PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label ABUSE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABUSE. Show all posts

Sunday, January 25, 2015

REBEL PUNDIT REPORTS: GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE OF NEW JERSEY EMBROILED IN FAMILY COURT RICO LAWSUITS!

According to "Rebel Pundit",

"Chris Christie has been named as a defendant in two cases that are part of series of lawsuits across the country where serious concerns about violations of citizens’  rights in family courts are under scrutiny.

CALIFORNIA
An upcoming civil RICO lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the watchdog group Family Court Accountability Coalition (FCAC) will allege that a feeder system created by the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Division, in conjunction with several powerful judges, creates a racket which chooses favored divorce lawyers and makes sure those lawyers get favorable rulings in Sacramento County family court rooms.
 
In 1991, Judges Vance Raye and Peter McBrien, formed the Family Law Executive Committee (FLEC) to help deal with family law cases in Sacramento County family courts. This FLEC would be a group of lawyers, according to the upcoming suit, chosen by the Sacramento County Bar Association’s family law division which would act as judge pro temp on certain family law cases and in exchange, the suit will allege, the lawyers chosen for this task would be given favorable rulings, deserved or not, when they appeared in divorce court in their regular roles.
 
One of the most high profile case examples of this scheme which will be featured in the suit is that of Ulf Carlsson who appeared in front of Judge McBrien and whose story received significant media attention culminating with a lengthy feature in the documentary Divorce Corp."
 
For more information on this article, please click on the link below:
 

Thursday, December 4, 2014

"BULLIES, BATS AND BULLDOZING" DR. JEANNE KING TALKS ABOUT HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND SURVIVE ABUSIVE BULLYING!

Dr. Jeanne King talks about abusive bullying as follows:  "Bullies and abusers have a way of bulldozing their way right through the “ask.” They know what they want and nothing is going to get in their way. Sound familiar?
 
It may start with an apparent pitch that looks like this, “I think we should...”
 
At first, you may not be certain whether the pitch invites your opinion or is the introduction to the bulldozing effort to follow. You seek to comprehend their suggestion/request, and before you can process it—much less formulate your reply—their eagerness percolates."
 
For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:
 

Monday, November 17, 2014

BEFORE THEY SHUT OFF THE LIGHTS: HOW TO DEAL WITH THE ELECTRIC COMPANY WHEN YOUR EX STOPS MAKING COURT ORDERED PAYMENTS! PLUS UPDATE!

I am lucky that my divorce situation is mostly in the past, but sometimes one of my kids will start talking about the old days.  For example, recently, my son said, "Oh, so when we were playing that game of using candles to light the house, it wasn't actually a game!"  I was like, "Now that you mention it, you are right."  This comes up because I still continue to advocate for people in divorce and the kids see me researching topics. 

Last week, I ended up researching the issue of the electric company, Connecticut Light and Power, when a young lady going through the pendente period called me to say her ex had not paid the electric bill which he was court ordered to do based upon their financial agreement.  She stated that the electric company had cut off power to the house and refused to turn it back on even though she was living in the house with an infant.  The next week her ex cut off fuel deliveries to the house and so it went. 

I had the exact same situation happen to me during the pendente period in my case.  Ex-husbands regularly fail to obey the financial agreements they signed and which became an order to the Court as a means to coerce and harass their ex wives. 


Unfortunately, as in my case, the Court often fails to enforce these agreements and when protective mothers go to Court to obtain some kind of relief, Judges will often imply that such concerns are trivial.  Of course, I'd like to see how some of those Judges would feel if they couldn't have a bath before getting in their cars to go to Court, or how they'd feel if they couldn't review their documents the night before because they couldn't switch on the light!

In fact, they are absolutely not trivial, particularly when you have children who are suffering along with you, as with my friend. 

So what can you do in a situation like this?

One, you can file a motion for contempt in family court.  The problem with this approach is that it often takes weeks before the motion actually comes before the court.  And, as I have said, Judges are likely to blow them off.  Meanwhile, you are sitting around your house without any electricity. 

The second thing you can do is negotiate with your electric company and try to get them to turn the electricity back on.  

Before I tell you more about that, let me answer the question that must be foremost in your mind.  Is it legal to shut off the electricity when there is an infant or a child under five living in the house? 

Yes, it is legal for the electric company to shut off the electricity under those circumstances.  

So, what can you do when it comes to negotiating with the electric company to get your electricity back on?  As far as the electric company is concerned, there are two primary issues that are in play when you have an outstanding bill with the electric company and cannot pay it:

1.  What is your income? Are you struggling with economic hardship? And

2.  Do you have a life-threatening medical condition that could put the life of an occupant of a house at risk should the electricity be shut off? 

Now, I personally think that placing an infant in a situation where he or she has no electricity is life-threatening, but that is just me! 

Here are some considerations to keep in mind when you are negotiating with the electric company.  For instance, if you are renting your home, the electricity service cannot be shut off because the landlord does not pay the bill.  If it is shut off, you should contact the police and the utility company.  The landlord must find a way to restore service to your home.

If the bill is in your ex-husband's name and he does not pay that bill, it is true that service can be shut off from your home.  However, there is a caveat to that, which is that if the family court judge provides you with an order stating that the electric company cannot shut off service to your home if the bill is not paid, then the electric company cannot not shut off service. 

The service representative I spoke to at C, L, & P stated he had never seen such an order in all the time he had worked with the company, but that does not mean you  could not ask for such an order or get one!  There is always a first time!

Another recourse that you have is that if you transfer the electric bill from your ex's name to your name, you then have 90 days from the date you ask for service in your name before the electric company can shut off service.  In addition, if you have a court order stating that your ex is supposed to pay the bill, you can then add an additional 90 days before the electric company can shut off your electricity. 

So that gives you a total of 180 continuous days where you can be safe from a shut off and resolve the problems, and that should not be sneezed at.  By then, you might even be divorced and the issue will be moot! 

Ok, maybe not in one of those high conflict divorces that last for years, but I am trying to stay positive! 

The primary point that the C, L & P representative made to me is that decisions regarding shut offs directly relate to income.  You could be eligible for energy assistance and protection from shut offs, particularly during the winter months of November 1 to May 1, if you qualify based upon low-income or slightly higher income. 

To find out if you qualify, call 211 and they will assist you in filling out the paperwork and once it is completed they will automatically send your application to the electric company.  You can also go to town social services where you live and do the same thing.  If you are determined to be eligible for one of these programs, the electric company cannot switch off the electricity to your home during the winter months, but they can switch off electricity during the summer if you are unable to straighten out your bill.

There are other special programs.  For example, you can also sign up for a payment program and agree to make regular payments to catch up with your prior balance.  The only problem there is that if it turns out you can't make those payments and fail to make them, the electric company will drop you from that program.  They will then demand the immediate payment of the entire balance and if you don't pay right away, shut off the electricity to your home immediately.  Often, they don't care how high or impossible that balance is; they still want their money right away or else.  Take it from me, because I have already gone through this.

This leads me to my other point about payment plans, don't agree to make payments you are unable to make.  Don't give in to pressure or agree to something you know you can't actually do when it comes down to it.  Instead, try to get the service representative to agree to payments that you are able to afford. 


Aside from payment plans, C, L, & P also has a matching payment program where you pay a portion of the bill, energy assistance pays a portion of the bill, and the electric company pays the rest.  The company also has forgiveness programs where they discharge some of the debt.  Again, this is based upon your income, and you would have to negotiate with the company to obtain the best possible program available for you.  

You can also obtain protection from shut off if you or someone else in your household, for instance, your children, would be in danger of a medical emergency without electric service.  To obtain this protection, you have to ask your doctor fill out an online form certifying the nature of the condition and confirm that electric service is essential for that condition.  This certification from a doctor must be submitted every year. 

The doctor has two options he can check off, i.e. 1. that you only need electric coverage for the winter months of November 1 to May 1, or 2. that you need electric coverage year round. 

The advantage for you of being on this coverage is that if the electric company anticipates any interruption in your electric coverage, they will notify you by phone call in advance so that you can make alternate arrangements to make sure your medical equipment is operating.  This is a big advantage for parents and children with disabilities who require ongoing electric service. 

Keep in mind, however, that just because the electric company cannot shut off your electricity because of an outstanding balance, this does not mean that you are not responsible for paying the balance, because you do still remain responsible.  This issue will have to be worked out in Court eventually if your ex refuses to follow through on making the payments he agreed to make. 

One question I posed to C, L, & P is the following scenario which has relevance to all protective mothers.  What if you have a couple that has filed for divorce.  The ex-husband earns $70,000 per year and Mom is an at-home mother with children who is court ordered to receive child support, but father is not paying it.  The father is no longer in the home and is court ordered to pay the electricity, but refuses to pay it.  In a situation like that, would the mother be entitled to participate in the energy assistance program based upon a lack of income, or would she be considered at the same income level of her ex, even though she has no access to it. 


The service representative at C, L, & P was unable to answer that question and transferred my call to a Community Action Agency for more information.  Unfortunately, all I got was an answering machine with a promise to call me back if I left a message.  I still have not yet received my return call. 


The next place I turned to was the 211 number.  When I dialed that number, a recording told me they were truly happy to receive my call.  However, they told me that there were nine people already in line waiting to receive assistance.  That number was reduced slowly until it was just me and then I was connected to an answering machine that asked me to leave my name and telephone number and someone would call me back.  I did that, but no one has yet to call me back. 


After that, I scoured my head for someone else to call and finally came up with the idea of calling town social services.  I then dialed them up and again obtained an answering machine that assured me that if I left my name and telephone number someone would get back to me shortly.  Again, no one has yet to call me back. 


So bottom line is, I do not have an answer to my hypothetical.  Once I do, I will report the answer to my question on the website.  I do think it is a problem that any woman who calls to obtain information or support will most likely end up with answering machines, unanswered phone calls, and a general lack of vital information.  This situation cannot help but be tremendously discouraging to people is distress.


Clearly, when an ex husband refuses to pay for electricity, fuel, cable, and telephone which he agreed to do and which he was required to do by an order of the Court, this is pure harassment.  There is no doubt that it happens all the time, that attorneys, judges, and mental health professionals under contract with the Court are quite familiar with this behavior, and that they are aware that the men who indulge in this behavior are jerks.  All that it would take to stop this behavior is a decision on the part of the attorney and judges, let alone the mental health professionals, to refuse to tolerate it.  Thus far, they have not made such a decision because they prefer to perpetuate the abuse.  Then they say no abuse exists. 


Among those of us seeking to find positive solutions to the complex problems of family court, eliminating the way unethical men abuse women by shutting off court ordered utilities is on the top of the list of essential reforms.

Update: I received a phone call late in the day from town services in response to the message I left on the answering machine.  Again, I posed my hypothetical which is what if there is an at home mother with a husband who makes $70,000 where father agreed to court ordered child support, and agreed to a court order to pay for utilities, but subsequently refuses to pay.  Now you are a mother with no source of income, young children, and your electricity has been cut off--what do you do?  Does the fact that father makes a high income prevent you from obtaining fuel assistance and other kinds of relief? 

The town social services representative told me that this mother should, indeed, go to town services and apply for relief.  Town social services will investigate the situation and connect the mother to whatever is necessary to make sure that she and her children are safe in their home, particularly during the winter months.  As long as the mother can verify her circumstances town social services will do whatever they can to help out.  This is includes referrals to the broad range of supports that they have available.  Often, town social services can speak directly to utility companies and work out a sensible solution.

The town representative told me that the theoretical peron I described should definitely be working with Interval House or the Susan B. Anthony House or some other domestic violence shelter to obtain guidance in regard to how to manage her circumstances.  She also suggested that mothers in this situation check in with The Connecticut Woman's Educational and Legal Fund.  The link to this organization is below:

http://www.cwealf.org/

The town services representative stated that for some women it is very hard to acknowledge that they are in trouble and need help.  Many such women have always taken care of themselves and paid their own bills.  For them it is tough to recognize that they have to reach out and let others support them.  What is important is that such Mothers accept the situation and recognize there is no shame in needing help.  This could happen to any person any time and anywhere.  So definitely take that first step to give town social services a phone call and set up a time to meet.  Don't wait until you have put yourself of your children at risk, particularly in regard to young children.

Still, despite these safeguards, there will be some women who fall through the cracks and end up being victimized by their ex-husband's refusal to live up to the responsibilities he took on to pay utilities and fuel.  That is, ultimately, what happened to me and it will continue to happen to other women. This is one of the most common forms of economic abuse that men get up to during divorce with the collusion of the family court system.
 

Sunday, October 19, 2014

EXCERPT FROM KEN DIXON'S 2010 ARTICLE IN THE HARTFORD COURANT SAYS IT ALL WHEN IT COMES TO TOM FOLEY'S LEGAL ABUSE OF HIS EX-WIFE!

"But in a transcript of a child-support hearing from December of 1991, Samuel V. Schoonmaker III, her [Lisa Foley's] lawyer at the time, described the protracted divorce litigation as a power game.
 
"She's [Lisa foley] got $60,000 to her name and he's got $39 million by his own admission and this fellow gets up there and he adopts the self-righteous, arrogant, dictatorial attitude, which is the only way I can characterize it," Schoonmaker said. "This whole hearing has nothing to do with money. This hearing has to do with control."
 
This is not a man who has the maturity to lead the State of Connecticut.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

ANNE STEVENSON REPORTS JUDGE IN GLASTONBURY RAPE CASE CLOSELY INVOLVED IN COURT CORRUPTION!

CONNECTICUT, July 22, 2014 — 

Investigative reporter, Anne Stevenson reports as follows:  "In a hearing yesterday in Hartford Superior Court, accused pedophile rapists Dennis Harasz, 48, and Douglas Wirth, 43, waived their right to a jury trial in favor of a trial before Judge Julia Dewey. This is not surprising given how well things have gone for the defense, now that a GAL affiliated with one of the defense attorneys’ and the judge herself has been appointed onto the case to determine their fate.

Harasz and Wirth are now facing charges for raping some of the nine boys the couple had adopted since 2001, all of whom were removed from their care in 2011 by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. The couple’s parental rights were also terminated by the Superior Court in 2012, and currently the victims remain in DCF care."

Read more at:

Friday, July 18, 2014

ANNE STEVENSON REPORTS GAL ALLIED WITH THE DEFENSE IN GLASTONBURY CHILD RAPE CASE!

Investigative Reporter, Anne Stevenson speaks out on notorious Glastonbury child rape case as follows:

"HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT — Hartford Superior Court Judge Julia D. Dewey granted the request of an accused rapist to appoint a GAL to assess whether it is in the best interests of the now 8-year-old victim to testify against him.

Judge Dewey’s decision this week to appoint a GAL with conflicts of interest could silence the victim at the expense of the taxpayers and public safety.


State Rep. Ed Vargas played a key role in convincing his colleagues to unanimously pass reforms to the State’s unregulated GAL industry while sitting on the Judicial Committee’s family court reform task force.

Contacting  Vargas for his response to the appointment, he said:

“If what you are describing to me is accurate, it sure seems like Judge Dewey selected an inappropriate GAL who should not have accepted the appointment” said State Representative Ed Vargas (D-Hartford). “Even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be enough for a judge or GAL to recuse themselves from participating in a case, and the Glastonbury case seems to have certainly exceeded that description.”

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/life/gal-appointed-in-glastonbury-child-rape-shares-mutual-interests-with-defense-21723/#IWx1DdHT0YvvdqHS.99

Sunday, July 13, 2014

ANNE STEVENSON REPORTS CT PROSECUTORS FAIL CHILD SEX ABUSE VICTIMS!

Investigative Journalist Anne Stevenson reports,


 "GLASTONBURY, CT, July 11, 2014 -  The successful efforts of Connecticut’s top child welfare agency to rescue nine children from ongoing sexual abuse has run afoul of the State prosecutors. A policy of refusing to meaningfully track or prosecute Connecticut’s most dangerous child sex predators leaves them without protection.

The case centers on George Harasz and Douglas Wirth, a married couple who adopted nine boys. George Harasz, 48, was charged with sexual assault in the first degree, two counts of injury to a minor, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault in the third degree and cruelty to persons. Douglas Wirth, 43, was charged with sexual assault in the third degree and injury to a minor.

Meanwhile, the public’s safety may be at risk while the industry professionals involved continue to turn a buck off the victim’s misfortune as the case drags on at the taxpayer’s expense."

For more information on this article, please click on the link below:




http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/glastonbury-ct-prosecutors-fail-child-sex-abuse-victims-21491/#o8XE0rwCdyZEWw6O.99

Monday, June 23, 2014

HOW ACCUSATIONS OF PAS AND FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF TWO PARENT HOUSEHOLDS PERPETUATE SPOUSAL ABUSE!

Sara Schoener of the "New York Times" exposes the truth about two parent households and false accusations of PAS:

"AFTER spending two years studying services for domestic violence survivors, I was surprised to realize that one of the most common barriers to women’s safety was something I had never considered before: the high value our culture places on two-parent families.

I began my research in 2011, the year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that more than one-third of American women are assaulted by an intimate partner during their lives. I talked to women in communities that ranged from a small rural mining town to a large global city, in police stations, criminal courts, emergency shelters, job placement centers and custody proceedings. I found that almost all of the women with children I interviewed had maintained contact with their abusers. Why?"

For more information, please click on the link below:


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/domestic-violence-and-two-parent-households.html?_r=3&referrer=

Sunday, March 30, 2014

GALs STILL TRYING TO KEEP THE FAMILY COURT CASH COW FED! SEE ARTICLE IN CORRUPTCT!

Susan Skipp speaks out on GAL/AMC abuse in a recent article appearing on Corruptct,
 
"Quite a bit of controversy has been coming to light over practices that have been going on for decades. Please read Ms. Dornfield’s request to her family law peers: she suggesting her peers try to get out of court Monday to oppose an angry disgruntled group of parents. I believe she means the parents who testified January 9 and the climbing number of petitioners to GAL reform. I was at the testimony and gave testimony. I saw no angry parents, no disgruntled parents, just parents who and whose children have been victims of crimes committed by the very institution deemed to be the redress of problems. I signed the petition; it was absent righteous vitriol as well."
 
For information on GAL/AMC abuse, please click on the link below: 

http://www.corruptct.com/ct-connecticut-corruption-news/still-trying-to-keep-the-family-cash-cow-fed/

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

CONNECTICUT CITIZEN--JUSTINA PELLETIER--KIDNAPPED BY STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS!

A Massachusetts juvenile court judge on Tuesday awarded "permanent" custody of a Connecticut teen at the center of an interstate custody battle to the state of Massachusetts in a major setback for her family fighting for her return.
 
The ruling by Judge Joseph Johnston leaves it up to the state Department of Children and Families to decide whether or when 15-year-old Justina Pelletier should be returned to her West Hartford home, The Boston Globe reported.
 
Justina has been in the agency's custody since last February, when her parents took her to the Bay State to get medical treatment for a rare condition called Mitochondrial diagnosis. When she was taken to Boston Children's Hospital to be treated for a negative reaction to the flu last year, doctors determined that her problems were partly psychiatric and that a prior treatment at Tufts Medical Center constituted medical abuse. They contacted DCF, which took the girl.
 

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

ELIZABETH RICHTER SPEAKS OUT ON ATTORNEY JEFF MICHELSON'S ABUSE AND PEACE PROGRAM ABUSE!

March 25, 2014

Dear Rep. Vargas and Mr. Szymonik:
 
This is just to let you know in advance of the NPR program that Attorney Jeff Mickelson was the Guardian Ad Litem in my case from 2007 to the present (since they never get removed from a case!).  He only met with my children one time only and yet he charged us $25,000.  During that time he allowed my ex husband to medically neglect my children in multiple incidents by allowing my ex to take the children who have albinism and are sun sensitive out into the sun without sunblock or proper sun protection.  As a result, they ended up with serious sunburns, in one situation to the point of painful blisters.  The children lack the pigment required to protect their skin from the sun and need repeated applications of sun block when they go into the sun. 
 
A nurse once told me that denying my children sun block is the same thing as denying a diabetic insulin. 
 
Attorney Jeff Mickelson never reprimanded my ex for these incidents, never contacted him about these incidents, never lifted a finger to see that the children were properly protected, and never informed the court that there was a concern.  In August 2010, my ex husband decided to take the children, who are medically at risk if they are exposed to the sun, down to Florida when the UVA index was at 11+ indicating extremely dangerous conditions.  Again, Attorney Jeff Mickelson did nothing to inform the court that a trip of this kind would put the children at risk medically, exposing them to health risks such as cancer, immune deficiency diseases, facial disfigurement, and cataracts, etc.  Now he has apparently decided to step down from several cases.  He should.  He is incompetent and negligent.
 
I could go into more detail regarding other areas of concern, but this is the one that concerns me most. 
 
I would say further that Attorney Jeff Mickelson actively engaged in advocating on behalf of my ex husband, appearing to receive direct instructions from the opposing attorney in my case. 
 
At one point in the case, for months Attorney Mickelson insisted upon having me participate in Dr. Elizabeth Thayer's Peace Program with my ex husband even though my psychologist specifically stated that this program was not called for and could be damaging to me psychologically, particularly since my ex husband was refusing to adhere to the requirements of the program. 
 
According to the policy of The Peace Program, both parties are not supposed to engage in litigation during the time that the parties are participating in the program.  My ex husband and his attorney refused to stop litigation during the time we were supposed to participate in the program and I expressed fear that anything I stated during counseling would then directly be used against me in court during that litigation and that Dr. Wendy Habelow (an associate of Dr. Elizabeth Thayer) would be called in to testify against me. 
 
It was in Attorney Jeff Mickelson's power to intervene and request that my ex stop litigation according to the requirements of The Peace Program, and he could have taken action to protect the confidentiality of The Peace Program sessions.  Instead, Attorney Mickelson insisted that I participate in The Peace Program despite the fact that my ex refused to comply with the non litigation requirements of the program, and despite the fact that I was denied my right to the protection of my confidentiality. 
 
I would also like to state that Dr. Wendy Habelow did nothing to insist that my ex comply with the requirement of the program that he cease litigation during the time we were receiving treatment.  It is important to know that The Peace Program will not accept insurance and will only accept cash for its services.
 
Essentially, Attorney Jeff Mickelson set me up to fail in the program and I was denied access to a conciliation program that might have been of great assistance in resolving matters. I believe this was done to incentivize further conflict so that the attorneys in the case, including Attorney Mickelson, could continue to charge major sums of money for their services.  Again, this is negligent, incompetent, exploitative and not in the best interests of the children. 
 
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Richter

Monday, March 24, 2014

ATTORNEY SHARON DORNFELD SPEAKS OUT ON THE ISSUE OF COERCIVE CONTROL!

In a September 2013 article by Macklin K. Reid found in "The Ridgefield Press", Attorney Sharon Dornfeld adds new insight into the definition of domestic violence:
 
"Caveman behavior — a husband screaming at his wife, beating her, demanding obedience, subservience, sex — may still be the classic face of domestic violence, but it is no longer viewed as the only face.
 
“People think of domestic violence as somebody hitting the other person, smacking them with a frying pan,” said Attorney Sharon Dornfeld. “But the understanding of it has evolved to be a much broader set of things. The term that is typically used now is ‘coercion and control.’ ”

Just as a note of interest, last year Attorney Sharon Dornfeld completed a stint as Chairwoman of the CT Bar Association's Family Law Division.  Even more recently, she acted as Co-Chair of the controversial Task Force held at the Legislative Office Building in regard to the role of Guardians Ad Litem in complex custody cases.
  
For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:
 

Saturday, March 22, 2014

ROBERT FRANKLIN GETS IT WRONG ON PARENTAL ALIENATION, HEAPS MORE ABUSE ON A WRONGED MOTHER AND HER CHILD!

Recent studies indicate that when abusive fathers sue for custody in family court, 70% of these fathers end up with sole custody of the children they have abused. 
 
How do they do it?  
 
Apparently, such fathers use false accusations of Parental Alienation Syndrome as a means to wrest custody from fit mothers who are trying to protect their children from abuse.  This is particularly true of what occurred in "Anna Cooper's" case which was recently highlighted in a moving article by Tom Stelloh published in Aljazeera on January 24, 2014 entitled "Do courts use a controversial theory to punish mothers who allege abuse?

See the associated link below:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/24/does-a-controversialdiagnosishelpfathersdodgeabusecharges.html

Anna Cooper is not the only mother who has reported this happening to her.  Many other mothers have come forward stating the same thing. 
 
However, Instead of showing outrage at this kind of fraudulent behavior on the part of abusive fathers, Attorney Robert Franklin, an extremist father's rights advocate, has used Anna Cooper's willingness to come forward as a excuse to direct a personal attack against her in a blog entitled "Al Jazeera Channels NOW, Gets It Wrong on Parental Alienation."

See the associated link below:

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21563-al-jazeera-channels-now-gets-it-wrong-on-parental-alienation 
 
No, Attorney Franklin.  Aljazeera didn't get it wrong.  You did!

So what is this Parental Alienation Syndrome that abusive men have been using in widespread custody switching schemes?  Parental Alienation Syndrome is a theory proposed by psychiatrist Dr. Richard A. Gardener which claimed that some parents try to undermine their children's relationship with the other parent, typically the noncustodial parent, by making false allegations about that parent, most often in the form of abuse allegations. 
 
Further, according to Tom Stelloh, author of the original Aljazeera article, Dr. Gardener theorized that "custody-related fabrications [of abuse] constituted a kind of hysteria" and described the mothers he accused of parental alienation syndrome as being "sadistic" animals who "literally fight to the death in order to safeguard their progeny."  Their goal, he wrote was "the total elimination of the father." 
 
Dr. Richard Gardener's recommendation on how to deal with so called parental alienation, i.e. immediately switching custody to the father and denying the mother all access to the children, is quite striking.  
 
Essentially, his recommendation, in an interesting role reversal, was to have the court order the father do to the mother exactly what the mother was accused of doing--in other words cut the mother off from all access to the children.  How ironic! If children need both parents, how is it acceptable to eliminate the mothers from the lives of the children, particularly if they have acted as primary custodians of those children up to that time?

Anna Cooper became a victim of this theory when she reported that her son, Ben, was showing signs of sexual abuse. As journalist Tom Stelloh explained it, "Ben returned from a visit with his father--who had a four-days-a-week custody arrangement--with bruises and abrasions that he couldn't explain.  After returning from another visit, Ben asked Cooper for help going to the bathroom.  When she discovered blood on his toilet paper, she rushed him to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with anal fissures." 
 
The child's pediatrician, Dr. Richard Whelan, later confirmed that sexual abuse had occurred as did Dr. Eli Newberger, founder of the child-protection unit at Boston Children's Hospital, and also Dr. Joyanna Silberg, a psychologist and child-trauma specialist at  the prestigious Sheppard Pratt hospital in Maryland. 
 
Once the sexual abuse was diagnosed by experts in the field, Ms. Cooper expected that her son would be protected from this abuse.  Instead, she faced an extensive coverup starting with the child's GAL.  In her words, "[Ben] came home from his father's house with his anus torn to bloody shreds, and an infection in his penis that went untreated because [GAL] Maureen Murphy threatened my son's pediatrician, tampered with evidence, his medical documents, perjured herself, and removed my ability to get medical care for my child." 
 
Continuing further, she stated, "I watched in horror as the infection went systemic while I was disallowed, under threat of never seeing my son again, even to seek medical treatment for his injuries, all so Murphy [the GAL] could prevent documentation of his badly infected genitals." 
 
As a result of this kind of obstruction (and this is just one example--there were others), Ms. Cooper was unable to present to the Court vital information in regard to the abuse of her child and ended up being accused of--you guessed it--Parental Alienation Syndrome and placed on supervised visitation.  Then, since she could not afford to pay for that visitation, she ended up being denied all access to her child.  At this point, she has not seen him in over a year.

It is not surprising, then, granted the widespread abuse of the diagnosis and its general lack of foundation in any kind of legitimate science, that the American Psychiatric Association has not included the diagnosis of Parental Alienation Syndrome in the DSM-5 despite considerable pressure from men's advocacy groups.  
 
Not only did they determine that there was no scientific basis for the syndrome, opponents of the diagnosis were concerned that, as I have reported, it was being used in family court as a means to take custody from parents who allege abuse, particularly protective mothers. 
 
It didn't help that Dr. Richard Gardener generated additional controversy on his own by appearing to use the diagnosis to condone pedophilia having made such statements as, "At the present time, the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim, though the child may initiate sexual encounters by 'seducing' the adult." or "There is a whole continuum that must be considered here, from those children who were coerced and who gained no pleasure (and might even be considered to have been raped) to those who enjoyed immensely (with orgastic responses) the sexual activities."
 
Despite these very serious problems with the PAS diagnosis and its lack of inclusion in the DSM-5, in his recent blog on the subject, Attorney Robert Franklin states that Parental Alienation Syndrome must exist because he says it is in the DSM-5 but not under that specific name. 
 
Ok, so what he actually means is that many of the truly fanatical proponents of Parental Alienation Syndrome refused to accept the fact that the DSM-5 didn't include PAS so what they did was pick and peck through the book and found a few embellished diagnoses which they state friendly editors clandestinely included in the DSM-5 so that litigants wishing to claim PAS could have something legitimate to use in Family Court.  If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you as well! 
 
Attorney Franklin also mentions some book by Dr. Robert Bernet which he claims "contains some 700 citations in contemporary science on parental alienation from over 40 countries..." and he also mentions that PAS has been "recognized in at least 500 law cases and numerous statutes." 
 
Likewise, I am sure, discredited diagnoses such as Recovered Memory Syndrome or Dissociative Identity Disorder (multiple personality disorder) also generated considerable attention in their day, but that still didn't make them any more legitimate. 
 
This is not to say that there are not anecdotal situations where one parent viewed the other as alienating him or her from the children, but this does not make such observations scientific, or articles based on such observations scientific.  There is no doubt that many of us have had the other parent interfere with our access to our children.  Still, that is simply bad behavior, not necessarily mental illness of any kind. 
 
It never fails that with every decade there are new social movements and theories which generate a whole new bunch of quack ideas and fads that seem really legitimate at the time, but which eventually fade out, hopefully without causing too much damage to the rest of us. 
 
I believe that PAS is one of them.

Attorney Robert Franklin faults Anna Cooper for contributing to the Aljazeera article anonymously.  But you can be sure that if she used her own name, he would criticize her for inappropriately exposing her child to public scrutiny.  Damned if you do, and damned if you don't!

Attorney Robert Franklin further states that Anna Cooper's case is not credible because "court appointed experts [plural]" found the allegations of abuse to be untrue.  Yet, the only court appointed expert he mentions is Dr. Kenneth Robson.  
 
Since Attorney Franklin isn't from Connecticut, I can understand he wouldn't be familiar with Dr. Robson, but those of us who do live in Connecticut are very familiar with this psychiatrist's notorious reputation for malfeasance in child custody cases throughout the State. 
 
Not only did Dr. Kenneth Robson deny that there was sexual abuse in Ms. Cooper's case, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he also denied that there was sexual abuse in the Linda Wiegand case where the father was accused of sexually abusing her two boys--Ben and Jon. 
 
When the Massameno Report came out in 1998 confirming that the abuse had occurred, the Institute of Living where Dr. Robson worked was sufficiently convinced of his wrongdoing that they chose to sever their relationship with him. 
 
I am personally aware of a recent case in the last few years in which Dr. Robson was again the custody evaluator.  In this case the mother also accused the father of sexually abusing their children.  In his evaluation, Dr. Robson denied that the sexual abuse had taken place and insisted that the father was a loving father.  He then recommended sole custody to the father. One year later, DCF removed the children from the home permanently based upon the sexual abuse of the children. 
 
As an additional note, even though the Institute of Living discontinued its relationship with Dr. Kenneth Robson, up until at least 2011 Robson continued to represent himself fraudulently as being affiliated with the Institute of Living even though he hadn't been for many years.

Attorney Robert Franklin states, "Again, for the umpteenth time, those who claim parental alienation to be a fiendish ruse by abusive fathers to wrest custody from "protective mothers' cannot come up with a single instance in which that actually occurred." 
 
Ok, well I just gave you three. 
 
I will also add to that four, my own case, one in which, among other things, my ex husband deliberately medically neglected my children.  When I went to the GAL and reported to her what was going on, she answered me by saying, "They all say they are being abused."  In other words, using the all or nothing language of Attorney Franklin, "all" mothers who say they are being abused are making it up. 
 
During the course of my divorce, which took several years, my ex continued to abuse me and also continued to medically neglect my children.  The GAL, my own attorneys, the trial court did nothing to stop any of it.
 
Why? 
 
Because they were programmed to believe that any mother who seeks to protect herself or her children is just trying to get back at her ex husband, or simply attempting to parentally alienate the children from their father. 
 
In other words, as Attorney Robert Franklin so eloquently stated in his article "Of Teflon and Velcro:  Constructing a High-Impact Narrative", the myth overcame the reality, and for the Court and all the professionals involved in my case, the fact that my ex was abusing me and that he was causing damage to my children's health which could have lifelong consequences for them, meant nothing in the face of the concern that the legal system clearly felt was ten times more important, i.e. their naïve investment in a fake mental health diagnosis that is so lacking in credibility it isn't even included in the DSM. 
 
What a travesty! 
 
Not only are there the cases that I have detailed up to this point, I am contacted on a regular basis by mothers with well documented cases of domestic violence who are being accused falsely of having Parental Alienation Syndrome. Despite the frequent statements to the contrary, judges and attorneys throughout Connecticut are well aware of Parental Alienation and use the diagnosis freely as a means to switch custody from mothers who have long acted as primary caretakers of their children to fathers with histories of abuse.

This happens despite the fact that, as far as I know, Judges have no statutory basis for doing so.
 
Even where there has been no abuse and no alienation, but father now wants custody, the slightest hint that the mother may have been critical of the father or let an ill considered remark slip in an unguarded moment is enough to cause that mother complete loss of custody, despite the fact that she has been primary caretaker of the children for many years.  See the many cases I have reported on my blog under the label "cases in the news" for examples of that.
 
The additional irony, of course, in this highly contentious debate, is that as long as men's rights advocates continue to deny the existence of abuse, there is no way to establish whether Parental Alienation Syndrome truly exists or not because the definition has been corrupted. More specifically, Parental Alienation Syndrome can only exist absent abuse, but if you maintain a rigid policy of denying that abuse exists, there is no way to establish whether you have a legitimate case.

I have tremendous sympathy for parents who have genuinely experienced situations where the other parent has blocked their access to their children, and who use the language of Parental Alienation Syndrome in order to explain what happened to them.  Again, ironically, Anna Cooper is one such parent who could easily claim that kind of languaging.  But attempting to legitimize a theory which is being used on an ongoing basis to enable abusive parents to continue to abuse their children--that is simply unacceptable.