In our midst, folks, right in West Hartford, is an organization that has the potential to cause substantial problems for Protective Mothers here in Connecticut who are already suffering enough.
Let me just go straight to the point and let you know what the problem is with this organization.
In 2011, this organization is advertising its sponsorship and support for proposed legislation which is as follows: HB 6085: An Act Concerning Parental Alienation.
This is the wording of the proposed bill: Purpose: To establish an offense of parental alienation in order to protect a child from acts of one parent that are intended to break the emotional bond between the other parent and the child. Text of the bill: That the general statutes be amended to establish an offense of parental alienation, which shall (1) consist of, but not be limited to, acts of one parent to interfere with the parent-child relationship of the other parent by means of phone or electronic communication or interference with a child visitation schedule, and (2) constitute abuse against the child for the purposes of the general statutes, except that the penalty shall be one hundred dollars for the first offense and the loss of any right to sole-custody for the second offense.
As you know, the concept of parental alienation is a bogus concept promoted by father's rights groups as a way to attack protective mothers. A bill such as this has tremendous potential to be used as a weapon of harassment.
Furthermore, my understanding is that the concept of parental alienation is a debunked theory that was developed by Dr. Howard Gardner who, I understand, was a pedophile who eventually committed suicide. But before he died, however, he apparently testified as a professional expert witness regarding parental alienation in numerous court cases and caused substantial damage to women who were attempting to protect their children from harm.
I myself was terrorized by my GAL making false accusations of parental alienation against me and if such accusations can be invented and disseminated so easily and cause such extensive damage even though there is no basis for the accusations, legislation such as HB 6085 which is sponsored by the so called Shared Parenting Council is absolutely dangerous legislation and we are obligated to work as hard as we can to stop it.
Just to let you know a little bit more about the organization which is sponsoring this horrific bill, the mission of the Shared Parenting Council is "to obtain the presumption of equal parenting opportunities before the law regardless of gender." What the Shared Parenting Council states is that they are working towards presumed joint physical custody in the state of Connecticut.
The Council believes that "custody law in Connecticut should be oriented around the need to promote frequent and continued contacts between children and their mother and father" and it "seeks a framework that promotes active involvement of both parents in the lives of their children."
In general, I agree with goals that promote the relationship between children and their parents, but the idea of joint "physical" custody to achieve those kinds of results strikes me as tremendously disruptive to the lives of children. Also, here we can see how values that we would respect, such as promoting the relationship between parents and children, is used as a trojan horse into order to attack women and more specifically protective mothers.
The Shared Parenting Council is quite open regarding how it intends to achieve its goals. They say they intend to work "with the state legislature, [and] nonprofit groups" and they intend to lobby these groups in order "to promote change in Connecticut's legal and regulatory framework."
I tell you, friends, we need to be afraid, I mean really afraid of a group that intends to promote a fascist father's rights compaign against protective mothers on an ongoing basis here in Connecticut. And I say fascist father's rights to distinguish between those groups that are fighting in support of defending fathers who have legitimate concerns related to custody issues versus those who are conducting a hate compaign against protective mothers and their children.
On a more positive note, I truly believe that the members of the Shared Parenting Council, in their right minds and provided with sufficient information to expand their vision, would shift more in our direction and become allies in the fight to support protective mother's and their children. In many ways, they are asking the right questions. See the article on their website entitled "Children and Custody in Connecticut: Conflict vs. Co-Parenting" by John M. Clapp & Brian Patterson. Do I agree with all that is said in this article--no--but I respect the views expressed and the time and effort that went into formulating the article.
The Shared Parenting Council invites comments on their website. Take the time to go there and let them know what you think, and be sure to be respectful of a group that clearly has good intentions, but is heading in the wrong directions. Their website address is as follows: http://sharedparentinginc.org/
Cathy
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the proposed bill is aimed at a specific gender.
I can tell you, Parental Alienation (PA) and PAS is a real thing, despite reports that Gardner was a pedophile (true or not, who knows??).
I have been on the target side of Parental Alienation, it is not pleasant. Lawyers and GALs are not quick to go the route of PA/PAS, if at all. This bill would have helped pave the way to prevent PA/PAS. Additionally, this bill would make it easier for lawyers, GALs and targeted parents to rely on such defense when warranted vs. skirting the issue.
Furthermore, Shared parenting, although a great approach for divorced parents to adopt does not guarantee one parent will support the other. In fact, there is no law that protects a targeted parent in the event an obsessive parent goes to great lengths to alienate the children from the targeted parent, despite the custody arrangement.
I'm all for this bill. I don't think it passed, but I'd support it.
Connecticut resident.
My concern is that PAS would be hard to prove if it were occurring, easy to prove if it weren't occurring, generally impossible to control via the Court system,and ultimately the source of a considerable amount of damage. But I respect your concerns and your views.
ReplyDeleteCathy,
ReplyDeleteThe way parental alienation is exposed is by the 8 strategies that are used which result in 17 behaviors exhibited by the child. There has been an enormous amount of research since Dr. Gardner coined PA in 1985 to confirm this exists. Call it parental alienation, parentification, adultification or enmeshed parent-child dynamic; it's all under the same umbrela. There are no consequences for a mother or a father to alienate a child from the other parent and the alienator's have no deterrents. What is the deterrent for a parent who does not pay child support? There's consequences for this parent, male or female, however we all know the majority of child support is paid by the father. We also know the majority of alienation cases are perpetrated by the custodial parent ie the mom. I agree with have consequences and passing laws to help children and alienated parents. Not all petitioned alienation cases are true cases as we both know of one in particular TP but when there is no doubt alienation is occurring or has occurred, the entire family needs protection. Emotional abuse falls under domestic violence and there needs to be protection across the board.
By Jennifer Verraneault
I am an alienated DAD.
ReplyDeletePAS is very real.
The court system continues to shed a blind eye.
The GAL in my case is nothing more than a biased scum bag.
My children went from telling the GAL they wanted nothing more in the world they wanted more time with DAD
to now three years later saying they want nothing to do with me...stopped from communications and any other contact..except make sure you pay your child support.
I understand where you are coming from. When I originally wrote that blog it was like over a couple of years ago when I was just starting out. I think I have a better understanding of the issues involved at this point. However, I have a problem because I don't think that shared parenting is a legal term that bears any weight in family court. I think what we need to focus in on is joint custody, and I also think we need to understand how issues of joint custody, or shared parenting can get split up with residential parenting, vs. non residential parenting--i.e. the sharing of the childs' time, and also issues in regard to decision making, and how that can get split off. When people focus narrowly on one term like shared parenting, or joint custody, they are missing the point that even if they get so called shared parenting, that shared parenting can be split off or watered down when you get an agreement what states something like, "the parties agree to shared parenting, but the plaintiff will have sole decision making." Well, right there you have split decision making away from shared parenting and undercut the purpose of shared parenting as advocates understand it. I am also concerned about the question of where abusive men routinely use PAS as a means to accuse victims of domestic violence falsely and then deny those victims access to their children. This is an ongoing and steady problem in family court and I hear stories of these unfair and unjust results constantly. My concern is that we as advocates don't split up our ranks by not acknowledging the pain of both groups of legitimate victims--those who have suffered PAS, and those who are victims of DV who have been falsely accused of PAS. What both groups are looking for is a just legal system where there is due process of law, and there is legal accountability for false accusations and failure to obey court orders. We need to avoid fighting each other, and concentrate on fighting the real enemy--a corrupt judicial system, corrupt attorneys and GALs, that deprives both men and women of their life savings, their relationships with the children they love, and safe and reasonably happy and productive lives.
ReplyDelete