SAM VAKNIN SPEAKS ABOUT NARCISSISM DURING THE BATTERED WOMEN'S CUSTODY CONFERENCE!

The person with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder regards children as extensions of himself and so are very possessive of them like they are of an arm or leg.

They have no concept of boundaries, which will lead to abuse, including sexual abuse.

They regard their children as pawns in their large game, their grandiose vision of what they are going through.  The children are props in their fantasy lives which they use to obtain Narcissistic Supply.

To get Narcissistic Supply from their perfect, brilliant, flawless, they consider children as props in their life story, and idealize their children.  

They establish an approach/avoidance cycle, try to coerce them into adulation or admiration; if they fail, then they will withdraw.  This will continues on for years, even when the children are in their 30s or older.

The cuteness of children, causes the narcissist rage because they get more attention, and so they feel they are compete with them.

Also, the narcissist considers the children to be bargaining chips.  The objective is to use the children, to influence, manipulate, harm the other parent.

All of these issues are contemporaneous in a custody issue with a narcissistist.

With a narcissist reckless behavior and substance abuse is standard.

They feel they will always get away with it, and they do.

They are frequently sexually deviant as well.

A NPD person is a present and imminent danger in the lives of his children, a point which should not be denied by authorities.  This insight still has not permeated into the system--police, legal, court, mental health

The conflict between the need to merge, to convert into extension of self, when a dependent source of NS can benefit from that child, to become one with them.

Many men with narcissistic personality disorder have many of the traits of co-dependence, react badly to changes in status quo.

At the same time, envies the children, particularly if they become more accomplished, more beautiful (if NPD is mom).

The NPD is destructive, seeks to eliminate the source of frustration, which is the child, but also seeks to merge, so this cannot be resolved in a rational way.

They will use Control Mechanisms: I sacrificed my life for you, I need you; I cannot cope without you; we have a common goal, parent and child we need to work for this together; classical psychosis, emotional incest, cultish setting, children are members.  you and I are united against the whole world, or against the monster mother.

The narcissist treats his children as objects and attempts to maintain total control over them.

He states to his kids, "You (my children) are my true passion.  If you don't obey my commands, I will punish you."

NO tv if 7.

I will disinherit you if 50.

This is how an individual with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) attempts to resolve the seathing destructive dependence he feels in connection to the children with his need to merge with them.

He will commit abuse by proxy in custody battles, with   the "proxy" being the children

He will attempt to get the children to aid and abet this abusive conduct.  

Why do I say "he"?  75% of NPD are men, 25% of women.  So the majority of people with NPD are men.

NPD within custody battle or divorce proceedings presents real problems.  Most abused mothers have a tough line to draw:  they don't want to be accused of PAS by telling to truth, so they end up pretending everything is OK, but, of course, that doesn't work either.

Children have the right to know; parents should say what is going on.

You don't cover up

You say, "Abusive conduct is wrong."

Children should be taught the warning signs of abuse: verbal, sexual, physical.

Children should learn to use the word "no".  Say no to drugs, say no to abuse.

The imposition of joint custody is a problem when there is abuse because it will never work.

There are various kinds of abusive parents, and each kind requires a different strategy.  They are as follows:

1.  erotomaniacs:  stalker who believes he is in love with you and that you are in love with him, ignore with that person.  He often has ideas of reference which feed into his delusions.  

2.  narcissistic:  Feels like he can demand your love and attention, reacts with rage and vindictiveness whenever you say "no".  The best approach is to  ignore, give no further contact.  Indicate that this is not personal, but a part of the process of ending the relationship, be firm, don't send mixed signals.  Ultimately these men are cowards, bluster notwithstanding, and they are easily intimidated.  They are not very emotionally attached. They don't love you or the children, because they lack the foundation for experiencing that emotion.  They will move on with ease.

3. paranoid: lives in an inaccessible world of his own making.  They love being threatened.  Keep as much distance between yourself and that kind of ex as possible.  Don't inform ex of new address and life.  will look for you, be suspicious and resentful of your freedom.  Must have a safety plan.

All of these three types are interrelated and one can end up being interchangeable with the other.

Stalking is very intensive during custody battles and divorce.  

Narcissists terrorize, intimidate, breach boundaries, gaslight you, create an atmosphere of anxiety and fear in order to gain advantage in the court battle.

In response, you need to ignore your gut reactions, do not do it, do not strike back.  Instead use the law, use all available option, jail, visits from police, and restraining orders.

Don't try to buy peace by appeasing the abuser; submission or attempts to reason give him more information which he can use to abuse

Narcissistic and psychopaths have cold empathy, calculating, leverage cold empathy in order to invade your boundaries.  He will use everything you say to support his illusions and psychopathic fantasies.  

NPD people believe all failures are from the abusive hostile world; they vengeful, seathing, ruthless, sadistic, calculating machine

threats are useless--just be determined.  Only meet the psychopath is public places

The system favors glib narcissist:  NPDs are cool, calculated, reasoned, willing to compromise, she is crazy, she is rigid

To expose the narcissist in court, you belittling the narcissist, undercut him, expose him as weak, average, weak, mediocre, hinting or outright belittling, will get narcissist in full view.

Keep in mind, you will have abuse in your life for a long time, so be prepared.

The system, people in the mental health professions, are simply not informed of the serious, pernicious nature of individuals with NPD.  System not prepared to cope with these people.  Hopefully, our work will be part of the movement to get people informed.

WATCH OUT!: POLICY MAKERS ENCOURAGE CT CITIZENS TO GIVE UP THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS!

In a campaign entitled "B4Stage4", The Mental Health Association of CT and Mental Health America are encouraging CT citizens to step up and get treatment for mental health conditions (see link below).

Keep in mind that if you are stupid enough to get treatment for a mental health disability and end up in court with a custody issue, you will put yourself seriously at risk of losing your children based upon that diagnosis. 

Do not be stupid enough to listen to public policy calls to have you receive treatment for your mental illness when the government and state agencies will then use it against you to deny you your fundamental civil rights.  

Not only will you experience discrimination in the workplace, you will also experience discrimination in every courtroom in the State of Connecticut--this means the Probate Courts, Civil Courts, Criminal Courts, and Family and Juvenile Courts.  

The Connecticut Judicial Branch remains non-compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and also with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  Until this changes, you are putting yourself severely at risk if you sign up for mental health treatment or in any way allow yourself  or your children to have on record that they have any kind of mental health diagnosis.

See the call for you to give up your precious freedoms in the notice below:

http://directory.ctnewsjunkie.com/event/b4stage4-a-mental-health-policy-forum-with-former-state-rep-paul-gionfriddo/?utm_content=buffer9d7cb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

NPO REPORTS FATHERS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE JAILED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT THAN MOTHERS!

Attorney Robert Franklin of the National Parents Organization reports as follows:

"Two years ago, the National Parents Organization’s Ned Holstein reported the shocking news that, in Massachusetts, non-custodial fathers who are behind on their child support payments are eight times as likely to be sent to jail as non-custodial mothers in arrears. That information came to NPO courtesy of the yeoman work of Terry Brennan who dogged the sheriff’s departments of all Bay State counties for their data on child support enforcement. The results were astonishing: between 95% and 98.5% of those incarcerated in every county were fathers.

U.S. Census Bureau figures on child support payment demonstrate that mothers with child support arrears are incarcerated at approximately one-eighth of the rate that would be justified by their numbers if fathers and mothers in arrears were treated equally. Mothers in arrears are incarcerated at lower rates even though they have higher rates of incomplete payment, pay a smaller percentage of their child support order, and have larger arrears than fathers. In the absence of other explanations, these data suggest that gender bias against fathers plays a large role in family court-ordered incarcerations..."

For more on this topic, please click on the link below:

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22335-ocse-commissioner-to-report-sexism-concerns-to-massachusetts-child-support-agencyutm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=National%20Parents%20Organization&utm_content=

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS ATTORNEY SENTENCED TO A YEAR IN PRISON IN CONNECTION TO MORTGAGE SCAM!

According to the CT Law Tribune,

"A West Hartford lawyer who took part in a $3.5 million mortgage fraud scheme has been sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison, followed by five years of supervised release, according to federal prosecutors.

Gabriel R. "Gabe" Serrano, 47, was sentenced May 8 by U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson. He had previously pleaded guilty last August to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud, a charge that carries a maximum prison term of 30 years, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, a charge that carries a sentence of up to 10 years. His law license has been suspended since late 2013..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202726103410/Attorney-Sentenced-to-Year-in-Prison-in-Mortgage-Scam#ixzz3a2KgXROa

BUDLONG & BARRETT USE FAKE AMBER ALERT TO DENY MOTHER ACCESS TO HER CHILD: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART VII

On December 20, 2013, Colleen Kerwick started the day with joint custody of her child and ended the day stripped of all her parental rights.  How could this happen?  Through a campaign of legal abuse and harassment which, for advocates such as myself is only too predictable.  

As I've mentioned, Colleen Kerwick had signed the Marital Agreement from hell on March 25, 2013 which gave both parents a shared access plan, minimal financial support for Colleen Kerwick and her child, plus decision making in the hands of her ex-husband, Kenneth Savino.  

Still not satisfied with obtaining his freedom at such a minimal cost, after the divorce, Mr. Savino repeatedly attempted to have Colleen Kerwick arrested.  Thus, even though both parties do not live in West Hartford, the West Hartford police were frequently sent to the mother's house in Avon to ask questions regarding the child's care while in the mother's custody. To Kenneth Savino's chagrin, nothing came of these visits. 

Then, in August 2013, after spending the summer months harassing Colleen Kerwick with police, Kenneth Savino filed a motion for sole custody, a reduction in parenting time for the mother, and also requested that Colleen undergo another psychological evaluation.  

This was when the ink was barely even dry on the Marital Agreement!  

It is also this writer's understanding that Kenneth Savino spoke to neighbors, medical care providers and school personnel telling them that Colleen Kerwick had lost many of her custodial rights because of mental illness.  This kind of slander is extremely degrading and humiliating.  

Again, Colleen Kerwick has been evaluated several times and she has not been diagnosed with any mental illness, although I would surmise that the kind of intensive legal abuse she has endured must be very traumatic.  

It was within the context of this kind of ongoing harassment and bullying that the Christmas Holidays arose for the year 2013.  There had been much discussion on what would happen during this upcoming Christmas Holiday.  Colleen Kerwick had wanted to spend December 20-21 with the child, but Kenneth Savino insisted that he had plans to take the child to Arizona on that Friday, December 20, 2015.  The Gal, Kerry Tarpey, shared her view that the child should go with the Father on Friday, and recommended that Colleen Kerwick celebrate Christmas later on after the holiday.

Thus, on December 20, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Colleen Kerwick went to the drop off location--Starbucks in Avon--to transfer her child into the care of her ex-husband, Kenneth Savino.  

However, he never showed up.  

Why?  

Because at that very time, Mr. Savino supported by his attorney, Attorney Campbell Barrett of Budlong and Barrett, was down at Hartford Superior Court filing a motion entitled "Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion Regarding the Minor Child's Scheduled Vacation to Arizona With the Plaintiff Father."  In it, the father, Kenneth Savino, told the Court that Colleen Kerwick was "refusing to comply with the parenting plan" which granted him access to the child as of December 20, 2013.  

Of course, you'd think if he really wanted the child, he would have showed up at Starbucks that day to take him!  But, as I say, he didn't.

This early morning ex parte motion was presented to Judge Olear who promptly granted the motion and ordered Colleen to "transfer the minor child to the plaintiff father at 10:00 a.m. at the child's pediatrician's office."  

Marshal Kaz was then given a copy of this order to deliver to Colleen that day; however, he appears to have wandered around Avon all that day without actually delivering it, even though he reported seeing her periodically.  The end result was that Colleen never actually received a copy of it.  

Meanwhile, the father, Kenneth Savino, met Colleen Savino at the doctor's office that day at 10:00a.m. but never bothered to take custody of the child and never informed her of the order.  

Again, the question is: if he was so eager to have custody of the child that day, why didn't he just take the child when he had the opportunity?  And he did have the opportunity more than once.  

I also have a question for Colleen. Knowing that her ex was eager to have the child and that Budlong & Barrett was gunning for her, why didn't Colleen Kerwick simply insist that Kenneth Savino take the child at the doctor's office that morning, which would have been in accordance with their parenting agreement of March 25, 2013?  

Apparently, Colleen Kerwick believed that she had an understanding with Kenneth that changed the terms of the agreement.  Prior to the Thanksgiving Holiday, Kenneth Savino had agreed in writing that he would allow Colleen to celebrate December 20 and 21 with their child since she was not going to be able to be with the child on Christmas Day that year.  Thus, when he didn't take the child at the doctor's office, she just thought he'd changed his mind and was going to go with the agreement. 

Unfortunately, when she brought this argument up later on, it turned out the agreement was not notarized and so the Court did not think it was credible.  On the other hand, if you have an ex who is not hell bent to get you, verbal agreements, casual email agreements, and agreements scribbled on paper work quite fine.  It all depends upon what you want to achieve.  

I will grant you, however, that in the days leading up to the 20th, Kenneth made it clear that he wanted to have the child and he wasn't going to abide by that written agreement.  

But then it turned out that the child contracted pneumonia during that same time period and there was concern about his ability to travel.  In his later motion for sole custody, the father stated he had obtained a letter stating that the child was capable of traveling, however, what he didn't mention in his motion (and, of course, it's what doesn't get mentioned that is so important!) is that the pediatrician recommended that the child travel only as long as father brought an oxygen mask along and gave the child antibiotics.  

Colleen Kerwick could have appeared to be an overanxious mother except when you take into account the history of Kenneth Savino medically neglecting their child.  

In the first place, if a four year old child is sick with a fever and cough, and is recovering from pneumonia, why are you making him travel anywhere at all.  He is sick, for goodness sake!  The airline will take that into account and reschedule your flight without charging you an additional fine.  And you would think that if you are putting your child's well-being first, that is what you would do.  

Clearly, Kenneth Savino felt that his vacation was more important than his child's health.  

This aligns with prior information regarding Kenneth Savino's disinterest in the medical needs of his child.  For example, on April 4, 2012, the police arrested Kenneth Savino because he interfered with health care workers who were trying to give his child medical care for a seizure disorder.  

The arrest report stated, "The officer ascertained, after initiating dialogue with accused [Kenneth Savino], that the child had suffered a series of seizures prior to the notification of EMS.  Upon further attempting to converse with the accused, the officer was met with what he would describe as verbiage laced with an attitude of nonchalance a "holier than thou" demeanor, and arrogance.  The accused told the officer that his presence, and that of the other emergency service providers, was "overkill" and that his child was ok."  

Later, on December 5, 2012, neuropsychologist Dr. Rimma Danov issued a Record Review Report which indicated that during the year 2011-2012 the child "had experienced seizures only during his stays with his father, Mr. Savino."  

Further, despite professional recommendations to place the child in the highly respected birth to three program based upon developmental delays, Kenneth Savino did everything he could to prevent the child from entering the program.  Knowing as I do what a great program the birth to three program is, I can only say that Kenneth Savino's attitude here is nuts!

Granting these circumstances, it was only understandable that mother Colleen Savino was extremely worried about passing the child over to the father and did not insist the father take the child at the doctor's office when he appeared to be disinterested.  

Instead, she went around town doing a few errands,  took the child out to lunch, and ended up at Jefferson Radiology where the child had a lung x-ray per the pediatrician's orders as a prerequisite for going on the airplane--hardly necessary if she didn't intend him to go.  

At the same time that Colleen was carrying out these mundane tasks with the child, Budlong & Barrett dispatched Kenneth Savino, along with one of their attorneys, to the West Hartford Avon police station where they filled out an application for an Amber Alert stating they had no idea where Colleen was and said they suspected she was attempting to flee the country with the child.  

They said this even though there was voluminous back and forth email communication going on between the law firm and Colleen during the entire time--granted that some of that was interrupted when Colleen's phone temporarily lost energy and had to be recharged.   Budding & Barrett alone sent 41 emails to the point where Colleen clearly lost track of them all.  It does get to the point where volume of that kind comes across as simple harassment hardly due a response.

Then, at around 4:00p.m. that day, Attorney Campbell Barrett of Budlong and Barrett filed "Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Suspend Defendant Mother's Access to Minor Child and to Award Temporary Sole custody to Plaintiff Father."  

In it Kenneth Savino claimed that "plaintiff mother disappeared with the minor child."  Right--to the local Burgerfi!  And further, "The minor child's whereabouts are unknown," even though it was understood she was heading for Jefferson Radiology later in the day.  And further, "the plaintiff father is in the process of speaking to the police about obtaining an Amber Alert."  

Yes, he was in the process, but no police officer in his right mind would have issued one!  

After all, according to the parties' Marital Agreement of April 25, 2015 father had custody of the child's passport, so there was practically no likelihood they could leave the country together without one.  

Still, it was in the face of this extraordinarily absurd claim that an Amber Alert was about to be issued that Judge Olear granted the motion giving sole custody to the father and barring mother from any access to the child.  

In defending their abusive actions, Budlong & Barrett were quick to state (more than once because they think people are deaf) that no Amber Alert was ever issued as if that somehow absolved them.  But the bottom line is they tried to get one issued, and further they implied to the Court that, in fact, one would be issued momentarily when they knew that wasn't true.  

Later that evening police came to Colleen Kerwick's door and took her child from her arms.  It was ten months before she was able to see her child again regularly and the court reinstated the shared parenting plan.

To be continued...

REVISIONS TO THE CT CODE OF EVIDENCE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE SUPREME COURT!

Public Comments on Revisions to the Connecticut Code of Evidence Being Considered by the Supreme Court

The following proposed revisions to the Connecticut Code of Evidence are being considered by the Supreme Court and are published herein for public comment. The proposed revisions have also been posted on the Judicial Branch website at http://www.jud.ct.gov/pb.htm.

Comments may be submitted to the Supreme Court by email to Lori.Petruzzelli@jud.ct.gov or may be forwarded to the Supreme Court at the following address:

Supreme Court
Attn: Lori Petruzzelli, Counsel, Legal Services P.O. Box 150474
Hartford, CT 06115-0474
Comments must be received no later than May 15, 2015.
Hon. Chase T. Rogers Chief Justice, Supreme Court 

This notice is also located at the link below: http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/PracticeBook/Code_Evidence_050515.pdf

TO ALL THE "PERFECT FANS" OUT THERE: HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!