” If you immediately act upon your anger, you are just going to make things worse – and perhaps run the risk that the other parent will get an order of protection against you. Reflect upon the past consequences of your amped-up anger. Did you write nasty emails, make hostile phone calls, yell at your child, become overly aggressive, or decide to retreat and do nothing? The way to tell if your anger serves you is to always ask yourself the following four questions: Page | 12
1. 2. 3. 4.
Does this anger further my constructive goals? Does this anger further degenerate my relationship with my children? In what ways does this anger help me? In what ways does this anger help my spouse?
If your reactions are based upon what has been done to you, you can only respond with hatred. When you do this, you give the alienating parent the “upper hand,” because he or she has provoked you to become the hateful person who they are portraying you to be to the children. Don’t let someone else provoke, influence, and therefore control how you behave. you run the risk of actually becoming as miserable and dysfunctional of a person as they’re trying to portray you to your children. When you react with hatred, you not only play into their hands, you’re letting them steer your ship, letting them determine your present and future. When Your Children Come Home, Who do You Want Them to Come Home to? As you read this, you may be on the edge of giving up. You may be starting to feel that nothing can work against your former spouse’s devotion to destroy your relationship with your children. Even though you may be physically invisible to your children, you will always be visible to them through stories, gossip and second hand reporting from all sources. When we lose a loved one, we often decide to live the way that the departed person would have wanted us to. In the same spirit, when you lose a child to alienation, you need to live as if he or she is watching you. Your long-term goal is to become the person your child wants to come home to.
Young Men’s Very Important Tee ® Long Sleeve Store/National Apparel
$30.00 Order at tfrm.store
Page | 13
Judge criticized for creating parental alienation On behalf of Hartley, Maxwell & Castellano - Attorneys at Law posted in child custody on Thursday, May 17, 2018.
appeals court said that the trial judge created a situation where there was “judicially created parental alienation.” Judge makes matters worse
The state appeals court in Pennsylvania has criticized a family court judge for keeping a child in foster care after it received no explanation from the parents for the child’s broken ribs. According to an article in ABA Journal, the judge took unusual steps in a case where an infant had two broken bones. A subsequent ruling in the state’s
Whereas the courts generally want to keep families together, this judge decided that foster care was a better option than putting the infant in the care of a grandparent, literally telling the family she was doing this because she was waiting for one of the parents to admit guilt to the abuse. This was said Page | 14
despite the fact that child seemed happiest when it was allowed to see its parents.
and would not hear evidence that would potentially contradict those opinions. Sometimes help is necessary
In support of a petition by a social worker, the judge also would not allow the mother to have representation from two lawyers at the same time. The bench also would not allow evidence of potential explanation of injuries by an expert witness. The appeals court also criticized the judge because she seemed to have a lack of impartiality and a preconceived notion of the facts
The trial judge’s actions would seem to be in opposition to the Child Protective Services Law goal of keeping families together, happy and safe. While a judge is generally the final word in a case, an attorney can be a tremendous aid in helping parents facing custody challenges including a difficult family court judge.
Women's Very Important Tee ÂŽ Long Sleeve V Neck $30.00 Order at tfrm.store
Page | 15
Fathers Are Right to Fear Family Court Many dads insist they face an uphill battle when seeking custody of their children. Are their fears correct? By Jake Rossen
After realizing his marriage wasn’t going to be the long-term union he had anticipated, Ian — not his real name — started to have conversations with his wife over the future of their 3-year-old son. Ian sought joint custody, suggesting an agreement that he and the boy’s mother split time with their child. It’s what he believed to be fair in light of the fact he worked from home and was a caregiver. His soon-to-be ex-wife demanded full custody, allowing only that Ian be permitted to see his son every other weekend.
Page | 16
Ian fought. So did she. Ian lost and felt unheard. “The overwhelming impression I had from the court system was pure disinterest,” he says. “The judge initially gave my ex everything she asked for, no questions asked, pending the outcome of the custody evaluation. I saw no indication that the judge even read the affidavits I provided.” When Ian explained he was interested in being engaged in his son’s upbringing, he says the judge exhibited “blatant disinterest and even bemusement when hearing about involved fathers.” “Our judge was a 73-year-old white conservative Christian man from the south,” says Ian. “He seemed confused by the fact that I worked from home. He asked several questions that suggested to me that he believed this meant I was unemployed.” Ian’s story is not unique. Increasingly, divorced fathers across the country have long expressed concern about a systemic bias in family court. In fact, perceived bias against men in family courts has, in large part, provided the so-called “Men’s Rights Movement” with momentum. In 1925, family courts evaluating cases of separation were guided by the Tender Years doctrine, which observed that kids under the age of 13 were more likely to be psychologically dependent on their mother for care. As such, the majority of moms seeking custody got it. While it was phased out in the 1970s — replaced by the Best Interests doctrine that mandated that a judge should do whatever is in the best interests of the child — the stereotype of the father as the financial provider and the mother as the emotional caregiver appears to persist. “I have plenty of stories in my practice of judges perceiving guys as the breadwinner and mothers as the stay-at-home nurturer,” says Scott Trout, Page | 17
CEO of Cordell & Cordell, a law firm with offices in 34 states that specializes in representing fathers. “Even though the roles have changed, it can be difficult to convince courts of that.” In a 2004 Minnesota survey of Supreme Court judges, 56 percent supported the idea that children belong with their mother as a blanket statement. In Nebraska, a 2013 study showed mothers got sole or primary custody 72 percent of the time. There is a large asterisk accompanying most of these statistics. In most cases, custody is settled between parties before a judge makes a final decision for them. So, how can there be bias if a father is agreeing to whatever stipulations are being set? According to Trout, it has to do with a less-than-level playing field: Men go into the dispute feeling cornered. “Guys settle for minimum custody because they think it’s all they can get,” he says. Pessimistic attorneys will tell their clients that it may be the best deal on the table. Rather than spend more time trying to aim for trial, they throw in the towel. “I’ve had guys tell me that, that it was their best-case scenario according to their former lawyer.” Trout sees the issue as less about custody and more about a court’s overall view of gender roles. Men, he says, are swimming upstream when it comes to convincing courts they deserve anything that history traditionally relegated to women. “It happens in alimony, which I call ‘manimony,’ and adult abuse orders, too,” he says. “Men who are victims of adult abuse, it’s much harder to convince a judge to enter a restraining order than if you were representing them. There’s no equality here.”
Page | 18
Others argue that while precedence does play a factor in a court siding with a mother, it’s not due to traditional stereotypes but how large a presence fathers had before custody was in dispute. “The father may have been the breadwinner, and when they separate, need to continue being the breadwinner,” says Jessica Smith, a family lawyer in Pennsylvania. “It takes more money to run two houses than one, and work could interfere with custody.” Fathers keeping long hours may find themselves at a disadvantage, as the courts — adhering to the Best Interests doctrine — will shy from having to wake a child too early or permit other inconveniences. The PEW Research Center reported in 2011 that mothers spend twice as much time with children in a marriage as fathers, which naturally ingratiates them to judges. But that’s an average. In specific cases — perhaps more cases as times have changed — that’s not the case at all. It’s also a lousy metric for care either way. But if fathers are doing the bulk of the parenting, that doesn’t help. Stay-at-home fathers are not always cast in the best light. “It’s a case of, ‘Get your lazy behind off the couch,’” Trout says of judges addressing stay-at-home dads, adding that he heard one judge say almost precisely that. “Judges, the bench, the bar, even lawyers, they think it’s not in a guy’s DNA to be a stay-at-home parent,” he adds. In reacting to the perceived bias of courts, a grassroots effort of men’s rights activists has organized groups that try to call attention to the disparity. The groups often swap tips on choosing lawyers, offer support for cases they seem to be going awry, and generally beat the drum for a gender that’s already perceived to have the upper hand most of their lives. That can Page | 19
rankle feminists, who cite statistics supporting the settlements — and their assumed complicity with the custody arrangement — and resist the idea they have a presumption of caregiving in court without cause. In the end, men who feel like they’re disadvantaged in court may be part of the last generation to have that experience. As judges clinging to stereotypes “age out,” Trout says, courts should eventually give way to more contemporary insight. That may not placate men who feel a bias when it’s really in the child’s best interests to be with their mother, but it’s a start. “I’ve seen it in rural areas, where a judge has been on the bench for 40 years,” Trout says. “Turnover and legislation is when we’ll see things change.” In 2017, 25 states considered laws that would make gender equality in family court less cryptic, with co-parenting assumed unless there’s a compelling reason to rule otherwise. It’s a change that would have made Ian’s — and countless other men’s — experience less stressful. He spent years and thousands of dollars to compromise for joint custody. Until then, Trout advises any father anticipating an upcoming custody dispute to document everything. His advice, which echoes that of all family law attorneys: “Be involved, stay active, and spend time with them. Keep a diary of what you did. Get off Facebook and social media. Don’t have arguments in front of them and don’t talk badly about mom.”
Page | 20
Gender Bias in Our Family Court System by Pearle Harbour
Our legal pendulum swings to yet another extreme. Gender bias runs rampant in our family court system. In the 1960’s women, fought hard to get laws passed to protect women against domestic violence. It took many painful years for our legal system to recognize women as victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence, stalking, and sexual harassment laws were passed and enforced to protect “true victims.” Many women lived through domestic violence; many died. Some went to jail for homicide; some were later pardoned. We, as women, finally got society to recognize violence against women. Shame on all those women of the 1990’s who now use these laws to their advantage in family courts to bring men to their knees; and to erase fathers from the lives of their children! False allegations by women of child Page | 21
abuse, domestic violence, and stalking are almost never questioned by judges for fear of being politically incorrect. Women who feel justified in punishing men use these false charges indiscriminately. Children are forgotten and have become our newest victims with full cooperation from our Family Court system. Children need fathers too. A recent US Department of Education study, “Fathers Involved in Their Children’s Education” (free for a phone call – 1-800-424-1616, option 3) will bear out these truths. Women have become educated in the ways of our legal system. A new study purports women are filing 70% of divorces today. The first person to file usually wins. The unfortunate person against whom false allegations are charged must prove their innocence while a plaintiff proves nothing. As a paralegal and a woman, I am no longer proud of those of female gender who abuse our legal system. An innocent father involved in a nasty contested divorce from a woman who vows vengeance is helpless in Family Court. Important child support laws enacted are now strictly, and sometimes unfairly enforced. There are stories of fathers who lost their jobs from downsizing and/or circumstances beyond their control. When the mother of his children insists on back child support, he is thrown into jail. Child support is based on his “earning ability.” Debtor’s prison has become our most recent politically correct means to control men. Here again, our Family Courts condone whatever women allege, accuse, and dictate to control men. Should a husband make the mistake of remarrying, further angering his ex-wife, a second wife’s income is used as “a way to show ability to pay.” The mother of their children, on the other hand, can marry another man. The “other man’s” income is never used to lower child support. Court’s rationale – “they are not his children, not his responsibility.” Since when did a mother bear no responsibility for her children? Today’s women are earning more, and are becoming a majority in our workforce. The stay at home Page | 22
mom of the 50’s rarely exists today. I knew of a man who ended up paying so much child support (plus child expenses) he had to move back home with his parents. Yet his ex-wife earned more than he did. False allegations of child abuse by a vengeful ex-wife devastates not only children, but fathers. The wife files first to take advantage of all laws passed to protect true victims of abuse and violence. The wife charges everything from domestic violence to stalking to child abuse. Courts almost always believe a woman over a man today. I know of a man who was falsely accused of child sexual abuse. By the time he was found innocent, he lost his job, his reputation, and everything he owned. Recent statistics do show women are becoming our primary child abusers, and yes, even killers of our children. Yet our Family Courts consistently believe, “the mother always makes the best parent.” Some mothers today emotionally blackmail and intimidate their children into fabricating abuse by their father. I know a man who fought two years to get custody of his son from a proven mentally ill mother who abused their son. Each time the court insisted “the mother is the best parent.” A large number of children are ordered to see a child psychologist when divorce is filed. Counselors and psychologists are encouraged by our system to give bad reports against a father. Fathers are automatically presumed capable of abuse before any mother. Mothers are intentionally denying visitation to loving, child support paying fathers, who then spend money and time in court trying to get visitation enforced. I know a man who hasn’t seen his son in 14 years, but religiously pays his child support. He stopped pursuing visitation in court when the mother threatened harm to the son. Is this fair? Why is there no press on “intentional denial of visitation”?
Page | 23
One of the saddest true stories I know of is a little nine year old boy who was put in a mental institution by his mother until he stopped saying, “I want to see my daddy.” There are too many stories of children committing suicide. I personally know of a woman who kept her teenage son up night after night crying about her divorce, repeatedly telling him “children ruin marriages.” Her son turned to drinking, drugs, and dropped out of college. Divorce is a reality. It is currently a billion dollar a year business. Contested divorce is guerilla warfare whether people want to acknowledge it or not. Everyone wants fuzzy warm answers to harsh reality. There are none unless we all recognize the gender bias against males perpetuated in Family Court today, and the undeniable damage it does to our children. Years ago women had a disadvantage in our domestic courts. Now they can feel quite happy knowing most women win. They can manipulate child support into “backdoor alimony,” deprive their children of their fathers, and ruin their husband. Truth no longer exists in our legal system. Yes, we have come a long way. Women can be proud of the laws they fought hard for 30+ years ago. I am personally grateful for these laws. Let us not blaspheme those women who died for the very laws that many women are abusing today. We must stop abusing these laws, or one day our legal pendulum will swing back and our true victims will not be believed again. You think you are beating men? You are beating yourself; destroying your children; and making the racketeers in our legal system rich. You are creating a generation of children who think love is conditional and possessive; who learn that violence by proxy and misuse of the law will make you a winner.
Page | 24
I will never be associated with any “feminist� movement which advocates false allegations, destroying children, and eliminating good fathers. Let’s remember that it is children, not women, who are the real victims of the gender bias in our family courts.
Page | 25
Studies Show Judicial Bias Against Dads by Robert Franklin, Esq. The subject is judicial bias in family courts. Now, we’re frequently told that there is no judicial bias on the part of family court judges, that judges rule neutrally on neutral categories. We’re told that the reason fathers so rarely get custody or meaningful time with their kids is that they don’t deserve it because they’ve only earned the money to keep the family housed, fed and clothed. That, we’re given to understand, isn’t as important as changing diapers, feeding and bathing the child. It’s so unimportant that it merits Dad being ousted from his child’s life despite the small avalanche of data demonstrating that children suffer terribly the loss of a parent. I’ve argued long and hard that one of the reasons family court judges do such a poor job of deciding custody and parenting time is that whatever the education they receive regarding the best interests of children doesn’t match up with the social science on the matter. That’s true enough and it’s outrageous that we aren’t teaching judges the basics on which to base their custody and parenting time orders. But lack of education isn’t the only problem. As the article shows, anti-father/pro-mother bias on the part of judges plays an enormous role. Studies of judicial attitudes in eleven states reveal that bias and attorneys practicing in family courts confirm the findings. Read on. How many judges approach contests between men and women with a predisposition to rule against the man?... A study conducted in 2004 found that although the tender years doctrine had been abolished some time ago, a majority of Indiana family court judges still supported it and decided cases coming before them consistently with it.2 A survey of judges in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee found a clear preference among judges for maternal custody in general. Another survey, this one commissioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court, found that a majority (56%) of the state’s judges, both male and female, agreed with the statement, “I believe young children belong with their mother.” Only a few of the judges indicated that they would need more information about the mother before they could answer. Fathers, one judge explained, “must prove their ability to parent while mothers are assumed to be able.”4 Another judge commented, “I believe that God has given women a psychological makeup that is better tuned to caring for small children.”5 That bias hasn’t escaped the notice of lawyers practicing in family court. Page | 26
Judges’ self-reporting of their prejudices against fathers was consistent with practicing attorneys’ impressions of them. 69% of male attorneys had come to the conclusion that judges always or often assume from the outset (i.e., before being presented with any evidence) that children belong with their mothers. 40% of the female attorneys agreed with that assessment. Nearly all attorneys (94% of male attorneys and 84% of female attorneys) said that all judges exhibited prejudice against fathers at least some of the time.2 Similar findings have been made in court-sponsored gender bias studies conducted in other states. The Maryland study, for example, found that most attorneys perceived that it is either always or often the case that “[c]ustody awards to mothers are based on the assumption that children belong with their mothers.”7 A follow-up study conducted in 2001 “still indicates a preference to award mothers custody.”8 The majority of attorneys, both male and female, agreed that fathers either did not always get treated fairly in custody proceedings, or that they “often” did not. 6% of judges, 17% of female attorneys and 29% of male attorneys went so far as to say that no father ever receives fair treatment in a Maryland custody proceeding.9 Surveys of judges in Maryland, Missouri, Texas and Washington found that a majority of judges were unable to say that they usually give fathers fair consideration in custody cases.10 This matched the perception of members of the bar.11 A review of appellate court decisions led a team of psychology and law professors to conclude that the maternal preference is still the norm.12 The Georgia Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System uncovered judicial beliefs that mothers are always better parents than fathers; that children need to be with their mothers, but not necessarily with their fathers; and that a father cannot be a nurturing parent if he works outside the home. In addition, the commission uncovered a reluctance to deny custody of children to mothers out of fear that doing so will “brand” the mother as unfit or unworthy.13 No judges expressed any comparable concern for the reputation or feelings of fathers. Reread those figures and let them sink in. A majority of attorneys said fathers didn’t always get treated fairly or that they often did not. And large numbers of judges and lawyers agreed that “no father ever receives fair treatment in a Maryland custody proceeding.” That’s right, even some judges agreed with that frank statement of bias and judicial malpractice. Those studies cover the states of Indiana, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Minnesota, Maryland, Missouri, Texas, Washington and Georgia, i.e. a hefty percentage of the country. Are there any studies indicating judicial fairness toward fathers? Meanwhile, the article states the obvious — that judges are supposedly bound by a code of judicial ethics that requires them to rule impartially in every case. And yet studies reveal judges themselves frankly admitting that they do not do so. Picture the statue of blind justice peeking out from under her blindfold to gauge the sex of the litigants. Page | 27
The fine article confines itself to revealing the frank bias of family court judges, but I’d like to add a bit of content: judicial bias against fathers is also judicial bias against mothers and children. It’s nothing more than the obvious. Take a father out of a child’s life and the child is damaged, all but invariably. There’s far too much science on the matter to deny the fact that children need both their parents. And yet family courts take one parent away from children all the while intoning the mantra of the “best interests of the child.” And of course anti-father bias is anti-mother bias too. Turning over 80% - 100% of the childcare duties to Mom does her no favors. It makes her dependent on Dad’s child support and alimony instead of working, earning and saving for herself. That dependency is for her, as it would be for anyone, dangerous. If Dad dies, becomes disabled or loses his job, how does she support herself and their child? Like men, women deserve the feeling of confidence that comes from being self-reliant. Mothers shouldn’t be made dependent on anyone. They should be allowed the time in which to work, earn and save for retirement that everyone else has. In the long run, they’ll be better off that way and their kids will likely respect them for it. That’s what equal parenting post-divorce does; it benefits fathers because they don’t lose their kids; it benefits mothers because they’re freed to work, earn and save, and be independent in the process; and it helps children because they maintain real relationships with both of their parents. In the end, everyone is better off, healthier, happier, more independent and self-actualized. What’s not to like? Family court judges apparently believe there’s something.
Men’s Perfect Tri ® Crew Tee $30.00 Order at tfrm.store
Page | 28
How much custody time does dad get in your state? Study shows fathers' share of parenting time varies greatly by state June 5, 2018 — Custody X Change conducted a first-of-its-kind study and found that parenting time varies dramatically as you cross state lines. Nationwide, a father is likely to receive about 35% of child custody time. See how your state compares below.
Page | 29
Page | 30
Website, IT & Marketing Support provided by: fb.me/gwtechsupport
Page | 31