Mama Liberty

Another

2009-04-06T23:24:00.000-07:00

Father drugged then killed his two children during divorce

Security guard Brian Philcox drugged his two children before killing them and himself on Father's Day after leaving explosive devices designed to injure their mother who was divorcing him.

By Paul Stokes
Last Updated: 6:46PM GMT 21 Feb 2009

Amy and Owen Philcox: Philcox used chloroform and a sleeping drug to sedate the children before connecting a vacuum hose to the vehicle's exhaust to kill them all Photo: PA

Brian Philcox, 53, sat hand-in-hand with his daughter Amy, seven, and son Owen, three, in the back seat of his Land Rover as it filled with fumes.

He had left a letter for their mother addressed to "The Bitch" which was designed to detonate fireworks when opened and cause burns to anyone nearby.

The children had been happy at the thought of spending the weekend with him and were carrying home-made Father's Day cards for him.

Philcox, a karate expert, executed his plan to die with the children after becoming "stressed and depressed" through the estrangement with his wife Lyn.

Two crude but viable home-made explosive devices were meant to be found by her, an inquest in Llandudno was told. The one with the letter was left glued to the kitchen worktop at his home in Runcorn, Cheshire.

Philcox used chloroform and a sleeping drug to sedate the children before connecting a vacuum hose to the vehicle's exhaust to kill them all at a North Wales beauty spot.

The inquest in Llandudno found that he unlawfully killed the children and took his own life last June after parking at a remote spot near the village of Maenan in the Snowdonia national park.

After the hearing, the children's mother Lyn McAuliffe, 38, described him as "a cold blooded, pre-meditated killer".

She added: "I will never forgive him for taking the beautiful lives of Amy and Owen."

Philcox had picked the children up from near their mother's home in Runcorn for an access visit during the divorce proceedings.

He failed to return them as agreed on the Saturday night and sent her a series of texts, one which read: "There is nothing I can do. It is out of my control. I am sorry."

Miss McAuliffe told the inquest she thought he had been talking about the car and could never imagine him harming the children.

John Gittins, coroner for north-east Wales, said he was confident Amy and Owen would simply not have known what was happening and would not have suffered.

He told Miss McAuliffe: "When he took Amy and Owen from you, I am sure that his intention was that they would be lost to you for ever.

"But he failed because their lives are imprinted on your heart. They will endure and be part of your for every single moment of the rest of your life."

The couple married in 2000 but his relationship with her son Ryan, then ten, was "bad from the word go".

She said Philcox stopped him from going out with his friends, resented Ryan's presence in the house and things became worse after their children were born.

When the marriage broke down she went to live with her mother, taking the children with her, and started divorce proceedings on the grounds of his unreasonable behaviour.

Philcox once took the children away for three or four days without agreement and the couple had to go to court to arrange agreed access.

On the night of the deaths, she received a text message instructing her to go to his house and find a note. Her sister went and found a note glued to the kitchen work surface addressed to "The Bitch".

Miss McAuliffe opened it herself and found only blank sheets of paper. But police who searched the house later found a home made explosive device in the cupboard underneath.

Experts confirmed that the ripping of the glued note was meant to trigger the device which would have resulted in burns to anyone nearby.

Police also found a similar device under the kitchen table and Lyn's son Ryan was sent a third device which arrived in the post on the Monday morning.

Miss McAuliffe said: "Since Amy and Owen died my life has been a constant nightmare. I feel I cannot cope - I just exist.

"Christmas was particularly hard and recently both Amy and Owen would have celebrated their eighth and fourth birthdays.

"It is the little things I miss about them like lying in bed reading bedtime stories - putting on different voices representing the characters in the book. They loved that."

She said Amy was "very artistic" and loved painting mermaids and butterflies while Owen liked Thomas the Tank Engine and chasing people around the house with his toy dinosaurs.

Disgusted with the system: Parent Alienation Leaves bruises deep inside

2009-04-02T10:37:00.000-07:00

Disgusted with the system: Parent Alienation Leaves bruises deep inside

Idiots and their views......

Color Me Sick

2009-03-17T21:52:00.000-07:00

THERE IS A GROUP THAT IS HANDING OUT COLORING BOOKS FOR CHILDREN FOR SENSITIVE SUBJECTS AS DIVORCE, EATING HEALTHY AND THE ALL IMPORTANT, “PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME”….IT’S NOT JUST SICK IT’S WRONG…THE DESCRIPTION:

I WONDER

“Taryn is a little girl whose parents are divorced. Lately, she has been hearing some very confusing things. With no one to talk to, Taryn turns to her closest friend, Noodle. Read how Noodle answers Taryn’s questions and provides comfort. This coloring and activity book deals with the sensitive topic of Parental Alienation.”

THEY OFFER THE CHOICE OF EITHER DIRECTED FOR “TARGET MOTHER” “TARGET FATHER”

TARGET IS THE PERFECT WORD TO DESCRIBE THE PRODUCT BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT PAS DOES. IT TAKES ITS PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND TARGETS PARENTS, MORE MOTHERS THAN FATHERS.

I AM THINKING OF BUYING “THE VISIT” WHERE:
“What is it like to visit a jail? What are some things you might see inside a jail? See how Tyler, a little boy who is about to visit his father in jail for the first time, finds out. Was he scared? You bet he was, but as Tyler learns just how scary jail can be, seeing the one you love can make all those scary feelings melt away. Available in English and Spanish”

VISITING DAD IN JAIL FOR THE FIRST TIME…REST ASSURED TYLER…DADDY WILL PROBABLY BE IN THERE AGAIN.

Hell is for Gardner

2009-03-04T23:24:00.001-08:00

Time for you medicine Dr. Gardner

Below you will find in the pro-pedophilia doctors words. The late Dr. Gardner offed himself by stabbing himself several times in the neck and heart. Dr. Gardner's pseudo-scientific malady is being abused by fathers in court to take children away from their mothers. First read what Dr. Gardner says and then in read the other comments in red that another researcher of PAS has made. More to come on this subject at PAS needs to be eradicated from Family Court as it is not recognized by the APA ( American Psychological Association) and is not in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

Dr. Gardner's junk science should have been buried with him and until it does mothers and children will be victimized.

Parental Alienation (PA) and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

By Richard A. Gardner, M.D.

American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 21(1):39-64

Reposted from: http://www.rgardner.com/refs/ar11w.html

The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a psychiatric disorder that arises in the course of child-custody disputes adjudicated in the context of adversarial proceedings.

If this was a true syndrome, then why does it only arise in the course of child custody disputes?

This article describes the central role that such proceedings have had in the development of this relatively new disorder. Our legal system does not stand alone in having produced this disorder; litigating parents as well as their children have played an important contributory role. It is the purpose of this article to focus on the judiciary’s role in the etiology, development of symptoms, and treatment of the parental alienation syndrome. It is the author’s hope that increasing recognition of the PAS by the judiciary will enhance its ability to make prudent decisions in child-custody disputes in which the children have developed manifestations of this now widespread disorder.

Since the 1970s, we have witnessed a burgeoning of child-custody disputes unparalleled in history. This increase has primarily been the result of two recent developments in the realm of child-custody litigation, namely, the replacement of the tender-years presumption with the best- interests-of-the-child presumption and the increasing popularity of the joint-custodial concept.

Under the tender-years presumption, the assumption was made that mothers, by virtue of the fact that they are female, are intrinsically superior to men as child rearers. Of course they are intrinsically superior to men as child rearers. Accordingly, the father had to provide the court with compelling evidence of serious maternal deficiencies before the court would even consider assigning primary custodial status to the father. Hang on, if its PARENTAL alienation why does he now centre everything onto the fathers? Under its replacement, the best-interests-of-the-child presumption, the courts were instructed to ignore gender when adjudicating child-custody disputes and evaluate only parenting capacity, especially factors that related to the best interests of the child. Then why is Gardner ignoring the direction to ignore gender as well? This change resulted in a burgeoning of custody litigation as fathers found themselves with a greater opportunity to gain primary custodial status. Soon thereafter the joint-custodial concept came into vogue, eroding even further the time that custodial mothers were given with their children. Again, this change also brought about an increase and intensification of child-custody litigation. Sure because mums did not want to lose their children to bullies.

In association with this burgeoning of child-custody litigation, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in the frequency of a disorder rarely seen previously, a disorder that I refer to as the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). In this disorder we see not only programming (”brainwashing”) of the child by one parent to denigrate the other parent, but self-created contributions by the child in support of the alienating parent’s campaign of denigration against the alienated parent. Because of the child’s contribution, I did not consider the terms brainwashing, programming, or other equivalent words to be applicable. So you ignore what the child is saying completely? Accordingly, in 1985, I introduced the term parental alienation syndrome (Why Parental alienation when you are quite clearly in favour of the father?)to cover the combination of these two contributing factors (1-2). In accordance with this use of the term I suggest this definition of the parental alienation syndrome:The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. The fact that Daddy is taking Mummy to court to try to take the child away from her might not be a reason for the child being upset? And the new rules that stated the child went to the best parent meant that Dad wasn’t saying anything bad about Mum? Sure! It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. Again you don’t think the child would be upset tht Dad is trying to take them away? When true parental abuse and/or neglect is present the child’s animosity may be justified, and so the parental alienation syndrome diagnosis is not applicable.But you’re not prepared to listen to the child at any cost so how would you determine if there was in fact true abuse? The alienating parent’s primary purpose for indoctrinating into the children a campaign of denigration against the target parent is to gain leverage in the court of law. By your own admission, you said the court had to determine who was the better parent and most children were already with the mother and you dont think Dad is doing his dammedest to get those kids off the mother hence the litigation in the first place? You think he’s really saying nice things about Mum or do you think the child hs worked things out for themselves and might be just a tad angry that their father is doing this to their family? The child’s alienation has less to do with bona fide animosity or even hatred of the alienated parent, but more to do with the fear that if such acrimony is not exhibited, the alienating parent will reject the child. How could the alienating parent reject the child and on what basis do you say this? Where is the evidence to support this? By the late 1980s the American Bar Association was already appreciative of the problem of brainwashed children. Accordingly, they commissioned Clawar and Rivlin who subsequently published their study of 700 PAS children (3). By your own admission, the increase of men trying to get custody of children has fuelled this epidemic of so called Pas…a very important point dontcha think?

Evolution of the Gender Shift in PAS Alienators

In the early 1980s, when I first began seeing the PAS, in about 85% to 90% of the cases the mother was the alienating parent and the father the targeted parent. Well thats because fathers didn’t want to pay CS and also wanted to punish their ex wives for leaving them as a result of the no fault divorce. The only weapon for revenge they had was the children. Fathers were certainly trying to program their children to gain leverage in the custody dispute; however, they were less likely to be successful. Well that is because they had chosen to have minimal involvement with the child pre divorce.This related to the fact that the children were generally more closely bonded with their mothers. And this is something you are wanting to take away from these children? A very telling admission and you should be tried as a criminal. Recognizing this, I generally recommended the mother to be designated the primary custodial parent, even though she might have been a PAS indoctrinator. It was only in the severe cases (about 10 percent)—when the mother was relentless and/or paranoid and unable to cease and desist from the programming—that I recommended primary custodial status to the father. I was not alone in recognizing this gender disparity, which was confirmed during that period by others.In the last few years, I have seen a gender shift: I am seeing more fathers as primary PAS programmers than I had seen before (4). And colleagues of mine in various parts of the country are reporting a similar phenomenon. Why this shift? One probable explanation relates to the fact that fathers are increasingly enjoying expanded visitation time with their children in association with the increasing popularity of shared parenting programs. The more time a programming father has with his children, the more time he has to program them if he is inclined to do so. Another factor operative here probably relates to the fact that with increasing recognition of the PAS, fathers (some of whom have read my books) have learned about the disorder and have decided to use the same psychological weapons described in my book—especially the money and power factors. So the women taught the men and it is all the mothers fault anyway? You really hate women don’t you Richard? It is probable that other factors are operative as well in the gender shift, but these are the two best explanations that I have at this point.

The Three Levels of Parental Alienation Syndrome

There are three levels of parental alienation syndrome in the child: mild, moderate, and severe (Table 1). It goes beyond the purposes of this report to describe in full detail the differences between these three levels. At this point only a brief summary is warranted. In the mild level, the alienation is relatively superficial, the children basically cooperate with visitation, but are intermittently critical and disgruntled with the victimized parent. In the moderate level, the alienation is more formidable, the children are more disruptive and disrespectful, and the campaign of denigration may be almost continual. In the severe level, visitation may be impossible so hostile are the children, hostile even to the point of being physically violent toward the allegedly hated parent. Forcing a child to be with an abuser might just provoke this type of response do you think? Other forms of acting-out may be present, acting-out that is designed to inflict ongoing grief upon the parent who is being visited. Oh so it’s the parent who is to be pitied and not the child? In some cases the children’s hostility may reach paranoid levels, e.g., they exhibit delusions of persecution and/or fears that they will be murdered. Well is that because a lot of fathers do actually murder their children. And the MRA’s are quoting that 5 men a day commit suicide because of divorce so thats a whole of crap a lot of children are exposed to by FATHERS. There are also three levels of PAS alienators: mild, moderate, and severe (Table 2). It is crucial that evaluators properly diagnose the PAS level in both the child and adult because each level requires a different psychological and legal approach (Tables 2 and 3).The Primary Symptoms of the Parental Alienation Syndrome

At this point I will describe the primary symptoms of the PAS with particular focus on the judiciary’s role in their development.

1) The Campaign of Denigration

Typically the PAS child is obsessed with “hatred” of a parent. The word hatred is placed in quotes because there are still many tender and loving feelings felt toward the allegedly despised parent that are not permitted expression. These children speak of the hated parent with every vilification and profanity in their vocabulary—without embarrassment or guilt. The denigration of the parent often has the quality of a litany. After only minimal prompting by a lawyer, judge, probation officer, mental health professional, or other person involved in the litigation, the record will be turned on and a command performance provided.

Typical comments of such children include: “I hate him and I never want to see him again in my whole life,” “She’s mean and she’s stupid, and I don’t care if I ever see her again,” and “If I have to see him, I’ll see him once a month for an hour. That’s all I can stand.” A parent who was once doting and loving becomes transformed into a noxious individual or a nonperson. Or a n alleged Child abuser? A parent with whom there were joyous experiences is now referred to as “boring.” On whose evidence is the “joyous experiences ” as it was obviously not from your observation or evaluation or was it that the father told you? When asked about the activities the child engaged in with the targeted parent prior to the separation, the child will often say, “I don’t remember.”

When the examiner asks incredulously about the child’s lack of memory for all events that occurred prior to the separation, the child claims complete amnesia. It is as if that segment of the child’s brain in which were embedded memories of life with the victimized parent prior to the separation have been totally obliterated. And thats why a lot of sexually abused people have no recollection fro years sometimes, you haven’t heard of that before or come across it in other patients?

As mentioned, the primary motive of the alienating parent for inducing the campaign of denigration is to gain leverage in the court of law. Or to keep their children and maintain the close bond you admit to earlier. The alienator’s hope is that the court will become convinced that the target parent is so loathsome and dangerous that any visitation at all will be extremely detrimental to the children. Or maybe the child will hope that someone will recognise that there are problems and someone will do something to help them.The children’s complaints about the target parent are duly noted by the alienating parent, transmitted to the lawyers, and ultimately brought before the court. So far you have not provided any evidence that a parent (mother) is telling the child to say these things, only that the child is saying it. Older children (especially teenagers) testify directly about how despicable they have found the target parent. And younger children may be interviewed in chambers by the judge. All too often the judge is not familiar with the parental alienation syndrome and accepts as valid their professions of hatred. And judges might be smarter than pedophilic psyches? As far back as 1987 I had already published an article advising judges about the special considerations necessary for properly interviewing PAS children (5).

It is important to note that we are living in a world where children have been given more power than they ever have, often to their detriment. This empowerment of PAS children is often provided by the programming parents, attorneys for the programmers, therapists, attorneys for the child, guardians ad litem, and unfortunately judges. I have discussed the problem of empowerment of PAS children elsewhere (6). Even the target parent empowers the children because of fear that implementing traditional disciplinary and punitive measures will enable them to add yet another complaint to their litany (7). You still have not provided any evidence that anyone is telling a child to say they hate a parent (father) and yet you accept at face value that the father previously enjoyed a “joyous” relationship? You don’t say that the child is saying “Oh mom told me to say that” you base it all upon assumption? Crazy!

2) Weak, Frivolous, or Absurd Rationalizations For the Deprecation

Typically, PAS children provide irrational and often ludicrous justifications for their alienation from the target parent. The child may justify the alienation with memories of minor altercations experienced many years previously in the relationship with the victimized parent. These are usually trivial and are experiences that most children quickly forget, e.g., “He always used to speak very loud when he told me to brush my teeth,” “He used to tell me to get his things a lot,” “She used to say to me ‘Don’t interrupt,’” “He used to make a lot of noise when he chewed at the table.” They have whole campaigns at schools to explain to children just what bullying is and means. Children don’t necessarily know what it is called but they know when they have a problem with a person. When these children are asked to give more compelling reasons for their vilification, they are unable to provide them. They’re children, children are not usually very articulate or have you not had a lot of experience with children? Sorry we mean professional experience with children. Frequently, the alienating parent will agree with the child that these professed reasons justify the ongoing animosity.The programming parent will accept as valid these ludicrous justifications, and the hope is that the court will be naïve enough to accept them as valid as well.And hopes like hell the child won’t be able to articulate what is really wrong and why they don’t want to be with that parent. Well of course thay accept the childs wishes, remember it is a race to see who is the best parent and the one who loses, loses the kids.

The programming parent generally shows better judgment in other areas, but when it comes to justifications for the alienation from the target parent, the alienator suspends disbelief and hopes that the court will be equally convinced. Unfortunately, all too often, the court accepts the child’s frivolous rationalizations as valid. It’s lucky kids have all that power now and realise that they can speak up isn’t it?

3) Lack of Ambivalence

All human relationships are ambivalent, and parent-child relationships are no exception. However, the concept of mixed feelings has no place in the PAS child’s scheme of things. The targeted parent is all bad, and the alienating parent is all good. Well that might be because of the attempt by Dad to take them off their mother, the one they have that close bond with remember? Most children (normal as well as those with a wide variety of psychiatric problems), when asked to list both good and bad things about each parent, will generally be able to do so. When PAS children are asked to provide the same lists, they will typically recite a long list of criticisms of the maligned parent, but will not be able to think of one positive or redeeming personality trait. They’re kids what do you expect? In contrast, they will provide only positive and endearing qualities for the preferred parent and claim to be unable to think of even one trait they dislike. That would be because of the close bond, remember? The victimized parent may have been deeply dedicated to the child’s upbringing, and a strong bond may have been created over many years. But you already admitted earlier that most mothers have a deep bond with their children and now fathers are trying to intercept that for wahtever reason. Do you think the child doesn’t know that? Yet, the PAS child may not be able to think of one single thing she (he) ever liked about the targeted parent. That’s because he is trying to completely erode the child’s life and they know it.

The adversary system routinely deals with polarizations. Attorneys for programming parents present only information and evidence that supports their position and make every attempt possible to withhold from the court information that may weaken their clients’ arguments. And the attorneys for alienated parents act similarly. The theory is that out of this juxtaposition of opposing arguments “the truth” will emerge. I suspect that very few experienced lawyers and judges actually believe this, but it is the principle upon which the adversary system ostensibly operates. Children who show no ambivalence (Or who haven’t been abused ) fit well into this system, especially when their one-sided professions are brought before the court. Programming parents believe that if a child can say nothing good about the target parent that this will strengthen their positions in the courtroom. Unfortunately, there are judges who are taken in by these children and actually believe that the target parent is worthy of their children’s ongoing scorn and rejection. And how right they are! Such judges may actually believe that they are seeing children who have genuinely been abused and neglected and do not recognize that these absurd professions, without any ambivalence at all, are typical PAS manifestations (8-9). And just how do YOU differentiate between children who have been abused? Are you saying like we think you are that ALL children who are hostile to a parent are victims of PAS? How irresponsible! If you had made even one small allownace for recognising that a child might actaully be telling the truth, we might have thought your theory might have had some releavnce but you blew it here..big time!

4) The “Independent-Thinker” Phenomenon

Many PAS children proudly state that their decision to reject the alienated parent is their own. Children they just lie compulsively don’t they. They deny any contribution from the programmer. And the PAS-inducing parent often supports fully this professed independence of thinking. In fact, the alienators often profess that they want the children to visit with the target parent and recognize the importance of such involvement. Yet, the alienator’s every act indicates otherwise. Such children appreciate that, by stating that the decision is their own, they assuage the programmer’s embarrassment and guilt, and protect the PAS inducer from criticism. Such professions of independent thinking are vigorously supported by the alienator, who will often praise the children for being the kinds of people who have minds of their own and are forthright and brave enough to express overtly their opinions. The professions of independent thinking, then, are actually part of the programmed campaign of denigration.

The programmers hope that the independent-thinker phenomenon will serve the child well in the court of law, whether testifying directly or speaking to the judge in chambers. The children, especially the older ones, recognize that they are under oath and recognize also that it behooves them to tell the truth. And one of the PAS “truths” is that they were not programmed and that their professions of acrimony are the direct result of their own observations and experiences. In some cases, the children recognize that they are lying to the court; in other cases, they have been so well programmed that they actually believe that the professions of hatred are truly their own. And what about the elephant in the room….they might also be telling the truth.

5) Reflexive Support of the Alienating Parent in the Parental Conflict

Whenever there is a parental difference of opinion regarding an issue relevant to the child, PAS children will reflexively support the programming parent and automatically consider the targeted parent’s rendition to be invalid. Maybe because the child knows the truth? Even when presented with incontrovertible proof that the deprecated parent’s position is the valid one, (What possible incontovertible truth could you offer? The fathers word? What else?) they will find some rationalization to justify their believing that the alienating parent’s rendition is valid. In family conferences, in which the children are seen together with both parents, the children reflexively support the position of the programming parent—sometimes even before the target parent has had the opportunity to present his (her) side of the argument. Even the preferred parent may not present the argument as forcefully as the supporting child. We see here a good example of the child’s contributions to the campaign of denigration seen in the PAS.

Such blind support for the alienating parent can also be useful for the alienating parent in a court of law, either in the context of the children’s direct testimony or when speaking with the judge in chambers. Judges are often faced with “he said/she said” evidence. Corroborative evidence from third parties often helps the court decide whose testimony is more credible. The alienators’ hope is that their child witnesses will tip the balance in their favor. Or the parent hopes that someone will take notice of what the child is saying and act upon it?

6) Absence of Guilt over Cruelty to and/or Exploitation of the Alienated Parent

The PAS child may exhibit a guiltless disregard for the feelings of the maligned parent. And why not? What regard has the father given the child? The child is fully aware that the father has engaged in a battle to remove the child from the mother. There will be a complete absence of gratitude for gifts, child-support payments, and other manifestations of the alienated parent’s ongoing involvement and affection. Child support is something the child should be grateful for? You are not serious surely? Often these children will want to be certain that the alienated parent continues to provide support payments, but at the same time adamantly refuse to visit. And what decent parent would involve a child in child support issues…oh that must be the paying parent, the father! Commonly they will say that they never want to see the alienated parent again, or not until their late teens or early twenties. To such a child I might say, “So you want your father to continue paying for all your food, clothing, rent, and education—even private high school and college—and yet you still don’t want to see him at all, ever again. Is that right?” OMG so you are telling these children that they have to be grateful for MONEY!! Holy shit! And we might ask why you are not asking that child “Gee Dad has spent all of this time playing with you, and cooking for you and nurturing you and now you shun him” why is that? BECAUSE IT DIDN”T HAPPEN and if it did happen you wouldn’t have a child who hated the father. Such a child might respond, “That’s right. He doesn’t deserve to see me. He’s mean, and paying all that money is a good punishment for him.” So it’s all about money isn’t it?

Probably one of the best examples of guiltless disregard for the feelings of the victimized parent is the child who knowingly and consciously participates with a programmer in promulgating a false sex-abuse accusation. And what is your determination for a FALSE allegation? Such accusations are generally considered more credible when the mother is programming such an allegation against the father than when a father attempts to program such an accusation against the mother. That’s right its always the mothers isn’t it and the reason it is more “successful” is because women don’t tend to prey on their own children for sexual gratification. In such situations fathers’ lives have literally been destroyed, and many fathers have been sent to jail, even for years. So they went before a judge/and or jury and were sent to jail and you are blaming the mother for a false allegation? You think the criminal courts are biased or wrong, thats ok but don’t blame the mother for that or the child. The lack of guilt here is not simply explained by cognitive immaturity (often the case, especially for very young children), but is a statement of the fact that children can be programmed to such points of cruelty that they are totally oblivious to the effects of their sadism on innocent victims. Where is your proof that the allegations are false? Is it because it’s a mother and child against the father so therefore the allegations are false? If we made an allegation about you and child sex abuse, would that be false too? Accusing children in the course of the Salem witch trials exhibited dramatically this lack of guilt for the victims of their accusations.

It is one thing for a child to guiltlessly denigrate and exploit the target parent in the home and neighborhood. It is another thing to do so in a court of law, especially if one is being asked to take an oath with one’s hand on a Bible. In the early stages of indoctrination, before the programmed material has become deeply embedded in the child’s brain circuitry, the programming parent may not want to take the risk that the child might become guilty on the witness stand, or in the judges chambers, and admit that many of the professions of hatred are not reality based. In the early phases, the children especially the older ones, recognize that they are being deceitful. During that phase, programming parents will ask their attorneys to fight vigorously against their children’s testifying directly or being interviewed by the judge in chambers. However, over time, the children’s fabrications become delusions and they actually come to believe their lies. Yes yes it must be lies because men just don’t molest their children do they? Or shock horror, a father of people wouldn’t do that! After that point is reached, programming parents will often ask their attorneys to fight vigorously for the children’s testifying directly or being interviewed by the judge in chambers. In my original article to judges (5) I alerted them to this marker for the PAS. Unfortunately, too few judges recognize the PAS and have been taken in, despite these red flags. At least somebody seems to have some common sense.

7) The Presence of Borrowed Scenarios

Not only is there a rehearsed quality to PAS children’s litanies, but one often hears phraseology that is not commonly used by the child. Many expressions are identical to those used by the programming parent. A father tries repeatedly to call the children’s home in order to communicate with them. Each time he calls, the mother screams, “Stop harassing us!” and hangs up. The four-year-old son, then, when asked why he does not want to see his father, responds, “He harasses us.” One four-year-old girl told me that she did not want to visit with her father because “He makes me watch R-rated movies.” When I asked her exactly what R-rated movies are, she replied, “I don’t know.” Another child said to me, “I have bad dreams when I stay at my mommy’s house.” When I asked her to please tell me what were in those dreams, she replied, “I don’t know. My daddy says I have them there.” One four-year-old girl told me that she never wants to see her father again because “he penetrated me.” When I asked her what “penetrated” meant, she replied, “Ask my Mommy. She knows what that means.”

Triers of fact do well to be alerted to the presence of these terms because they provide strong evidence that the child has been programmed. And little kids who say Fuck know what they’re saying? Puhlease!

Spread of the Animosity to the Extended Family and Friends of the Alienated Parent

The vilification of the targeted parent often expands to include that parent’s complete extended family and network of friends. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents—with whom the child previously may have had loving relationships—are now viewed as similarly obnoxious. Well that might be because the fathers family refuse to believe the child. Loving grandparents now find themselves suddenly and inexplicably rejected. Inexplicably? Because they sided with the father? The child has no guilt over such rejection, nor does the programming parent. Greeting cards are not reciprocated. Presents sent to the home are refused, remain unopened, or even destroyed (generally in the presence of the alienating parent). So it comes back to money again. When the despised parent’s relatives call on the telephone, the child will respond with angry vilifications or quickly hang up on the caller. (These responses are more likely to occur if the programming parent is within hearing distance of the conversation.) And you would know this how? Because the father told you? With regard to the victimization of the relatives, the child is even less capable of providing justifications for the animosity, e.g., the child may say, “I hate them because they like my father.” Yeah well if the father is trying to rip the child away from the mother, the child would be canny enough to realise his relatives and friends will support him. The rage of these children is so great that they become completely oblivious to the privations they are causing themselves. Again, the alienating parent is typically unconcerned with the untoward psychological effects on the child of this rejection of the network of relatives and friends who previously provided the child with important psychological gratifications. Well would you expect anyone to feel concern about such a monster? This guy calls the child a liar and treats the child as a pawn in the battle.

The child’s campaign of denigration is basically a “house of cards.” It needs frequent booster shots if it is to survive against the child’s actual experiences with the target parent. Accordingly, the enlistment of a coterie of enablers and supporters can be useful in that many of these people can serve as assistant programmers, especially when the alienating parent does not have direct access to the child. These individuals can often be relied upon to testify in court about the despicable behavior of the targeted parent, especially with regard to his (her) abuse and/or neglect of the children, justifying thereby their complete rejection of them. So now lots of people are telling lies about the father and he is the only one telling the truth? Alienated parents may similarly provide the court with a parade of witnesses and a pile of affidavits that confirm ongoing, loving dedication throughout the child’s upbringing prior to the onset of the PAS. Sure Everyone is lining up to perjure themselves as people do. Judges who are aware of the PAS are less likely to say, “All the testimony of these witnesses, all their affidavits, just cancel one another out” and conclude that they were a waste of the court’s time. No that would just be judges who are biased against mothers.

The Three Levels of PAS Alienators

Whereas the diagnosis of PAS is based upon the level of symptoms in the child, the court’s decision for custodial transfer should be based primarily on the alienator’s symptom level, and only secondarily on the child’s level of PAS symptoms. The criteria I have found useful for assessing the alienator’s level are to be found in Table 2. In the course of the evaluation, the evaluator should attempt to assess how obsessed the alienating parent is with attempts to exclude the victim parent from the child’s life. And ignore the fact that the father could be an abuser or worse? Statistically they have to be wrong some of the time and what about that child or children? The evaluator should also assess, to the degree possible, such areas as the frequency of the programming process, the frequency of exclusionary maneuvers, and the frequency of the violation of court orders. And ignore a mothers natural tendency to protect a child. An assessment should be made of the successes the alienator has had in manipulating the legal system to enhance the programming. This is not usually difficult to do, because the alienator can predictably rely on court delays, court reluctance, and even court refusal to penalize the alienator via such measures as posting a bond, fines, community service, probation, house arrest, incarceration and custodial transfer that would prevent or interrupt further alienation. Last, the evaluator should assess the risk of intensification of programming if the alienator has gained primary custody. And you’re such a great evaluator yourself Richard because all you have to say is every child is a liar and every man should get awarded the children and you invented this crap.

The Judiciary’s Role in the Treatment of PAS Children

I know of no better example of the value of psychiatry and the law joining forces than when one is dealing with parental-alienation-syndrome (PAS) families. When the law and psychiatry work together, there is a good likelihood of success when dealing with these families. In contrast, an approach to this disorder in which either discipline works independently is almost doomed to failure. The therapist does not have the power of the court, and the court does not have the expertise of the mental health professional nor the opportunity to work in depth on an ongoing basis with these families. And you call yourself an expert as well! The judge in the courthouse is not available to reach out and deal with the details that are crucial to attend to if one is to be helpful to PAS families. And lawyers, although they are certainly more available to their clients than judges, are still not accessible to deal with the whole family, because they are ethically prohibited from having any direct contact with their adversary’s client. Furthermore, judges and lawyers do not have the training to provide these families with the specialized kind of psychological and psychiatric services they require. And you’re not much better!

Mental health professionals are basically impotent when it comes to requiring their patients to do anything. They can analyze, help people gain insight, suggest and recommend, but they have little if any power over their patients. They basically cannot order anybody to do anything. Rather, it is through the power of the judge—specifically by recommendations to the judge—that he (she) has potential power, and it is through the threat (I have no hesitation using the word) of reporting to the judge those who are not cooperating in the treatment program that such power is wielded. Yes the wrenching of children from their mother is something that you would enjoy doing. Since the late 1980s the role of courts in the treatment of PAS children has been described in many legal publications. And in reputable journals with derision. These authors have all emphasized the importance of courts working together with mental health professionals in treating such children (10-22) Why not treat the fathers who obviously have the problems…oh but thats right, everyone else is lying except the father.

Court-ordered Therapy

One of the problems that I have observed is the judiciary’s quickness to refer PAS families into treatment. There is no question that therapy has been oversold to the public and is far less efficient and effective than it is purported to be by most mental health professionals. And what exactly is it that you do. Make up quack syndromes and then walk away saying no treatment will help? Judges have often bought into this. I suspect that most judges do not have the respect for therapy that they profess in the courtroom, but it can serve as an ostensible solution to the case. By ordering everyone into therapy, they can make a quick decision and then move on to the next case. Most PAS indoctrinators are not candidates for therapy. Wow they can cure habitual sex offenders and murderers but you can’t cure PAS. The ONLY solution is removal of the child? Surely not. To be a proper candidate for meaningful therapy two provisos must be satisfied: 1) the individual has insight into the fact that he (she) has psychiatric problems and 2) the individual is motivated to alleviate these problems. PAS indoctrinators do not generally consider their brainwashing of their children to be a manifestation of a psychiatric problem. They do not recognize that what they are perpetrating is a form of emotional abuse, because poisoning a child against a loving parent is very much a form of emotional abuse. Might that be because the abuser is in fact the father and the mother is trying to protect the child who is telling the truth? Think about it…if what we’re saying is true, it all falls neatly into place doesn’t it. Accordingly, they do not satisfy the first proviso. Furthermore, without insight into the fact that they have a psychiatric problem, they do not have the motivation to change anything—especially in the realm of the PAS indoctrinational process. Accordingly, the second proviso is not satisfied either. Judges do not seem to appreciate that they cannot really order someone into meaningful treatment. They might be able to order somebody to spend some time in a room with a therapist who is naïve enough to take on such a patient, but they cannot order the person to be motivated to change. Furthermore, most people do not follow through with the order anyway, from the recognition that the judge is not going to follow up on it in the immediate future. What happens then is that the PAS indoctrinator continues to program the children, and the PAS becomes more deeply entrenched. Bullshit!

Guidelines to the Court for the Treatment of PAS Children

Table 3 provides what I consider to be the best guidelines for the judiciary to follow in PAS cases. Again, it is important to emphasize that the diagnosis of PAS is based upon the level of symptoms in the child, whereas the court’s decision for custodial transfer should be based primarily on the alienator’s symptom level and only secondarily on the child’s level of PAS symptoms. It is to be noted that the legal approaches take up much more space than the therapeutic. The reason for this is that the legal approaches in Table 3 serve as the foundation for the therapeutic. Without the court’s imposing proper restraints and restrictions on the alienating parent, the therapist is impotent. The reader should note that I recommend two plans of legal/therapeutic intervention in moderate PAS cases. In Plan A primary custody can still remain with the alienating parent. The court should appoint a therapist, but not just any therapist. The therapist must be someone who is knowledgeable about the special techniques necessary for the treatment of PAS children (7-8). Most important are the warnings to the alienating parent that the court will impose sanctions if there is any violation of the court’s orders regarding the children’s visitation with the alienated parent. In Table 3 are six levels (a. to f.) of recommended judicial action, all of which can be readily implemented by the court, because an alienating parent who does not cooperate with a visitation schedule is basically in contempt of court.

I have been testifying in PAS cases since the early 1980s. Oh so thats why you don’t advocate therapy or treatment because it’s much more lucrative testifying in court agianst mothers and children. Fucker. I have made recommendations along these lines in many cases. Not once has a court gone along with any of these six recommendations. On occasion, a court will threaten to implement one of these measures for getting alienating parents to comply with the court-ordered visitation schedule, but not once have I been in a case when a court has actually done so. Well they’re doing it now thanks to you! Alienating parents know well that courts are not likely to come down heavily upon them for violating a court-ordered visitation schedule. Without such consequences, they continue to program the children. They know well how to “work the system.” They violate court-ordered visitation schedules, and they know that they can most often do so with impunity. They recognize that the courts are slow, and that time is on their side. The longer they have access to the children, the more deeply entrenched will become their PAS symptoms.Yeah and everyone just loves going to court and paying lawyers so that blows that theory out the window.

This is the most common sequence, a sequence I have repeatedly seen: The alienator successfully alienates the children. The target parent goes to court (the time gap between the onset of the alienation and the court hearing is often a year). The trial drags on over a few weeks or a few months. The court orders an evaluation (often the evaluator is someone who may know little, if anything, about the PAS). Or someone who subscribes to a well researched and qualified differing viewpoint. The evaluation takes four-to-five months. Five-to- six months later there is another court hearing, at which point the judge orders therapy for everyone. (And the therapists may know nothing about PAS either.) The alienator does not go, nor does the alienator bring the children. The alienator recognizes that he (she) can do so with impunity. The alienated parent, in desperation, decides to bring the case back to court. By this time another six-to-nine months may have elapsed. Another hearing is scheduled six months to a year later. By this point, in typical cases, the PAS has become even more deeply entrenched in the children’s brain circuitry, and the children, by this time, have been alienated for three years or more (23). Back in court, the judge decides that the original evaluation is too old and orders a new evaluation. Sometimes this may be an update of the earlier one, and sometimes a new evaluator is brought in. In either case, the judge takes the position that any evaluator will do and is not concerned with whether the evaluator has any knowledge at all of the PAS. So if they don’t subscribe to your theories they don’t know what is going on? This takes another six months to a year. The new evaluator recommends more therapy. After the third or fourth round, the children are in their teens, and the judge (by this time the fourth or fifth one) throws up his (her) hands, claiming that there is nothing that can be done with teenagers. At that point, the children have become permanently alienated, and the judiciary has basically joined forces with the alienating parent in bringing about this all too common tragic result (24). Is this your story Richard and if it is, it explains who you are? At any point, had the court seen fit to impose the aforementioned sanctions program, it is highly likely that the PAS would have been prevented (in the early stages) and reversed (in the moderate forms, and even in some of the severe forms). This tragedy is being played out daily in courts of law throughout the United States, Canada, and many countries abroad. Yes and the kiddies all go and live with Daddy and has free reign to terrorise the kids for years longer.

It is in this realm that the judiciary has failed in its obligation to serve children’s best interests and to protect them from abusers. In the PAS situation, the abusers are the PAS indoctrinating parents. Poisoning a child to hate a loving and dedicated parent (how do you know it is a loving parent, because they tell you so? But the child is telling you something completley opposite. Why believe the father? is a form of emotional abuse per se. It is important to note that courts have been very eager to impose the same sanctions on parents (usually fathers) who renege on their financial commitments to their spouses and children. However, the same sanctions are rarely imposed when courts deal with PAS alienators. More money issues?

In some cases, courts have indeed implemented Plan B and transferred custody to the home of the alienated parent. Yes well thanks to you it is happening very regularly. Unfortunately, in most cases in which this transfer has taken place, the court has not recognized the importance of significant reduction of the alienator’s access to the children. Often, a traditional visitation schedule is implemented for the alienator. Under such circumstances the children continue to be alienated and thereby visit significant grief upon the target parent. The courts do well to view a PAS alienator like other kinds of abusers who require very restricted time frames of access, sometimes with supervision. And what about the real child abusers? You’re happy for the children to be given to them. I know that there are cases in which courts have so restricted PAS indoctrinators, but they are so uncommon that they are considered newsworthy by the media. I, myself, have had cases in which the court has transferred custody, but I have never personally seen one in which the court has also ordered extremely restrictive visitation for the programmer (such as two-to-four hours a week), and I have never seen a court ordered supervision for such an abusing parent.

The State Bar of Texas, recognizing the importance of both legal and mental health professionals having knowledge of the PAS, invited Warshak to write a PAS article for its Expert Witness Manual (25).

The PAS Therapist

With regard to the court-ordered therapy described in Table 3, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the court must order treatment with someone who is knowledgeable about the special techniques necessary for treating PAS children (7-8). More pedophiles like you Richard who like to force children to do things they don’t want to? However, such treatment will prove futile if the children still have significant access to the alienating parent. Yes that’s right it is in the childs best interests to have that bond broken! The analogy to youngsters who have been inveigled into a cult is applicable here. One cannot successfully treat such youngsters as long as they are living primarily in the cult compound. Seeing them once or twice a week for 45-60 minutes is not going to work as long as the children spend the rest of the week with the cult indoctrinators. And the last time children were forcibly removed from a cult there was such an outcry that they were eventually returned because it was MORALLY wrong to remove children from loving parents!! I often say that treating children under these circumstances is “like throwing pebbles at a tank.” Did you get this off Dr Phil? It just will not work, and courts must appreciate this. Therapy is not a panacea. What cases have you tried to treat, details please? Therapy is far less effective than some judges would like to believe. But it has no chance at all for success if the therapist is not familiar with the PAS and comfortable with the special techniques necessary for treating such families. Yes lets get the little kiddies alone with an abuser…it’s better all round for everyone that way!

It goes beyond the purposes of this article to describe in detail the special techniques necessary for therapists to utilize if they are to successfully treat PAS families. However, I will comment here on a few of the provisos that need to be satisfied for such therapists. They must be comfortable with waiving traditional confidentiality in that they must be able to communicate freely with attorneys and the court regarding what goes on in the treatment. So children are liars and don’t have any rights either.They must be comfortable with dictatorial approaches: “If the children are not dropped off at the father’s house by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, on Monday morning, I will notify the court that you have been in violation of the court-ordered visitation schedule,” “If the children are not returned at 7:00 p.m. Sunday evening, as ordered by the court, on Monday morning I will recommend that the court impose sanctions—starting with posting a bond, and then a fine. If that doesn’t work, I’m going to recommend that the court order you into a specified number of hours of community service. This should help you remember to comply with the court-ordered visitation schedule,” “If the children refuse to visit, I will consider you to be responsible, not the children. It is clear to me that you are the one who is pulling strings here, and are the primary reason why the children will not visit.” Yeah because bullying really works, it is how the father treated the mother for all of those years anyway. Poor mothers cop it from every angle from you don’t they? Therapists who are not comfortable using these authoritarian techniques, which are clearly at variance with traditional approaches, should not be treating PAS children. And courts who are not willing to order treatment with such therapists are not working in accordance with the children’s best interest. And you know all about what is best for children don’t you Richard? You know how they love sex and all that, remember?

Guardians ad Litem

Once again, a guardian ad litem who is not familiar with the PAS may cause serious psychological damage to children suffering with this disorder. And you don’t think calling a child a liar, breaking a special bond between mother and child and forcing that child to live with a person they hate is not causing serious psychological damage??? Really???A guardian ad litem who is not familiar with the causes, manifestations, and proper treatment of children with PAS will not serve their best interests. Or maybe they read up on your junk science and came to their own informed conclusion. You do like to attack anyone that doesn’t buy your theories don’t you? The guardian who takes pride in supporting what children profess they want is likely to perpetuate the psychopathology of children suffering with PAS. The guardian must recognize that PAS children need to be forced into doing things that they profess they do not want to do. Oh Richard that is very telling. Like did you force the little girl to …you know what. Because all children ARE really sexual aren’t they and need to be taught. You fucker! In order to do this, the guardian must “switch gears” and unlearn certain principles learned in law school regarding being a zealous supporter of one’s client’s requests and demands. Unlearn what is logical and proven in support of your junk? Sure! Guardians must be ever aware that the client is a child, not an adult. Because thats what you like isn’t it Richard? Furthermore, he (she) must be ever aware that the client is just not any child, but a child with a PAS. If these considerations are taken into account, then the guardian will be comfortable doing just the opposite of what the client requests. Just like that? Without evaluation, without checking out if the child is truthful? You just do the opposite…wow that is responsible. Such a guardian must be comfortable with the children’s criticisms and must be willing to be used as the excuse for the children saying to the alienating parent: “I really hate that lawyer. He says I must visit my father (mother). I really hate him (her). You know, Mommy (Daddy), I love you, and I don’t want to go there, but that stupid lawyer makes me go.” In this way, the guardian is used as a vehicle for assuaging the child’s guilt over disloyalty to the alienator implied by any willingness to visit with the alienated parent.

The guardian who is truly working for the children’s best interests will be able to say to the court: “It is not in these children’s best interests for me to rubber stamp what they claim they want, for me to zealously support their professions of refusal to visit their (mother/father). It is in their best interests that the court order them to visit, and they should be put on notice that if they do not visit, their (father/mother) will be considered in contempt of court and punished by the court.” Guardians who are comfortable with this approach to their clients will indeed be serving their clients best interests. And exactly what did happen to a child best interests? Who now knows what that is? Only the father it seems if you believe this crap.

The PAS vs. PA Controversy

A parent accused of inducing a PAS in a child is likely to engage the services of a lawyer who may invoke the argument that there is no such thing as a PAS. Well is that because it’s just a quack theory and proven junk science? The reasoning goes like this: “If there is no such thing as the PAS, then there is no programmer, and therefore my client cannot be accused of brainwashing the children. Or gee whizz the Dad might be an abuser (like you Richard, whatsamatta did we touch a nerve?)” This is an extremely important point, and I cannot emphasize it strongly enough. It is a central element in the controversy over the PAS, a controversy that has been played out in courtrooms not only in the United States, but in many other countries as well. And if the allegedly dubious lawyer can demonstrate that the PAS is not listed in DSM-IV, then the position is considered “proven.” The lawyer may have seen PAS in many cases and even argued for its existence in them. He (she) may recognize as well that there were too few articles on the PAS in the early 1990s to warrant submission to the DSM-IV which was published in 1994, but that it certainly will be a candidate for DSM-V, scheduled to be published in the year 2010. The lawyer may recognize that there are now 143 peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature on the PAS (26) and that there are now 70 legal citations from courts of law that have recognized the disorder, including two Frye Test hearings in which the court has ruled that the PAS has gained general recognition in the relevant scientific community and warrants admissibility in courts of law (27). And all are criminally negligent and need to pay for the damge they have done. Such a lawyer may actually believe that such deceitfulness is serving the client. The lawyer hopes, however, that the judge will be taken in by this specious argument and will then conclude that if there is no PAS, hence there is no programming, and so the client is thereby exonerated. And If I tell everyone that there is PAS then nobody listens to child and everyone calls the child a liar, right Richard?. Substituting the term parental alienation (PA) is done in the service of this misrepresentation perpetrated upon the court. PAS demands investigation for an alienator. PA does not. No alienator is identified, the sources are vaguer, and the causes could lie with the mother, the father, or both. But what you really mean is mother .The drawback here is that the evaluator who only uses PA may not provide the court with proper information about the cause of the children’s alienation. It lessens the likelihood, then, that the court will have the proper data with which to make its decisions (28). Warshak (29) has also addressed himself to this controversy. Or the child might actually be telling the truth…as inconceivable as that is to you.

Conclusions

Indoctrinating parents are the primary initiators of PAS in their children. But you really mean mothers don’t you. The children, in order to protect themselves from rejection from their alienating parent, contribute to the expansion and intensification of PAS campaigns of denigration. Why would children think they would be rejected? On what basis do you say this? Or is it something you pulled out of your ass? Lawyers who work within the adversary system, although they are doing what they were taught to do in law school, that is, zealously support their clients, are playing an active role in promulgating and entrenching the PAS. They join the coterie of supporters and enablers that surround PAS indoctrinators. Some even do this when they recognize that their client is a PAS indoctrinator. Maybe they just don’t buy into junk science? Although such lawyers may get an A+ from their law school professors, they get an F- from this medical school professor. They are contributing to the corruption of youth, the poisoning of young minds, and the attenuation and even destruction of the important parent-child bond (7-8, 30-33). But my comments about their role go beyond the purposes of this article. So you’re a lawyer hater too, must be something from your past? It’s also not very professional to attack a profession for not buying into your quack theories when they have no logic.

Therapists also play an important role in the etiology and development of the PAS. This is especially done by their empowerment of children. Many sanctimoniously profess that they really listen to children (as opposed to the rest of us who do not). Richard you’re obviously not listening to children because you call all children liars! They profess that they really respect what children want (with the implication that the rest of us do not). What they are basically doing is contributing to pathological empowerment, which is a central factor in the development and perpetuation of the PAS (6). Listening to children is pathological empowerment? Is that how you got the kiddies to keep the bad bad secrets? Again, it is beyond the purposes of this article to describe their role. PAS indoctrinators know well that they can rely upon most therapists to empower their children in this way so that they are readily duped into joining the parade of enablers and supporters. Or maybe they are trained to listen and evaluate all the players and not discard everything a child says as a lie.

One would hope that by the time the parade of enablers reaches the courtroom that the judiciary would recognize what is going on and bring an end to this abomination. Unfortunately, this rarely proves to be the case. Rather, the judiciary gets drawn in and contributes immeasurably to the perpetuation and entrenchment of the PAS, often with the result that children become permanently alienated from a loving and kind parent. Isn’t that why judges are there, to judge? Compelling evidence for this is to be found in my follow-up study of 99 PAS children. When courts chose to reduce the children’s access to the alienating parent, especially by a transfer of custody, there was an alleviation of symptoms in all cases. Of course there was because the father threatened to bash the crap out the child if they didn’t. Let’s ask the same children in 5 or 10 years time when they are independent and have no fear of recrimination from the abuser. In contrast, when the court chose not to restrict such access, there was an intensification of the PAS, with the result of permanent destruction of bonding in over 91 percent of cases. This study provides compelling evidence that judicial decisions play a vital role in what happens to PAS children (24).

In closing then, it is my belief that the PAS is primarily a product of the utilization of the adversary system for adjudicating child-custody disputes. A parent’s primary reason for indoctrinating a PAS into a child is to gain leverage in a court of law. In countries in which people cannot afford to take such disputes to court, there is little public recognition of PAS. Yes and those countries would be where women have no power? Somehow, some way, they resolve these disputes without the utilization of the courtroom proceedings. Yep the men just take the children and the women are powerless to fight back. PAS is a widespread phenomenon in western Europe and, until recently, it was not seen in eastern Europe. Although there were many reasons for this difference, the primary one relates to the fact that people in eastern Europe just did not (and still do not) have enough money to hire lawyers and take such disputes to court. It is reasonable to predict that with economic improvement, eastern European countries will see more PAS. I know this is now happening in the Czech Republic. Furthermore, PAS cases in which the parents are from different countries and the alienating parent abducts the child to his (her) homeland are becoming increasingly common. Many such cases have already been brought before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Sobal has dealt with this issue (34). I believe that if courtrooms were not available for the adjudication of child-custody disputes, some children would certainly suffer, but more would be better off. Children are already suffering because of you! Years of exposure to and embroilment in courtroom litigation scar most children. Well that is easy to stop. To recommend that the courtroom doors be closed to such parents at this point is not realistic. However, I am convinced that such blockage, such unavailability, would protect more children than it would harm. You’re advocating children not having ANY contact with one parent, the one they have the close bond with, how can that possibly benefit anyone except the father? The number of children who would suffer untoward consequences from not having a court of law available to protect them would be small compared to the benefits enjoyed by those who would not have that forum available to them. In short, the system as it exists today is doing PAS families much more harm than good and is not serving the best interests of the children. Yes lets take more children away from protective mothers because that is good for everyone right? It has been the purpose of this article to focus on the judiciary’s role in the perpetuation of this tragic situation.Well Mr Gardner it was assumed you committed suicide because of your pedophilic tendancies but maybe you realised what a beast you unleashed upon society with you PAS bullshit. You are a criminal.

References

Gardner RA: Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum 1985; 29:3-7

Gardner RA: Child custody, in Basic Handbook of Child Psychiatry, Vol. V. Edited by Noshpitz JD. New York, Basic Books, pp. 637-646, 1987

Clawar SS and Rivlin BV: Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children. Chicago, Illinois, American Bar Association, 1991.

Gardner RA: The recent gender shift in PAS indoctrinators. News for Women in Psychiatry 2001; 19:11-13

Gardner RA: Judges interviewing children in custody/visitation litigation. New Jersey Family Lawyer 1987; 7:153ff

Gardner RA: The empowerment of children in the development of the parental alienation syndrome. The American Journal of Forensic Psychology 2002; 20: 5-26

Gardner RA: Therapeutic Interventions for Children with Parental Alienation Syndrome. Cresskill, New Jersey, Creative Therapeutics, Inc., 2001

Gardner RA: The Parental Alienation Syndrome: Second Edition. Cresskill, New Jersey, Creative Therapeutics, Inc., 1998

Gardner RA: Differentiating between PAS and bona fide abuse/neglect. The American Journal of Family Therapy 1999; 27:195-212

Palmer NR: Legal recognition of the parental alienation syndrome. The American Journal of Family therapy 1988;16(4):361-363.

Byrne K: Brainwashing in custody cases: the parental alienation syndrome. Australian Family Lawyer 1989;4(3):1-4.

Ward P and Harvey JC: Family wars: the alienation of children. New Hampshire Bar Journal 1993, March;30.

Cooke L: Parental Alienation Syndrome: a “Hidden” Facet of Custody Disputes, First Place: Canadian Bar Association Lieff Award 1995.

Turkat ID: Relocation as a strategy to interfere with the child-parent relationship. American Journal of Family Law 1996;11:39-41

Waldron KH and Joanis DE: Understanding and collaboratively treating parental alienation syndrome. Journal of Family Law 1996;10:121-133.

Walsh MR and Bone JM: Parental alienation syndrome: an age-old custody problem. The Florida Bar Journal 1997;LXXI(6):93-96.

Borris EB: Interference with parental rights of noncustodial parent as grounds for modification of child custody. Divorce Litigation 1997;1-13.

Willbourne C and Cull L: The emerging problem of parental alienation. Family Law (British Publication) December, 1997;807-808.

Maidment S: Parental alienation syndrome—a judicial response? Family Law May 1988;264- 266.Lowenstein LF: Parental alienation syndrome: what the legal profession should know. Medico-Legal Journal 1998;66(4)151-161.

Bone JM and Walsh, MR: Parental alienation syndrome: how to detect it and what to do about it. The Florida Bar Journal 1999;LXXIII(3):44-48.

Berns S: Parents behaving badly: parental alienation syndrome in the family court magic bullet or poisoned chalice? Australian Journal of Family Law 2001;15(3):191-214.

Gardner RA: The embedment in the brain circuitry phenomenon (ebcp). Jnl American Academy of Psychoanalysis 1997; 25:151-176

Gardner RA: Should courts order PAS children to visit/reside with the alienated parent? A follow-up study. The American Journal of Forensic Psychology 2001; 19:60-106

Warshak RA: Psychological syndromes: parental alienation syndrome. Expert Witness Manual, Chapter 3-32. Dallas, Texas, State Bar of Texas, Family Law Section, 1999.

Gardner RA: Articles in Peer-Review Journals and Published Books on the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). www.rgardner.com/refs/pas_peerreviewarticles.html.

Gardner RA: Testimony Concerning the Parental Alienation Syndrome Has Been Admitted in Courts of Law in Many States and Countries. www.rgardner.com/refs/PAS_LegalCites.html

Gardner RA: Parental alienation syndrome vs. parental alienation: which diagnosis should evaluators use in child-custody litigation? The Amer Journal of Family Therapy 2002; 30:101- 123

Warshak RA: Current controversies regarding parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 2001;19(3):29-59.

Gardner RA: Child Custody Litigation: A Guide for Parents and Mental Health Professionals. Cresskill, New Jersey, Creative Therapeutics, Inc., 1985

Gardner RA: Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation. Cresskill, New Jersey, Creative Therapeutics, Inc., 1989

Gardner RA: The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Mental Health Professionals. Cresskill, New Jersey, Creative Therapeutics, Inc., 1992

Gardner RA: Testifying in Court: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals. Cresskill, New Jersey, Creative Therapeutics, Inc., 1996.

Sobal B: Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention Treaty: does it create a loophole for parental alienation syndrome—an insidious abduction? The International Lawyer, Fall 2001;35(3):997- 1025.

Wife Beheaded

2009-02-16T16:39:00.000-08:00

Second Degree Murder?

Muslim Television Channel Founder Charged With Beheading His Wife

Monday, February 16, 2009
By Joshua Rhett Miller

Muzzammil Hassan, right, founder of Bridges TV, is charged with murder in the beheading of his wife, Aasiya Hassan, left, in Orchard Park, N.Y.

The estranged wife of a Muslim television executive feared for her life after filing for divorce last month from her abusive husband, her attorney said — and was then found beheaded Thursday in his upstate New York television studio.

Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37, was found dead on Thursday at the offices of Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., near Buffalo. Her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, has been charged with second-degree murder.

"She was very much aware of the potential ramification her filing for divorce might have," said attorney Elizabeth DiPirro, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding. "But she wanted to proceed despite the potential for it to erupt."

DiPirro said the couple had "physical confrontations off and on" for their entire eight-year marriage that had recently escalated to death threats. The grounds for divorce were "cruel and inhuman treatment," DiPirro said, referring to mulitple prior incidents of abuse. She declined to elaborate.

"We were worried about the situation becoming volatile," DiPirro said.

The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6, DiPirro said. Muzzammil Hassan also has two children, ages 17 and 18, from a previous marriage.

DiPirro said Aasiya was a brave mother who sought a better life for her young children.

"She was a very brave woman who was extremely devoted to her children and had come to this decision after a long, thoughtful process and was determined to change her life for herself and her children," DiPirro said.

Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said authorities continue to search for the murder weapon.

Asked if the slaying is being investigated as an honor killing, Benz replied, "It's safe to say we're investigating all the angles we can, all the possibilities in conjunction with the district attorney's office. We're looking at whatever we might come across."

Benz said officers were called to the couple's home on Feb. 6, when Aasiya Hassan had obtained an order of protection barring her husband from the home.

"He was served with divorce papers that day at the [television studio]," Benz said. "He came back to the residence and was pounding on doors and broke one window … He left the premises that night."

Benz said Hassan's body was found on an office floor at the Orchard Park television station. He declined to discuss further details of the killing other than to say investigators believe Muzzammil Hassan acted alone.

"At this point, that's what we believe," Benz told FOXNews.com.

Muzzammil Hassan, who founded Bridges TV in November 2004 to counter anti-Islam stereotypes, surrendered to police Thursday. Hassan touted the network as the "first-ever full-time home for American Muslims," according to a press release.

"Every day on television we are barraged by stories of a 'Muslim extremist, militant, terrorist, or insurgent,'" Hassan said in the 2004 release. "But the stories that are missing are the countless stories of Muslim tolerance, progress, diversity, service and excellence that Bridges TV hopes to tell."

Hassan, who was arraigned Thursday, remains jailed at the Erie County Holding Center. No bail had been set and an attorney for Hassan was not listed, according to a jail spokeswoman. Hassan has a court hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, Benz said.

Dr. Khalid Qazi, a friend of the couple and president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said the channel had been under financial strain.

"I cannot believe it — I know them both well," Qazi told the Buffalo News. "I cannot get a handle on this."

Samira Khatib, a friend of the couple, said Aasiya Hassan encouraged her husband to launch the cable channel.

"They were really more than married — they encouraged each other in everything," Khatib told the Buffalo News. "She was such a lovely person."

According to a Web site for Bridges TV, Aasiya Hassan "came up with the idea" for the network. The Web site, which shows an undated photo of the couple, identifies her maiden name as Aasiya Zubair.

"Bridges TV is deeply shocked and saddened by the murder of Aasiya [Zubair] Hassan and subsequent arrest of Muzzammil Hassan," a statement posted late Monday read. "Our deepest condolences and prayers go out to the families of the victim. We request that their right to privacy be respected."

Another Florida Mess

2009-02-12T20:25:00.000-08:00

FL Mom Loses Custody Battle-Now May Never See Daughter Again

February 13, 2009 — batteredmomslosecustody

Haleigh Cummings was reported missing from her father, Ronald Cumming’s home on Tuesday, February 10th, 2009. About 3 a.m., the father’s 17 year old girlfriend, Mistie Croslin, reportedly discovered that the 5 year old girl was missing. There appear to be some conflicting reports regarding the disappearance. Either the girlfriend or the child went to the bathroom at approximately 3 a.m., right around the time the father was reportedly getting home from work. This was allegedly when the child was discovered to be missing. The girl’s younger brother, Ronald Jr. was also in the home, but was not involved and is reportedly alright and accounted for.

Besides this being another disturbing story of yet another child missing, especially in Florida, there are some other disturbing issues, such as the fact that the father was quite proud of “winning” a custody battle and taking these children from their mother. The father also claims to have had “false allegations” made against him by the mother and grandmother. The father also has an underage girlfriend of 17 living with him. (Isn’t this allegedly statutory rape?) The father also insulted and verbally abused the girlfriend to the police by reportedly telling officers that his “dumb bitch girlfriend” told him Haleigh was gone when he got home from work.

The mother, Crystal Sheffield, had not seen or spoken to her daughter for two weeks, due to the father having custody. Crystal had reported domestic violence, but like so many women found herself re-victimized in the courts. Instead of receiving protection and help, this mom did not receive a protective order due to claims of insufficient evidence per Baker County Records. Later, it appears she was prosecuted for trying to get protection. This is very common where women who have children cannot receive protection. They are unfairly portrayed as being vindictive instead of being truly in fear for their own safety and the safety of their children. The result of this horrible re-victimization in court is the loss of custody of the children. Perhaps this custody arrangement was NOT in the children’s best interest.

The Fox News interview with Greta Van Susteren is heartbreaking.

Video interview with mom, Crystal Sheffield, and grandma, Marie Griffis

Transcript from Fox News interview with Greta Van Susteren

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Tonight, where is little Haleigh? She’s only 5, a little girl, and her whereabouts a mystery, a terrifying mystery. With every tick of the clock, fear intensifies. Now, here’s what we know. At 3:00 AM Monday morning, the girlfriend of Haleigh’s father notices the girl missing from the bed the two were sharing. About 25 minutes later, Haleigh’s father reportedly comes home from work. His girlfriend tells him Haleigh is gone. Then two minutes later, at 3:27 AM, the girlfriend calls 911 and reports Haleigh missing.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just woke up, and our back door was open, and I can’t find my daughter.

911 OPERATOR: Can’t find what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My daughter.

911 OPERATOR: OK. What’s your address?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:Green Lane (ph) (INAUDIBLE)

911 OPERATOR: What’s the numerical?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The numerical? What’s that?

911 OPERATOR: The number. Green Lane?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

911 OPERATOR: OK, when did you last see her?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We just, like — you know, it was about 10:00 o’clock. She was sleeping (INAUDIBLE)

911 OPERATOR: OK. How old is your daughter?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She’s 5.

911 OPERATOR: OK. What was she last seen wearing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

911 OPERATOR: Ma’am?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She was in her pajamas. We were sleeping.

911 OPERATOR: OK. All right. You said your back door was wide open?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, with a brick. Like, there was a brick on the floor. Like, when I went to sleep, the door was not like that.

911 OPERATOR: OK, the back door — listen to me. Your back door was wide open? What are you talking about a brick?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)

911 OPERATOR: What is the brick?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It’s on the back door, on the — on the stairs (INAUDIBLE) like, a walkway?

911 OPERATOR: And there was a brick laying there?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. It’s still there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) come on!

911 OPERATOR: We got them coming. Tell him we got them coming.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They’re coming.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: Since that 911 call, a massive search has fanned out, looking for the toddler by land, by water and door to door, but no results. Joining us by phone is Putnam County sheriff Jeff Hardy. Good evening, Sheriff. And last night, or at least some point after that 911 call was received and sheriffs reported to the home, I understand some tracks were seen, sir?

SHERIFF JEFF HARDY, PUTNAM COUNTY: Greta, are you talking about the bloodhounds and a little bit of the tracking? Is that what you’re referring to?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, and there was also apparently a footprint in the dirt. I don’t know if that was a recent print or whether that was an old one. But what can you tell me about efforts to at least search to see whether or not you can determine where the child may have gone?

HARDY: Greta, we called in a team of bloodhounds, and they — several different bloodhound units. And they came out. And I’m sure you know these bloodhounds, their noses are very sensitive, and they did follow some tracking, but we don’t know exactly how old the tracks could have been. And as far as the footprint that you’re talking about, that’s news to me. I don’t know of any footprint at this point.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. I think what it was, was some sort of — at least, there was one report there was some — some sort of footprint or step in the dirt that might have been the child’s, and nothing more. But we’re hearing lots of different information. And obviously, Sheriff, you’re the one on the story, so I’ll defer to you on that. All right, in terms of the child missing, have there been any tips that the child has been spotted in the last 24 hours?

HARDY: No, ma’am, we don’t have any tips, but we are following up on all leads that we’re receiving. In fact, we’re in the middle of conducting several interviews as we speak right now, Greta.

VAN SUSTEREN: One of — the person who first reported the child missing was the girlfriend to the father. Her name is Misty. She was — she apparently had gone — she had last seen the child about 10:00 PM the night before and that the child was sleeping in the same bed with her? Is that correct?

HARDY: That’s what she’s telling us, Greta, yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was any — was the — was there another child in the bed, as well? Because I know there’s another child in the home.

HARDY: No, there was a brother in the home, a younger brother.

VAN SUSTEREN: But he wasn’t in the same bed with the girlfriend and the missing child?

HARDY: No, ma’am. He was — I believe he was in another room, another bed or another — another bedding area. I don’t believe he was on the same bed, no.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. So according to least what I hear, and correct me if I’m wrong, she wakes up or something about 3:00 o’clock, notices the child missing, but a phone call is not made for 27 minutes to 911. Is that correct?

HARDY:Well, I can verify the fact that our 911 call did come in at 3:27 AM. As far as exactly the timeline of when she woke up and discovered the child missing, I don’t know. She’s saying it is some time after 3:00.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is the girlfriend a person of interest to you at this point?

HARDY:Greta, we’re not ruling out anybody. You know, we have teams of law enforcement officers out here right now. We’ve continued our grounds searches by air and by water. We still have dive teams. We had them out here today. Again, the FBI’s out here assisting us with other — just numerous local and state officials and officers from across northeast Florida. So we’re not ruling anybody out at this point.

VAN SUSTEREN: Sheriff, thank you, sir. And good luck, sir.

HARDY: And thank you for your time.

VAN SUSTEREN:Joining us live from Florida, Haleigh’s mother, Crystal Sheffield, and the toddler’s grandmother, Marie Griffis. Crystal, I know you that you’re terrible distressed and worried this evening. Do you — is there any likelihood in your mind that this child simply just got up and walked off?

CRYSTAL SHEFFIELD, MOTHER: No, there is not. She would not do that.

VAN SUSTEREN: Crystal, when was the last time you saw your daughter?

SHEFFIELD: Two weeks ago.

VAN SUSTEREN: Have you spoken to her in the last two weeks?

SHEFFIELD: No, I have not.

VAN SUSTEREN: When you saw her, did she indicate or say to you anything to suggest there were problems in the home? I know that she’s living with her father, or staying with her father and her father’s girlfriend. Did she say there were any problems in the home?

SHEFFIELD: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: Marie, when was the last time that you saw your grandchild?

MARIE GRIFFIS, GRANDMOTHER: It was two weeks ago when they got their visitation to come stay with us (INAUDIBLE) We pick them up Friday night 6:00 o’clock and we return them Sunday at 6:00 o’clock.

VAN SUSTEREN: Marie, do you live in the area or do you live out of state?

GRIFFIS:We live in Florida, but it’s Baker County, Glenn St. Mary (ph), Florida. We live about an hour and 45 minutes from here.

VAN SUSTEREN: Marie, do you know of any problems in that home?

GRIFFIS: In the past, Haleigh and Junior have told us that, you know, they’ve been hit and stuff like that, but up to this point, everything was fine.

VAN SUSTEREN: Crystal, have you spoken to the father of your child or his girlfriend in the last 24 hours?

SHEFFIELD: I spoke to him yesterday. I have not spoken to his girlfriend.

VAN SUSTEREN: What did he say to you?

SHEFFIELD: He just said that — he told me he was sorry and that if he would have been home from work that it would have never happened.

VAN SUSTEREN: Marie, what do you think has happened? I know that there are a lot of theories, a lot of sex offenders in the area. What are you sort of — you know, where is your suspicion tonight, Marie?

GRIFFIS: My suspicions is why is it two children was in the bed with this 17-year-old girl, and somebody comes into the home and picks a child up that’s laying right next to you and you don’t know where she went. You get up and go to the bathroom and come back and she’s not there. Well, was she there when she got up and went to the bathroom? Why don’t we have that information? What happened? It don’t take but 15, 20 seconds to go to the bathroom, and it’s right there in the bedroom, also. So I wonder what role Misty plays in this.

VAN SUSTEREN: Have you ever met her, Marie?

GRIFFIS: I have never officially been introduced to her. I saw her in Ronald’s car one weekend when we took Haleigh and Junior back to their dad on a Sunday, and she was sitting in the car. And I don’t know who she is, never spoke to her. All I know is Haleigh and Junior told me that they liked her, that she was nice to them.

GRIFFIS: Crystal, do you know the girlfriend at all? I mean, have you ever, like, had any conversations with her in any depth? Do you know what kind of person she is, anything about her?

SHEFFIELD: No, I don’t. I’ve talked to her. She seemed like a really nice person, but I’ve never sat down and had a conversation with her. And the kids told me that…

VAN SUSTEREN: Marie, I don’t mean to…

SHEFFIELD: … They loved her.

VAN SUSTEREN: How long, Crystal, has she been in the children’s lives?

SHEFFIELD: Probably four to six months? I’m not really sure.

VAN SUSTEREN: Marie, I don’t want to — you know, because I’m asking questions about the girlfriend (INAUDIBLE) you know, think that she’s the only person I’m curious about. I mean, obviously, everybody — we’re curious about everybody tonight. Do you know anything, Marie, about any neighbors at all, people who live nearby that have shown any particular interest to this child at all, Marie, do you know?

GRIFFIS: The only thing we know about any neighbors is there were some kids that lived next door that Haleigh and Junior played with, and they were seen out playing in the yard around 5:00 o’clock yesterday — or Monday evening. I guess it was Monday evening. I can’t even remember anymore. The days are just running together now.

VAN SUSTEREN: Crystal, the father of your child was at work when, apparently, Haleigh disappeared. What kind of work does he do, Crystal?

SHEFFIELD: I’m not sure. All I know is he runs a crane.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you know, Marie, why he was out until 3:00 o’clock in the morning? I mean, what kind of work would have him out that late, or that early, depending on how you characterize it?

GRIFFIS:He — we was ere told he worked from 3:00 to 3:00, so I supposed it’s a 12-hour shift. And he’s a crane operator working for a place called PDM Bridge (ph).

VAN SUSTEREN: Do either of you know if the girlfriend has a job or does any kind of work at all?

SHEFFIELD: No.

GRIFFIS: No.

VAN SUSTEREN:Crystal, Marie, thank you both very much. And you know, I certainly hope we can find this child. And there’s so much publicity being cast on it that maybe someone knows something and will call in maybe we’ll have good news on this soon. Thank you both.

SHEFFIELD: Thank you.

GRIFFIS: Yes, thank you very much, too.

VAN SUSTEREN: Up next, more breaking news coverage on the search for little Haleigh. The toddler’s father will be here to go “On the Record.”

Plus: Do you like pork? Not to eat, but as part of the massive stimulus bill. Well, guess what? A powerful senator says you don’t care about pork. What? Is that true? Or is he drinking? We’ll see.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAN SUSTEREN: We continue our breaking news coverage on the disappearance of little Haleigh Cummings. She was reported missing 3:30 AM yesterday morning. Now, here’s what we know, is that the father’s girlfriend apparently last saw the child about 10:00 PM on Monday night when she went to bed and the child was in the same bed. About 3:00 o’clock in the morning, the girlfriend says that she got up to go to the bathroom, noticed the child was missing. About 27 minutes later, at 3:27 AM, the father in the meantime had come home from work, according to the parents — according — has — was at work and he called 911, and the child has been missing — or reported missing at that time.

Now, Haleigh’s father, Ronald Cummings, joins us live, along with Crystal Cummings, Ronald’s sister. Good evening to both of you. And Ronald, I know how distressed you are because everyone has told me. And the only thing I can hope is that we can at least shed more light on it and get more information so that people call in with tips.

So let me — let’s — let me try to ask you some questions about it. What time did you arrive home, Ronald, on Tuesday morning?

RONALD CUMMINGS, FATHER: Approximately 3:30.

VAN SUSTEREN: And when you walked in the door — take me through every step. You walked in the door. Was your girlfriend up at that point?

RONALD CUMMINGS: Yes. I never walked through the door. I pulled in the yard. She — the door was open. She was standing there and waiting on me. I asked her what she was still doing up, and she then told me that the back — she got up to use the restroom, and the back door was wide open and that my daughter was missing.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was the child — was your daughter missing when she got up to use the restroom, or between the time she got up to use the restroom and returned to bed? Did she tell you that?

RONALD CUMMINGS: I’m not sure. I never asked.

VAN SUSTEREN: Crystal, when was the last time…

RONALD CUMMINGS: I’m just worried about where she’s at.

VAN SUSTEREN: No, I understand that. Crystal, when was the last time you saw this child?

CRYSTAL CUMMINGS, AUNT: A couple weeks ago.

VAN SUSTEREN: Crystal, have you ever noticed the child wanting to wander off or any people wanting — in the neighborhood, unusual people paying close attention to her that you thought was peculiar?

CRYSTAL CUMMINGS: No. She wouldn’t wander off.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ronald, do you agree that she would not just wander off?

RONALD CUMMINGS: Absolutely. I know my daughter like the back of my hand. I’ve raised her since the day she was 2 years old by myself. I know for a fact she would not wander off alone during in the daylight, much less at night. She’s afraid of the dark.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ronald, has anyone ever wandered into your home, any strangers into your home?

RONALD CUMMINGS: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ronald, always in every investigation, the person that people focus on are the people who last saw the child, so obviously, your girlfriend has got — you know, there’s a lot of focus on her. Is there any reason that you have any suspicion that your girlfriend knows more than she’s saying, Ronald?

RONALD CUMMINGS: No, there is not. And I would like for a lot of the false allegations to be discarded. There’s been a lot of false allegations made by the mother and her mother. And I just don’t — I don’t appreciate it. It’s not a custody battle. This here is about finding a 5-year-old missing child, my daughter.

VAN SUSTEREN: It’s unusual for a father to have custody. Why do you — did you win custody in a battle for this child?

RONALD CUMMINGS: Absolutely, I did.

VAN SUSTEREN: What happened? Explain — explain — you know — you know, usually, the mother gets the custody. Why did the court give you custody of your child?

RONALD CUMMINGS: The only way I can honestly answer you that without being rude to others is they chose the better parent and the one who could provide better for the two children.

VAN SUSTEREN: Crystal, what’s your — what’s your — what do you think in your heart and your mind tonight as to where this child is and what happened? What makes the most sense to you?

CRYSTAL CUMMINGS: I don’t — really can’t tell you what happened to her. I mean, I think someone took her. I just want them to bring her back.

VAN SUSTEREN: Ronald, let me ask you the same question. What’s your theory tonight? And I realize this is a very fluid situation, but what’s your — what do you think is the trail we should go down to look for this child? What do you think happened?

RONALD CUMMINGS: Somebody broke into my house and stole my daughter. I know because I specifically locked those doors before I left for work, and my child cannot unlock the deadbolt on that door because I have got the hole cut in a specific place where you have to force the door shut to get it to lock all the way. And I know it was locked all the way. I checked it myself. And she does not open the door for strangers or wander alone in the dark, nothing like that. So somebody broke into my home and stole my child.

VAN SUSTEREN: Was the door broken when you came home? Was that lock broken when you came home?

RONALD CUMMINGS: No. Obviously, a crowbar or something was used. I’m not sure. You’ll have to speak more with the detectives about what was used or how it was done. I’m not sure.

VAN SUSTEREN:Ronald, Crystal, thank you both very much, and I very much hope that we’re going to have good news and that child will be found, your daughter, Ronald, very soon and in good health. Thank you both.

CRYSTAL CUMMINGS: Thank you.

RONALD CUMMINGS: Yes, thank you.

Florida Sheriff: Girlfriend of Missing 5-Year-Old’s Father Took Polygraph

Thursday , February 12, 2009

The 17-year-old girlfriend of a missing Florida girl’s father has taken a lie detector test, a local sheriff said, but he wouldn’t reveal whether she passed.

Putnam County Sheriff Jeff Hardy declined to disclose the results Thursday of the polygraph given to Misty Croslin in the disappearance of Haleigh Ann-Marie Cummings, 5.

“Misty has been interviewed extensively and yes, she did take a polygraph,” he said.

Croslin was the one who reportedly discovered that Haleigh had vanished from her bed before dawn on Tuesday.

She is one of several people police and the FBI have interviewed in the case. All have been offered the chance to take a lie detector test, according to Putnam County Sheriff’s spokesman Gary Bowling.

Click here for photos.

Detectives believe Haleigh was abducted — and they aren’t overlooking anyone, including family members, as suspects.

Haleigh is 3 feet tall with blond hair and brown eyes. She was last seen wearing a pink shirt and underwear.

Hardy said ground searches continued for a third day on Thursday. Bloodhounds have been used, but haven’t turned up any clear evidence.

“We have nothing definitive to say where the child is based on the bloodhounds,” Hardy told reporters at a Thursday news conference.

He said evidence has been collected from the mobile home where Haleigh lived with her 3-year-old brother Junior, her father Ronald Cummings and Croslin — but declined to describe it.

“I can’t discuss what evidence was taken into custody,” Hardy said. “I don’t want to reveal what was found or not found.”

Ronald Cummings, told FOX News’ Greta Van Susteren that Croslin was watching his daughter while he was at work as a crane operator.

According to Cummings, Haleigh had gotten up to use the bathroom. When she didn’t return, Croslin went to look for her and noticed the back door was open.

“I locked doors before I left for work. My child cannot unlock the deadbolt, you have to force the door shut all the way … and she doesn’t open the door to strangers,” Cummings said.

Croslin and Cummings called 911 after discovering the girl was missing, according to the police report. The tapes were released Wednesday.

In addition to Croslin, Cummings and the child’s mother, Crystal Sheffield, as well as several others have been questioned in the case.

“It is never safe to say that a family member is not a suspect,” Bowling said Wednesday. “However, all the world is a suspect right now.”

Police have ruled out the possibility that the girl ran away.

“This child didn’t voluntarily walk out of her home. If she did, someone took her,” Bowling said.

Cummings, who has custody of Haleigh and her brother, said his daughter wouldn’t leave on her own.

“I know somebody took her. I know for a fact she didn’t wander off — she’s afraid of the dark,” Cummings told NBC’s “Today” on Thursday.

Police said house-to-house searches of the neighborhood Wednesday found no evidence that the child wandered away.

Police had never been called to the home in the past — but there havebeen prior problems with Cummings, Croslin and the children, according to Putnam County Capt. Steve Rose.

“There have been some investigations done through the department of children and family,” Rose told FOX News on Wednesday. He didn’t elaborate.

John Harrell, spokesman for the northeast region of the Florida Department of Children and Families, said Thursday that his agency “was involved with the family.” Harrell would not offer any details, citing state confidentiality laws.

Sheffield’s mother, Marie, told Van Susterenthat the children seemed to be doing well living with their father.

“Haleigh told us they’ve been hit, and stuff like that, but to this point, everything was fine,” Marie Sheffield said.

There were still no firm leads in the case. Detectives wouldn’t say whether Croslin, Cummings or anyone else in the family were a focus of the investigation.

Haleigh’s grandfather, Johnny Sheffield, said he was distraught about the girl’s disappearance and characterized Croslin as suspicious, though he admitted he didn’t know much about her, according to MyFOXOrlando.com.

Sheffield told Van Susteren that her children loved their father’s girlfriend, whom he’d been dating for 4 to 6 months.

“She seemed like a really nice person, but I never sat down and had a conversation with her,” she said.

Appearing on FOX News on Thursday, Sheffield answered “yes” when asked whether it was true that Croslin had given conflicting statements to police.

The child’s mother doesn’t live in the area but traveled to Putnam County after she learned of her daughter’s disappearance and has been interviewed, according to Rose.

“She is cooperating,” Rose told FOX News on Wednesday.

Cummings said his girlfriend was awake and frantic after she found Haleigh was gone. But in the police report, obtained by FOX News, Cummings reportedly told officers that his “dumb bitch girlfriend” told him Haleigh was gone when he got home from work.

“Ronald said that he did not know what Haleigh was wearing, and that all he knew was that the back door was standing open. Ronald repeatedly said that someone had taken his child and also said ‘When I find him I’ll kill him,’” police wrote in the report.

He referred to a 9mm Beretta handgun he owns and said if authorities found his daughter’s kidnapper, “he would shoot them through the back window of the patrol car,” the police report said.

Deputies said Thursday they’re in the process of questioning 44 registered sex offenders who live within five miles of Haleigh’s home.

An uncle, Andrew Sheffield, believes she is alive, but the mystery of her whereabouts continues.

“It’s fishy,” he said. “Somebody knows something.”

George Anthony, the grandfather of slain Florida toddler CayleeAnthony, met with Haleigh’s father Thursday. Anthony said he was there simply to offer moral support.

Anyone with information about the girl is urged to contact the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office at (386) 329-0800 or 911.

Click here for more on this story from MyFOXOrlando.com.

FOXNews.com’s Catherine Donaldson-Evans and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Truth about PAS

2009-02-11T12:48:00.000-08:00

Ethical Scientific Experts Denounce “PAS” Reprogramming

From the Leadship Council

Experts Warn About Dangers of Deprogramming Treatment

February 10, 2009: Specialists in childhood trauma and therapy from the Leadership Council have grave concerns about the ethics of deprogramming treatment described in a recent article published in the Globe and Mail (see: Judge Blocks Sending Teen for Deprogramming Treatment, Feb 7, 2009).

We support the decision of the judge who refused to court-order deprogramming treatment (sometime called Reunification Therapy) overturning a 2008 arbitrator’s order that the 14-year-old boy be coercively treated. The controversial treatment is designed to “deprogram” children who are “alienated” from one of their parents during divorce.

Various forms of this type of “treatment” have sprung up over the last decade. The therapy usually involves confining the child in a location away from home, and isolating the child from the parent to whom the child is most attached. The attachment to the favored parent is challenged, while encouraging the child with intensive sessions to re-accept the rejected parent.

Some children have reported receiving treatment involving threats and coercion. The child may be told that he or she may not return home until they have accepted a more favorable view of the denigrated parent. One child the LC has interviewed described recurrent nightmares of the de-programming episodes that were used on him. In addition, there have been several lawsuits related to this type of approach. (see: http://rachel-foundation-lawsuit.com)

This so-called “therapy” is reminiscent of the kind of brainwashing techniques used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to coerce false confessions and to force ideological changes in captives. While these techniques can produce changes in belief and in behavior, we are concerned that these techniques are harmful to the mental health of children.

We are also concerned that deprogramming treatments may violate basic ethical principles that guide practice. According to the American Psychological Association’s ethical standards, the goals of psychologists are the welfare and protection of individuals. We question whether deprogramming treatment protects the welfare of the children involved. We have listed some of our concerns at the end of this release. (see: Concerns)

Deprogramming treatment raises philosophical and legal questions which remain unresolved in our approach to children. Are children simply the property of adults whose legal interests can control what children think and believe? In what sense does the child’s intellectual and emotional freedom have precedence over these legal interests? While these complex issues are not yet resolved, the controversial nature of this deprogramming treatment would argue for caution in safeguarding the mental health of children while we wrestle with these complex questions.

One of the concrete dangers of this type of therapy is that it has been used to force children into reunification with adults that have committed violent crimes against them, thus putting the children at risk of further victimization.

The Leadership Council has spoken with several victims of this type of therapy who were traumatized by the treatment. One young man says he continues to have flashbacks from his forced isolation from his mother and from continually being confronted by a therapist who told him his beliefs were wrong. After reunification with the parent he had been coerced to accept (in this case his father), he discovered that this parent was indeed abusive, his previous beliefs had been correct, and he felt betrayed and maltreated by the courts that had ordered this therapy. This case clearly illustrates that therapy that stems from the agenda of an interested legal party may be detrimental to the autonomy and welfare of the child for whom it is ordered.

Sometimes reunification therapy does not involve confinement and separation from the primary parent, but involves forced therapy sessions with a rejected parent. Many of the same ethical questions apply to this type of therapy as well, as the child is often forced to attend these sessions against his/her will. If the child is being forced to reunify with a parent he has clearly stated was abusive to him or her, the child may react with increased symptoms, suicidal ideation, or even suicide attempts.

Does this mean that children shouldn’t receive therapy in situations where a child is estranged from one of their parents? No.

There are respectful and accepted techniques available that do not involve coercion or confinement that can help children in these situations. For example, one technique involves listening to children and helping them sort through their often conflicted feelings about their parents. This form of therapy, when done with a neutral therapist who is committed to safeguarding the interests of the child, is a more humane and appropriate approach. In addition, this is the approach that is most likely to be effective.

For all of these reasons, the LC strongly supports the judge’s decision described in the Globe and Mail article, and advises parents seeking remedies for children from whom they are estranged to seek less coercive and more ethical forms of treatment. Also, courts should resist ordering children into any treatment that is coercive and experimental. Instead, any court-ordered treatment should abide by APA ethical guidelines and be based on empirical evidence.

Children have a right to their thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and opinions. The legal interests of warring adults should not be the agenda that drives the mental health approach used for vulnerable children.

Our Concerns Regarding “Deprogramming” Therapy

1. Being Confined and Isolated from Family and Friends in an unfamiliar Setting May be a Traumatic Experience for Children Leading Them to Feel Trapped, Helpless, and Powerless.

Isolating a child from everyone they are familiar with and attempting to force a new view of their parents, especially by strangers who know little about the child’s experiences with their parents can be traumatic. This is of particular concern as many children being exposed to these techniques have reported a history of abuse from the very individuals they are being forced to reunify with.

One girl subjected to this treatment was placed in a treatment facility by her father. The therapists adopted the father’’s viewpoint and the child was repeatedly told that her father who had abused her on a numerous occasions, hadn’t. She finally parroted what she was told to say in order to get out the facility where she was being held. When returned to her father, she ran away from home and lived on the streets until she was able to get a judge to listen to listen to her. She was finally allowed to return to her mother after a hearing in which the young teen’s concerns were finally listened to.

Coercive and punitive “therapies” are especially inappropriate when used on children who have already been traumatized. These children may find this kind of setting a “trigger” for further post-traumatic reactions. Forced reunification against a child’s will and without taking into consideration the child’s point of view and emotional well-being, can be expected to reinforce a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in an already vulnerable child. Such “treatment” can be expected to do more harm than good, and could potentially cause lasting emotional harm.

2. According to APA Ethical Standards, Psychologists Respect and Protect Civil and Human Rights (Preamble to the APA Ethical Guidelines)

The right to one’s belief system is considered the most basic of human rights. The confinement of a child who has committed no wrong doing away from parents and friends in unfamiliar surroundings in order to force them to adopt a new belief system may violate a child’s basic civil rights.

3. According to APA Ethical Principles, Individuals have a Basic Right to Self-Determination (Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity)

Being forced to change one’s belief system may violate the principle of self-determination.

4. According to APA Ethical Principles, Psychologists Avoid Multiple Relationships to Avoid Conflicts of Interest (APA Ethics code: 3.05)

According to ethical standards set forth by the APA, “a psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.”

A psychologist who has contracted with a parent to force a child against his will into a relationship is engaged in a dual relationship. One with the contracting parent and one with the client-child. The child’s goals and interests may be in direct conflict to those of the parent that has engaged the therapist. This dual role presents an unavoidable conflict that would keep the child’s feelings, beliefs, and desires from being central during treatment.

5. According to APA Ethical Principles, Psychologists Must Engage in Therapeutic Services Only After Obtaining Informed Consent – Even when a Client is Not Legally Capable of Giving Informed Consent, The Psycologist Still Must Explain the Procedures, Consider the Individual’s Preferences and Gain Their Assent Prior to Treatment. (APA Ethics code: 3.10).

According to ethical standards set forth by the APA, “For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an appropriate explanation, (2) seek the individual’s assent, (3) consider such persons’ preferences and best interests..”

It is not possible to obtain meaningful informed consent from children who are isolated from family and friends, confined in a facility and subjected to coercive treatment.

This is the time......

2009-02-09T23:36:00.000-08:00

Read and weep....we are women hear us roar!
http://www.adishakti.org/miscellaneous/nostradamus_prophecies_for_women.htm

The prophecies of Nostradamus

Nostradamus: Prophecies For Women

Nostradamus also prophesied what will probably become one of the most important third millennium issue for Humankind: The rise and empowerment of women who will heal the world with Love, Compassion, Cooperation and Harmony. The debilitating patriarchal world of aggression, destruction, rape and pillage will have to step aside and let them nurse humanity back to sanity. Women will rise in strength and power for they have been abused for just too long — just like Mother Earth.

Manuela Dunn Mascetti and Peter Lorie in their book Nostradamus: Prophecies for Women (Labyrinth Publishing [UK] 1995) have interpreted Nostradamus prophecies that predict the decline of patriarchy. However, they explain certain prophecies with the existing knowledge and this has to be put in proper perspective. They admit that "Nostradamus’ verses are very difficult to understand and interpret as ‘sensible’ prophecies relating to our future", and is self-explanatory.

"New law to occupy the new land
Towards Syria, Judeau and Palestine:
The great barbarian empire of men decay,
Before the moon completes its cycle

Century 3:97

A new law will emerge in the new world of America,
At a time when Syria, Judeau and Palestine are significant:
The great barbarian empire of patriarchy that men have created will decay
During the time that the feminine spirit is completing its cycle."

Manuela Dunn Mascetti and Peter Lorie
Nostradamus: Prophecies for Women
(Manuela Dunn Mascetti and Peter Lorie, Nostradamus: Prophecies for Women, Simon & Schuster, 1995, p. 47.)

They have correctly interpreted this verse, adding that "Throughout his verses Nostradamus frequently refers to "the new land" to mean America. This is an established interpretation, and in this case the "new law" which will arise there is related, in the last two lines, to two factors — the existence of a "barbarian" male empire, which is in decay, which is in turn is related to the Moon and its cycles — a common metaphorical association with woman. Put simply, the great virgin territories of the New World will be the source of a rising "lunar" consciousness as a time when the Judeo-Christian is at its peak." They believe that this brutal rule of patriarchy will start disintegrating before the female evolution is over. Syria, Judeau and Palestine refers to the three great religions rising from those lands — Islam, Judaism and Christianity — that have for centuries done the greatest damage to the spiritual development and emancipation of humankind, reducing their into religious retards totally dependent on doctrines and rituals for salvation. Of even greater damage has been the divinity of women, who for nearly two millenniums have been regarded as evil entities laden with latent lust, sperm receptors for a painful childbirth. The latter is regarded as a fitting punishment by a wrathful male god to all women because Eve discovered the deceitfulness and impotency of his death threat.

“Even today Hebrew males are taught to offer daily prayer, "Blessed Art Thou O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has not made me a woman." Mohammed stated, "When Eve was created, Satan rejoiced." As the Hebrew myth of the creation was later adopted into the sacred literature of Christianity, along with all the other writings of the Old Testament, the writers and religious leaders who followed Christ assumed the same prose of contempt for the female, continuing to use religion to lock women further into the role of passive and inferior beings, and thus more easily controlled property of men."

Merlin Stone. When God was a Woman, A Harvard/HBJ Book, 1976, p. 224.

The prophecy that "the great barbarian empire of patriarchy that men have created will decay during the time that the feminine spirit is completing its cycle" is specifically taking place now. Ancient spiritual warriors of the Great Primordial Mother (both male and female) are taking birth on Earth in ever increasing numbers. They are the First Phalanx who will battle this great barbarian empire of patriarchy and destroy it with the Truth of the feminine Holy Spirit. The Divine has already drawn the line between His messengers on Earth spreading the Good News of Resurrection to all and the vast Armies of Armageddon arraigned against them, promising the Dark Paradise exclusively reserved for their branded herd.

“Women's faces are a source of corruption for men who are not related to them."

Taleban Attorney-General's office, justifying why Afghan widows should be painted over to prevent unveiled women from being seen outside."

TIME (March 31, 1997

The Truth that the prophecies of these patriarchal religions have already been fulfilled has left these Evening Empires devoid of divinity. What prophecies do they have to fulfill now? They are now empty shells. The Spirit of the Living God has taken their precious pearls and distributed them to all humankind. This feminine Spirit of God has begun to complete Her cycle just as the decadent patriarchal empire is battling desperately for more souls. In this next century they will be in their death throes and, as the sun finally sets on them, they will plunge into darkness and will never rise again!

Manuela Dunn Mascetti and Peter Lorie also narrate the rising feminine power in economic, social, judicial, religious and political terms. But this is not the case. Any attempt by women to assume traditional male roles, without Self-Realization, will only make them succumb to the aggressiveness necessary for success. They will slowly, but surely, lose their feminism. Soon they will be drinking beer, puffing cigars, and pumping iron — or are they already?

“To say something about the connection of Sahaja Yoga with this Mother Earth, it is very important that we must understand the value of the Mother Earth. She has been very kind to all of you, She has been sucking your vibrations. She has been, otherwise also — She has given you everything that you see around. So today, we have to understand the connection, and the symbolic expression of the Mother Earth within ourselves. I have told you before also that Kundalini, which is in three and a half coils is placed within a triangular bone. Now this abode of the Kundalini is called as Mooladhara, and is represented in this Universe as Mother Earth. Or in the Puja it is represented as the Kumbha. . . .

And Aquarius is the same as the Kumbha — is the Mother Earth. So we are at the level of the Mother Earth. You can also see in the consciousness of human beings — I’m saying not only men, but women also and men — the consciousness is moving more towards the feminine expression of life."

Shri Muladharaika-nilaya
Shri Nirmala Devi
Mother Earth, London, U.K. — August 21, 1983

Women are destined for far greater glory in this millennium as they are the very source of feminine spiritual power, the Shaktis who will raise all humankind to a new level of consciousness. This "lunar" consciousness is the spiritual awakening among humankind of the feminine Holy Spirit, the Power of God Almighty! "In an age when the masculine virtues are becoming less adaptive for our survival, government by women might actually prove to be superior adaption in evolutionary terms." (Dr. Peter A. Corning, U. of Colorado.) Women have to acquire this Kundalini Power before they can assume their feminine roles in this macho society that lacks genuine love and compassion. Women have to seek their innate spiritual powers within them and then collectively heal the human species. The temples, churches and mosques cannot and will never empower them, and so, to those religiously inclined a question: What is there to be gained from these patriarchal regimes that have for millenniums regarded half of humanity as a hindrance, even curse, on spiritual emancipation?

The Great Mater Sanctissima, on the contrary, has emphasized that women are the very spring of spiritual power so vital for liberation. Every source of birth and sustenance is feminine. The Kundalini is feminine. Nature is feminine. Mother Earth is feminine. The entire Universe is feminine. God Almighty, like the human species, is both ‘Male’ and ‘Female’ (in the crudest sense of the word). The masculine half of God Almighty, like the human male species, is a passive Witness. The feminine Holy Spirit, like all females, is the active Creator. And this Millennium will see the rise of women who will nurse and heal our Earth back to sanity and spiritualism.

"And I have to specially make a very important request to the women that in these Modern Times they are the ones who are going to save the world, not the men. They have done their job before.

Now it is for you to save with your understanding, with your compassion, with your sacrifices, with your wisdom, and innate love not only your children, your husband, your family, but the whole world. It is a very great opportunity for all of you to do your bit. . . .

The whole Cosmos, just in complete respectful attendance, is waiting for their arrival."

Sri Matrka-varna-rupini Sri Nirmala Devi
Cambridge, U.K. — June 1988

Ann Coulter.....never heard of her until now

2009-01-14T11:36:00.000-08:00

And really wish I hadn't of

The View Co-Hosts Verbally Smack Down Ann Coulter

By Tracie, 1:00 PM on Mon Jan 12 2009, 47,073 views

Ann Coulter was on The View today, of which four of the five co-hosts are single mothers, a role that Coulter criticizes in her new book Guilty. As you can imagine, it wasn't pretty.

Whoopi — who, as you'll remember, threatened to beat up Coulter last week — referred to Coulter's left-hating persona as "an act," and went on to tell her that she was personally offended by Coulter's sentiments about single mothers in Hollywood. Sherri actually sounded like the most even-toned, well spoken woman of the bunch when she asked Coulter if she has an compassion and ever does anything to correct the "problems" she identifies (like talking to young girls about the importance of birth control), instead of just judging all the time. But instead, Ann wanted to complain that she was "attacked" in an earlier segment before she was on camera, alleging that Barbara read aloud from her book as though it were Mein Kampf. Ironic, since she's always going on about "victimization." Sherri put her back in her place, though, when she told her she didn't like how she was speaking to Babs. Joy's face during the entire thing, btw, was great.

Estranged husband shoots wife dead

2008-12-17T14:45:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, 17 December 2008

Estranged husband shoots wife dead

A woman who was shot dead by her estranged husband in Sydney's south-west yesterday had taken out an apprehended violence order against him, police said.

Just after 4pm yesterday, John Kudrytch, 39, walked into the BP service station on the Hume Highway at Casula and shot his wife, Melissa Cook, 29, who was working there.

Police arrived shortly after and conducted CPR on the victim until paramedics arrived.

Ms Cook, who had been hit in the chest, was taken to Liverpool Hospital in a critical condition but died a short time later after emergency surgery.

Four hours later police found Kudrytch dead inside the couple's former home on Pine Road, just one kilometre down the road from the service station, where he lived.

Police say it appears that he shot himself.

Police have confirmed that Ms Cook had taken out an apprehended violence order against her estranged husband, from whom she was separated and was in the process of divorcing.

A spokesman last night said "domestic violence issues" had come to the attention of police in the past.

It is not yet known when the AVO was granted or what conditions it stipulated.

The murder-suicide was the result of a domestic dispute, police said.

Kudrytch's neighbour Carina Olivos said Ms Cook and Kudrytch had been together for seven or eight years and moved in together three years ago.

Ms Olivos said Ms Cook had told her recently of the couple's separation, saying she was "free" and didn't want anything from Kudrytch, just the chance to "start a new life".

Mother, son killed

2008-12-17T09:45:00.000-08:00

Mother, son killed; teen wounded

Man charged in what police say is homicide related to domestic violence

By April Bethea
abethea@charlotteobserver.com

Posted: Monday, Dec. 15, 2008

Scott E. Davis Sr.

Map

Satellite

Hybrid

4800-4900 Thornwood Rd, Charlotte, Mecklenburg, North Carolina 28213

More Information

Domestic violence march set for Thursday

The Domestic Violence Advisory Council will march at 12:15p.m. Thursday to honor Elizabeth Michelle Elder, Gabrielle Kinard and Roschelle Woyee, victims of what Charlotte-Mecklenburg police said are domestic-violence-related homicides.
The council traditionally holds marches on the Thursday after a death believed to be related to domestic violence. Thursday's will be different, as participants will meet at the Square at Trade and Tryon streets uptown then walk to police headquarters on Trade. There, ribbons will be placed on a memorial tree honoring domestic-violence-homicide victims from across the state. The tree will be on display through year's end.
For help, call the domestic violence hot line at 704-332-2513; for domestic violence programs and treatment, call the Mecklenburg County Women's Commission at 704-336-3210.

Police say the 18-year-old son of a woman who was shot and killed Sunday in a domestic-violence-related homicide died this morning of wounds from the shooting.

A Charlotte man has been charged with murder of the teen's mother, Gabrille Kinard, 38.

There is no word yet from police if additional murder charges will be filed in the death of Anjelo Kinard, who died this morning at Carolinas Medical Center.

Anjelo Kinard's sister was shot as she tried to flee, with her 5-month-old sister in her arms.

The case marked the 10th and 11th domestic-violence-related homicides in Mecklenburg County this year, police said -- and the fourth case in two weeks. That exceeds last year's total by one, and Mike Sexton, who has worked with the Mecklenburg County Women's Commission for several years, said he's never seen four cases happen in such a short period.

“We can try to find blame with the economy, or because of the holidays and the stress and gaps in the system,” said Sexton, the incoming chair of the Domestic Violence Advocacy Council, “but ultimately it's the guys, the abusers, the batterers … that are doing the damage.”

On Sunday, police arrested Scott E. Davis Sr. and charged him with one count of murder and three counts of attempted murder in connection to the death of Gabrielle Kinard, 38, and the shootings of Anjelo and Gabriella Kinard.

A friend of Gabrielle Kinard said Davis was her boyfriend and the 5-month-old infant's father.

Police said they received a call at 11:45 p.m. Saturday reporting a domestic disturbance at a home on Thornwood Road in the Hidden Valley neighborhood in north Charlotte. When officers arrived, they found Gabrielle Kinard on the front yard of the residence. She was pronounced dead on the scene.

Anjelo Kinard, 18, was found injured inside the home. Gabriella Kinard, 15, was released from the hospital earlier in the day with what police described as minor injuries.

The Domestic Violence Advocacy Council plans to honor Gabrille Kinard at a march on Thursday. The council had already planned a march for that day in honor of Elizabeth Michelle Elder and Roschelle Woyee, who police say were shot and killed by their boyfriends recently in separate incidents.

The advocacy council holds marches the Thursday after deaths believed to be related to domestic violence to help raise awareness about counseling and education programs.

Sexton said it is important for people who may be in abusive situations to seek help, including creating a safety plan to get out of a dangerous situation, such as going to a family member's house or a church.

Sexton said having such a plan is especially important when someone is trying to end a relationship. He said about 80-85 percent of domestic-violence-related homicides occur when someone is trying to get out of the relationship.

He said domestic violence often is about power. “Homicides are often the ultimate act of control, whether it's the victim themselves or killing their children, or both,” Sexton said.

Bernadine Rankin, who described herself as a long-time friend of Gabrielle Kinard, said Kinard was a bus driver for the Charlotte Area Transit System. The two met about eight or nine years ago on the job and became close because both were single mothers.

Kinard had just moved into the one-story home in the Hidden Valley neighborhood in recent months, Rankin said.

Rankin said she spent more than an hour talking with her friend Tuesday. She said Kinard was upset because Davis was not supporting the family the way he should have.

“I just talked to her,” Rankin said while standing outside Kinard's home on Sunday, “and she's not here (anymore).”

Rankin said family was very important to Kinard, especially her children. She said Kinard had just lost her mother a few months ago.

Rankin said her own mother died on a Dec. 13, the same day as her friend Gabrielle.

“She was working too hard to make ends meet,” Kinard said. “She didn't deserve this. All he had to do was leave.”

Staff writer Steve Lyttle and news researcher Brooke Cain contributed.

Stop Government Corruption in Family Court and CPS

2008-12-11T23:36:00.000-08:00

Family Court and CPS are money making machines. Ex abusive men seeking more time with children and promoting what appears to be the most noble cause, has entrenched the rights of mothers and children in their ability to seek safety from violence. Heads have been quoted in the media for stating that "family violence is our core business". The propaganda that is spread about the voices of children and their access to justice promotes the profitability in manufacturing child abuse and domestic violence. They can do something about it, but it is not within their best economical advantage to do so. This will continue until something is done. Which requires at least 1,000 signatures to get this ball rolling!
Please sign for ALL battered women that have lost custody in some form to their ex abusers!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/4/stop-government-corruption-in-family-court-and-cps

We Are Lions

2008-11-12T16:54:00.000-08:00

Holly Collins can only be described as a "Lion" and she is my hero and the hero of many other mothers out here! She was able to protect herself and her children from her abuser. One of the saddest parts of Holly Collins story is that she is NOT alone! Women are being "stalked" in Family Court by their abusers and it's in part to blamed in the name of government funding called "Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives".

Literally thousands of mothers nationwide have lost custody to their abuser, in fact “the studies are showing” that up to 2/3 of accused or adjudicated batterers receive joint or sole custody in court. Joan Meier, Esq. http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org

We are a group of mothers that have joined together online in a "Sisterhood" of sharing or losing custody to our ex abuser's. We have blogged, put up websites, signed petitions, joined other groups and we keep trying to receive justice, not only in our own cases but for each other and future mothers.

Here are just 'some' of the nightmares our group has faced:

A mother loses custody to her ex abuser, an illegal immigrant who is facing deportation. How did this happen? Well, a Judge decided in another state that since the child had been visiting the father all summer that was his jurisdiction and overruled what the other state had decided, sole custody of the mother.
This is common ploy of these men to get some substantial "visitation" with the child(ren) and then claim abandonment, residency etc. This NEVER works the other way around for the non abusing parent, which is usually a woman.

Another mother has sole custody, leaves the state (legally), goes to a domestic violence shelter and the ex abuser/father claims "parental kidnapping". Another tactic used by abusers to "force" you to have to be in close proximity to keep trying to "control" you by way of 'forced' visitations of the children. This mother's children reside now in another state than her with her ex abuser. In fact, the ex abuser doesn't even live or care for the children, they reside with HIS parents.

Another mother had her signature forged on a court stipulation that gave her ex abuser "50/50" custody and ALL back child support dropped. One of the biggest reasons why the father wants "joint" custody is because of his child support obligation will be less or nil. The Family Court refused to look at the forgery evidence, the DA refused to file charges and the abuser gained more and more custody. This was even after the father was arrested for his second DUI in less than a year but this time he had the 7yr old child as his passenger. Not even CPS thought that was child abuse or neglect. A CPS worker told the mother that "just because he drove drunk with his child didn't make him a bad father, he made a bad choice". The same father had child sexual abuse allegations against him substantiated but it was reversed by the Family Court Judge that recused himself from the case previously.

The case of a mother who tries to protect her children from sexual abuse by the father and the mother gets supervised visits. That's called PAS, Parental Alienation Syndrome, a common label most of us mothers live with. It's junk "science" that was created by Richard Gardner.
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/pasyndrome.htm

The mother who was beaten to a pulp by her husband and the children witnessed it. They arrested the abuser and ordered him to stay away from the wife and children. Two days after the abuse CPS and the police came and took the children away from the mother because SHE had allowed them to see her being abused and had "endangered" them. With bruises on her face and cuts still healing she had to relinquish her children. She got supervised visits, to this day the abuser has sole custody.

Then the most horrific of the stories is one of Elsa Newman. Elsa Newman is a 54-year-old mother, unjustly imprisoned in Maryland Correctional Institution for Women at Jessup. She was charged with a crime committed by another person, family friend Margery Landry, who broke into the house of Newman's estranged husband, Arlen Slobodow, on a night when he had the couple's children for a visit. What she found there seems to have been a case of abuse in progress. Please see this article for more information: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/259162.

If you want more stories, we have them! Our Constitutional rights have been stomped all over by way of ex parte hearings and communications, falsifying court documents and the most horrendous fact that the Federal government funds in the name of "Responsible Fatherhood" are available to give our abusers an edge in court and counties more money.
The injustices that faces our group of mothers, Holly Collins and many others must be stopped. We have been ignored, chastised and been abused all over again by the agencies and governments that are in place to "protect" women and children from abuse and their abusers. Enough is enough and we are NOT going to take it anymore!
We need help to expose ALL of the corruption that exists in Family Courts.

The Mothers of:

Momentum Of Mothers M.O.M.

http://rights4mothers.org
http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/justice-4-mothers/
http://www.randijames.com/
http://www.myspace.com/fightcps4victimsrights
http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/ocean/host.php?page=0
http://elsanewmanisinnocent.blogspot.com/2008/09/this-woman-is-elsa-newman-why-why-why.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Free-Elsa-Newman

Mama Liberty

Another

Father drugged then killed his two children during divorce

Security guard Brian Philcox drugged his two children before killing them and himself on Father's Day after leaving explosive devices designed to injure their mother who was divorcing him.

Related Articles

North Wales deaths: Father who killed children sent 'bomb' to his wife

Father 'gassed children to spite wife'

Wise words from Westminster School's former headmaster

Britain's crying out for a comic book hero

John Updike

Mother of submariner tells of her 'mental torture' over dead son

Disgusted with the system: Parent Alienation Leaves bruises deep inside

Color Me Sick

Hell is for Gardner

Wife Beheaded

Second Degree Murder?

Muslim Television Channel Founder Charged With Beheading His Wife

Another Florida Mess

FL Mom Loses Custody Battle-Now May Never See Daughter Again

Video interview with mom, Crystal Sheffield, and grandma, Marie Griffis

Transcript from Fox News interview with Greta Van Susteren

Florida Sheriff: Girlfriend of Missing 5-Year-Old’s Father Took Polygraph

The Truth about PAS

Ethical Scientific Experts Denounce “PAS” Reprogramming

From the Leadship Council

Experts Warn About Dangers of Deprogramming Treatment

Our Concerns Regarding “Deprogramming” Therapy

This is the time......

Ann Coulter.....never heard of her until now

And really wish I hadn't of

The View Co-Hosts Verbally Smack Down Ann Coulter

Estranged husband shoots wife dead

Wednesday, 17 December 2008

Estranged husband shoots wife dead

Mother, son killed

Mother, son killed; teen wounded

Man charged in what police say is homicide related to domestic violence

More Information

Stop Government Corruption in Family Court and CPS

We Are Lions