Featured Post

The Abducted Children Suffer

 "Abducted children suffer emotionally and sometimes physically at the hands of abductor-parents. Many children are told the other pare...

Thursday, December 31, 2015

Parental Alienation Awareness-The Grown Up Child

As a young teenager, I had a brush with parental alienation.
While standing at a sink washing dishes it was declared to me that one of my parents must not love me.  Then I was assaulted with all the twisted evidence to prove their claim. The lack of phone calls, the apparent lack of interest, and of course the lack of child support all while I was assured that my ‘other’ parent had always provided all of those things for me. The propagator of this garbage got incensed when I asserted that I was indeed loved by both my parents, and I was shrilly asked what evidence I had to prove it. When I couldn’t provide any, I was told that my lack of any ‘real’ counterpoints merely confirmed their argument. And the debate was over. I was told again that I obvously wasn’t loved by ‘that’ parent.
I remember that night so well. Each word felt like a rock being hurled against my skin. I remember the anger that raged within me and the sadness that threatened to overcome me. I fought with all my might to hold back the tears because crying felt like defeat and I wanted more than anything to appear strong in the shadow of my perpetrator. Even twenty years later, remembering that night and writing this post, I can feel my heart beating faster and a tightness in my throat.
On that night, the alienation was not done by my biological parent but that didn’t matter. It was an adult.  An adult who knew better and who’s care I had been entrusted. I was alone and they had all the power. The damage was done and that moment of our lives can never be retracted. Over the years, my hurt and anger has faded, and has been  replaced by a sliding scale of disdain, pity and indifference. But trust is another matter. The trust is gone and no matter how many years pass, it eludes me. At the time I felt like I was the one being attacked, but now I know that I was merely collateral damage in an attempt to hurt and gain power over ‘that’ parent.
Yet understanding only brings me that, understanding. Everything else remains.
Sunday April 25, 2010 is Parental Alienation Awareness Day. And although there is much debate about what actually constitutes parental alienation or if the syndrome even exists, this grown child of divorce simply wants to spread this message: kids of divorce have enough on their plates without having to negotiate the impact of someone negating a parent. Chances are, they are already dealing with anger toward their parents, guilt about those feelings, shame about the characteristics they have from their other parent, and of course the stress of living through the trauma of divorce and anything else that came before and after it. They really don’t need anything else.
The other thing I’d like to inform parents, step parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents and the like, is that the damage inflicted by this kind of abuse is significant and leaves very deep scars. You may be angry and you might even feel a bit better after lashing out or having your say. But for that child, whether it be for days, weeks or even years, that child will hear those words you spoke to them every time they look at you. Even long after you’ve forgotten them. Truly whatever benefit you may feel by getting things off your chest will be far outweighed by the negative impact you will have on that young person’s heart.  And if you are able to force your way of thinking on that child, realize that your short sighted gain will one day be lost and a day of reckoning will come. And in those particularly heinous cases, know that it will come even harder.
I remember witnessing one day a child of divorce coming home from her non custodial visit.  Her mother became displeased with her behaviour and said to me and all those around that she always acted that way when she came home from her dad’s house. The mother also added that she felt her daughter’s poor behavior was a reflection of her father and was evidence of him rubbing off on her during their time spent together. A moment later, after her daughter said something out of line, she sarcastically called her daughter by her father’s name. Her daughter crumpled into a pile of angry tears and my heart couldn’t help but break a little as the scene played out before me.
When it comes to putting down a child’s parent, the rules are simple. Don’t do it. It’s not like telling ‘yo mama’ jokes with your friends. That child is not your equal and with your power comes a great responsibility.  Your words carry a sense of authority and will cut more deeply than you know. And what’s hardest of all for us kids is that we will undoubtedly see some truth in what you say, no matter how loudly we dispel it. I think the author of The Divorce Encouragist said it best when she wrote, to speak ill of your co-parent is to tell your child, “Honey, I love you. But biologically, you are 50% jackass.”
Yes, that’s exactly how it feels. 

Copied from The Grown Up Child

Parental Alienation Awareness

by Carolyn on April 25, 2010

Monday, August 31, 2015

Traits of a Narcissist Parent

Traits of a narcissist parent:
Lies compulsively to their child
Neglects the child’s needs
Puts the child down and makes the feel insignificant
Acts as though they are always right
Contradicts behaviour constantly by telling the child how special they are
Tries to create a co-dependent relationship
Has to be the centre of attention
Uses manipulation and gaslighting to create drama
Totally self-absorbed, the child is seen as a nuiscance
Uses the child as a tool to gain financial wealth or material goods
Has an excuse or an explanation for everything, never takes responsibility
Rules with an iron fist so the child is in fear
Will criticise constantly but pretend it is for the child’s own benefit
There are no boundaries, the parent feels as though they own complete access to all the child’s private emails, phone calls, relationships etc.
Blames everyone else for everything that happens to them
Tries to gain sympathy by pretending they are emotionally vulnerable
Seems to take great pleasure through causing drama
Image means everything to them so they will not appreciate the child doing anything to disrupt it
Uses emotional blackmail
Extremely jealous and will sabotage their child rather than see them do well
Puts the child on display so that others think they are a great parent
Pushes the child to extreme levels to do well so they can brag to others about how well they have brought them up
Makes the child feel as though they are not good enough

Friday, June 12, 2015

Letter to Brad Henry-The Governor of Oklahoma

~~Letter to Brad Henry-The Governor of Oklahoma
This is a letter I sent to the Governor of Oklahoma, and I am going to be sending it to the Oklahoma Attorney General, the district Attorney in Texas co., the Mayor of Guymon, the Oklahoma State Police, CMEC, the Department of Justice, and anyone else I can think of! I am just getting started! You wanted it this way. I have given you and Donald every opportunity to resolve this. ARE YA READY??? I WILL NOT STOP UNTIL I SEE MY CHILDREN!! I am also considering calling the local Guymon paper and local TV news to see if they are interested in an abduction story that happened in Guymon's own back yard. The letter to the Governor has been sent and I will know when you read this and have proof you read it!! Dear Mr. Henry, In 1997 my children Ronald and Shelby Cornett were abducted from my home in Kalispell, Montana with the help of one of your states residents at the time. They were taken to Guymon, Oklahoma where they have been hidden from me ever since.
The following things have occurred since their abduction:
1. I have been denied any and all contact with my children over the past 13 years.
2. The mother of my children, Jodi Rae Ross/Griffing a resident of Guymon, Oklahoma has abused your court system to sabotage my paternal rights as their father. She willfully withheld evidence, knowingly misinformed the court and its officers in numerous proceedings to gain custody and change the last names of my children. She said that I had no interest in my children which is not true. She hid them from me!
3. She, Jodi Rae Ross/Griffing and Donald Wayne Griffing has now cut off all communication with the Cornett Family.
4. Jodi, no longer has primary custody of my children herself. The man, Donald Wayne Griffing, who stole them does.
5. Jodi, continues to threaten, harass and obstruct me access to my children to this day.
6. I believe after extensive research that she fits the criteria of a Obsessed Parental Alienator.
7. Jodi, presently willfully admits to intentionally destroying and denying me any relationship with my children. In essence she denigrates me.
8. The most important item of all is my name has been removed from their birth certificates and they have been denied their rightful family heritage. From what I have read regarding the Oklahoma state laws pertaining to custodial interference, child stealing and kidnapping I believe Jodi and Donald have violated at least one law. My goal here is to hold them accountable for the wrong they have done and re-establish a relationship with my children who I love and were taken without my knowledge and without my consent. My only alternative is spending 10's of thousands of $$ in a civil venture and is an action which I will reserve until my children mature and reach an age of 18. So that the mental and emotional anguish they will incur will be minimal. Another avenue I have considered is overturning their misinformation in their court proceedings one by one. Which would be expensive, long, tedious and my children would probably reach 18 years before the proceedings are concluded. It sickens me to know that someone can take children, run thousands of miles away, and hide them in your state making it so difficult for an average man and so expensive to challenge anything they do. In general I find it hard to believe someone can take their children without the other parents permission, run across the country with them, make up whatever stories suit their agenda and not be held accountable. If this is the case our country seriously needs to look at the laws pertaining to child abduction, child kidnapping and any other laws that are ignorant of this reality. This is reality for me. I have lived with this for 13 1/2 years.
And no one can even come close to imagine the pain and suffering that goes with having your children taken and never knowing what happened to them. What little information I do gather sickens me and all points to Jodi and Donald's denigration of me. This is clearly Parental Alienation at its best.
Sincerely, Ronald Cornett

Monday, May 25, 2015

Petition 2 Congress

STOP THE EPIDEMIC OF PARENTAL ALIENATION NOW..

                            Petition 2 Congress


We The Undersigned Call Upon The Senate/ Congress Of The United States Of America to Stop Parental Alienation By Making it A Crime Punishable By Law. This petition is for all children world wide who are suffering as a result of the selfish affairs between two parents. When a child is alienated from a parent, it is not just a mere separation between two people, it is the creation of a life-long hiatus affecting the child for the rest of his/her life. Parental alienation is child abuse by one parent who programs the child or children of the marriage to denigrate or target the other parent in an effort to undermine and interfere with the childs relationship with that parent. This syndrome is often a sign of the offending parents inability to separate from the couples conflict and focus on the childs needs. Rather, the offending parent uses the children in his or her war against the other parent. Parental alienation deprives children of their right to be loved and to show love to both of their parents. The alienating parent (and often other family members) mentally manipulate or bully children into believing a loving parent is the cause of all of the their or the familys problems; therefore the other parent must be the enemy, be feared, hated, disrespected and avoided. Hatred is not a normal emotion for children, rather it must be taught. Signs of parental alienation include: Bad-mouthing the other parent to the children Limiting contact Erasing the parent from the childrens lives Forcing the children to reject the other parent Forcing the children to choose sides Creating the impression the other parent is dangerous Belittling comments to the other parent in front of the children Calling the children to testify against the other parent Convincing the children the other parent is creating financial hardship on the family Every child has a fundamental right and need for a loving relationship with both parents and to be denied that right by one parent, without sufficient justification (abuse, serious neglect, etc.), is in itself a form of child abuse, since it is the child who is violated by an alienating parents behavior. The children suffer most. Reunification of the family takes a skilled professional and can be a trying time since the children are often in a continued abusive relationship with the alienating parent, who cannot let go of his or her own conflict with the other parent. Children deserve better as parental alienation leaves children with deep emotional scars as damaging as abducted children or victims of sexual abuse and extreme conflicts. Children often are left with post-traumatic stress syndrome due to the damage caused by the alienating parent. The severe effects of parental alienation on children are well-documented: low self-esteem and self-hatred, lack of trust, depression and substance abuse are widespread in children who have suffered through parental alienation. Children internalize the hatred that is taught to be targeted to the alienated parent. The absence of love and the lack of presence to the child from many of his/her family members, such as: grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, and sisters. It uproots the child's identity, and by doing this horrific act they are destroying the child's emotional foundation. A parent should not have the right to want to damage the relationship of their own child with the other parent at their own child's expense! What we do to help our children today as a nation will remain immortal. We Must Abolish Parental Alienation! Parental alienation is a crime committed against innocent children and should be punishable by law. Please don't allow another child to suffer do to parental alienation. Make the difference by signing this petition! Please, help abolish parental alienation. It affects all of us. We must have emotionally stable children in order to live in a stable world. When you do nothing, you feel overwhelmed and powerless. But when you get involved, you feel the sense of hope and accomplishment that comes from knowing you are working to make things better. If you are reading this petition find it in your heart to understand the pain and the suffering of innocent children. Every single signature is going to make the difference to help abolish the pain and suffering due to parental alienation. Being there for your children at all times is the indispensable element of pure love. Dr. Michelle King.
Petition2Congress

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Woman Faces Trial Over False Sex-Abuse Charges

DANBURY -- A state Superior Court jury will begin hearing testimony Wednesday in the trial of a woman who allegedly convinced her stepchildren to fabricate charges that led to their mother's arrest on sexual assault charges.
Flavia DaSilva, 36, a former Danbury resident now living in Waterbury, was charged last year after the girl's father told Danbury police that both his daughter and son, then 11 and 10, respectively, had recanted claims their mother molested them and said DaSilva helped make them up.
DaSilva has pleaded not guilty to two counts of risk of injury to a minor and interfering with police. A panel of six regular jurors and three alternates has been chosen to hear the case.
According to court documents, detectives from the Police Department's Special Victims Unit began an investigation in March 2011 after the girl said she had been molested by her biological mother. Police said the brother made similar allegations, and both children repeated their stories when interviewed by counselors with the Danbury Regional Child Care Advocacy Center.
As a result of the initial investigation, the mother was arrested. But a year later, the father contacted police and said after DaSilva moved out of their home, his daughter admitted the alleged abuse never took place.
Both children subsequently recanted their claims in interviews with police and with a child abuse counselor, according to the arrest warrant affidavit.
The girl told investigators that her earlier story was "not true, but a lie," and said DaSilva came up with it after the girl told her she didn't like going to her mother's house. The girl also said DaSilva "kept putting things in her head," including telling her what to say during her interviews with police and counselors.
Court records also indicate there was previous bad blood between DaSilva and the mother. According to Assistant State's Attorney Colleen Zingaro, the mother sued DaSilva over a cellphone bill in November 2010 and DaSilva poured water over the mother's head during a confrontation at a local nightspot because she believed the mother was flirting with her husband.
DaSilva is represented by Waterbury attorney Raymond Kotulski.
Judge Robin Pavia will preside.
jpirro@newstimes.com; 203-731-3342

Friday, March 13, 2015

Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome

JOURNAL OF FAMILY VIOLENCE, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3, p 253-264, 1995
DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME
Ira Daniel Turkat, Ph.D.
With the increasing commonality of divorce involving children, a pattern of abnormal behaviour has emerged that has received little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Specific nosologic criteria are provided with abundant clinical examples. Given the lack of scientific data available on the disorder, issues of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear ripe for investigation.
INTRODUCTION
A divorced man gains custody of his children and his ex-wife burns down his home. A woman in a custody battle buys a cat for her offspring because her divorcing husband is highly allergic to cats. A mother forces her children to sleep in a car to "prove" their father has bankrupted them. These actions illustrate a pattern of abnormal behavior that has emerged as the divorce rate involving children has grown.
Today, half of all marriages will end in divorce (Beal and Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in divorce has grown dramatically (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah, 1988) as well. While the majority of such cases are "settled" from a legal perspective, outside the courtroom the battle continues.
The media has spent considerable effort raising public awareness about the problem posed by divorced fathers who do not provide court ordered child support payments. Hedges (1991) has noted that less than 20% of divorced fathers provide child support payments three years after their divorce. Research on the decline of women's economic status following divorce (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988) has contributed to recent legislation to address the "Deadbeat Dad" problem.
While the media correctly portrays the difficulties imposed upon women and children by the "Deadbeat Dad" phenomenon, the cameras have yet to capture the warfare waged by a select group of mothers against child support paying, law abiding fathers. Every day, attorneys and therapists are exposed to horror stories in which vicious behaviors are lodged against innocent fathers and children. Unfortunately, there are no scientific data on the subject. Similarly, the clinical literature has relatively ignored the problem.
A notable exception can be found in the clinical writings of Gardner (1987, 1989) who has provided excellent descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Here, a custodial parent successfully engages in a variety of maneuvers to alienate the child from the non-residential parent. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes "...preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent-denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated" (Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In the typical case of Parental Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child engage in an array of abnormal actions against the rather. Gardner views "brainwashing" as a concept "too narrow" (Gardner, 1989) to capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a child against his/her non-residential parent.
While Gardner's pioneering descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome provide an important contribution to our understanding of divorce related child involved hostilities, the present paper is concerned with a more global abnormality. As noted in the examples provided in the beginning of this manuscript, serious attacks on divorcing husbands take place which are beyond merely manipulating the children. Further, these actions include a willingness by some mothers to violate societal law. Finally, there are mothers who persistently engage in malicious behaviors designed to alienate their offspring from the father, despite being unable to successfully cause alienation. In sum, these cases do not meet the criteria for Parental Alienation Syndrome. Nevertheless, they portray a serious abnormality.
The purpose of the present paper is to define and illustrate this more global abnormality with the hope of generating increased scientific and clinical investigation of this problem.
DEFINITION
The present section provides a beginning definition of the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, which has been derived from clinical and legal cases. As in all initial proposals, it is anticipated that future research will lead to greater refinement in the taxonomic criteria. The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as follows:
  1. A mother who unjustifiably punishes her divorcing or divorced husband by:
    1. Attempting to alienate their mutual child(ren) from the father
    2. Involving others in malicious actions against the father
    3. Engaging in excessive litigation
  2. The mother specifically attempts to deny her child(ren):
    1. Regular uninterrupted visitation with the father
    2. Uninhibited telephone access to the father
    3. paternal participation in the child(ren)'s school life and extra-curricular activities
  3. Tile pattern is pervasive and includes malicious acts towards the husband including:
    1. Lying to the children
    2. Lying to others
    3. Violations of law
  4. The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder although a separate mental disorder may co-exist.
CLINICAL ILLUSTRATIONS
In this section, I will provide clinical illustrations for each criterion using the reference numbers provided above. As criteria 1-3 are behavior specific to the Malicious Mother Syndrome, I will provide a series of clinical examples. The fourth criterion which addresses the relationship of the proposed syndrome to other mental disorders, will be discussed more generally.
Criterion 1A: Alienating the Children
The range of actions taken by a mother to attempt to alienate her children from their father is impressive. For example:
One mother lied to her children that she could no longer buy food because their father had spent all of their money on women at topless bars.
A doctor's wife forced her 10 year old son to apply for federally funded free school lunches to delude the boy that his "daddy has made us poor."
A woman who for years was very close to the children in a custody battle, was asked by their mother to give up neutrality and join her campaign against the father to "dance on his grave." When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the mother falsely informed her children that their father was having an affair with this woman.
These behaviors, if successful, could lead a child to not only hate the father but perhaps go years without seeing him. As Cartwright (1993) has noted: "The goal of the alienator is crystalline: to deprive the lost parent, not only of the child's time, but of the time of childhood" (p. 210).
Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Malicious Actions
The second component of the first major criterion where the mother attempts to punish the husband, involves manipulating other individuals to engage in malicious acts against the father. Examples of this kind are as follows:
During a custody battle, a mother lied to a therapist about the father's behaviour. The therapist, having never spoken with the father, appeared as an "expert" witness to inform the Judge that the mother should be the primary residential parent and that the father needed to be in therapy.
One angry mother manipulated teenagers to leave anonymous threatening notes at the ex-husband's home.
A mother who had lost legal custody of her child, manipulated a secretary at the child's school to assist in kidnapping the child.
In the above examples, it is important to note that the person manipulated by the angry mother has, in a way, been "alienated" against the divorcing husband. Typically, the individual "duped" takes on a righteous indignation, contributing to a rewarding climate for the mother initiating malicious actions.
Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation
There is little question that either party in a divorce or custody proceeding is entitled to appropriate legal representation and action. Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, however, attempt to punish the divorcing husband by engaging in excessive litigation.
A belligerent and unreasonable mother verbally attacked her ex-husband whenever she saw him. Over time, his response was to ignore her. She then took him to court, asking the judge to require the ex-husband to talk with her.
One mother told a judge that her daughter was not really her divorcing husband's child.
One woman refused to stop attacking her ex-husband through the courts despite numerous attorneys being fired or voluntarily leaving the case. Over a three year period, seven different attorneys were utilized.
Data exist which can help in determining the range of excessive litigation. For example, Keel et al. (1988) report on the frequency of post-divorce litigation in a sample of 700 families. Their data indicate that only 12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the court, whereas less than 5% file two or more petitions (Keel at al. 1988); less than 1% file four or more petitions.
Criterion 2A: Denying Regular Visitation
Experts are in relative agreement that regular and uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is desirable and beneficial for children, except in extreme circumstances (Hedges, 1991). In fact, some states, such as Florida, have laws written to reflect this view (Keane, 1990). Unfortunately, even when the father and children have legal rights to visitation, individuals with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome continue to interfere with it.
A mother who previously attacked her ex-husband physically during visitation transfers of the children, refused to provide the children when the ex-husband had the police attend to monitor exchanges.
When one divorced father arrived to pick up his children for visitation, the mother arranged for her and the children to be elsewhere so that the father could not visit with the children.
One mother had her physically intimidating boyfriend assault her ex-husband when he came to pick up his children for visitation.
The President of The Council for Children's Rights (Washington, D.C.) notes that such alienation is considered a form of child abuse (Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the police typically avoid involving themselves in such situations. Furthermore, unless a victimized father is financially capable of returning to court on an ongoing basis, there is little that can be done to prevent such mothers' behavior. Finally, even when such cases are brought to trial, the courts are often inadequate in supporting fathers' visitation rights (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).
Criterion 2B: Denying Uninhibited Telephone Access
Given the physical absence of one parent, the telephone plays an important role in maintaining the bond between child and non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome engage in an array of actions designed to circumvent telephone access.
A father called to speak to his children and was told that they were not at home when in bet he could hear their voices in the background.
When one father called to speak with his children, the mother put him on "hold," informed no one, and then left him there.
Knowing that the children's father was away on vacation, one mother encouraged them to leave several messages on his answering machine to call back immediately only if he would like some additional visitation time with his children.
Some fathers find the alienation attempts so painful and fruitless that they eventually are extinguished from calling their children; they simply "give up." Placed in a no-win scenario, the father's "abandonment" (Hedges, 1991) unfortunately achieves the precise result aimed for by the individual suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
Criterion 2C: Denying Participation in Extra-Curricular Activities
An integral part of the process of maintaining one's bond with one's child is to participate in activities that one did before the parents separated. School plays, team sports, and religious events are just some of the types of activities of importance. Malicious Mothers frequently engage in maneuvers designed to prevent participation in these activities.
One father was deliberately given the wrong date and time for an important event for the child. The child was asked by the mother, "I wonder why your father didn't want to come to see you today"?
One mother refused to provide the father with any information about any extra-curricular activities in which the children were engaged.
Prior to a child's soccer game, one mother told many of the team parents disparaging falsehoods about the visiting lather. When he came to watch his son's soccer game, many of these parents looked at him with angry eyes, refused to talk with him, and walked away when he moved toward them.
Malicious Mothers who engage in such behaviors rarely have to face penalties for such actions. Judges, attorneys, and policemen cannot involve themselves in every instance of blocked paternal access. Furthermore, most fathers cannot afford the financial requirements involved. As such, the cycle of access interference perpetuates itself.
Criterion 3A: Malicious Lying to the Children
Given their developmental status, children in a disputed divorce situation are quite vulnerable. When one parent decides to attack the other by lying to the children, examples of this type of malicious behavior may include some of the following.
One divorcing mother told her very young daughter that her father was "not really" her father even though he was.
An eight year old girl was forced by her mother to hand unpaid bills to her lather when he visited because the mother had falsely told the daughter that the father had not provided any economic means of support to the family.
One mother falsely told her children that their father had repeatedly beat her up in the past.
These examples of malicious lying can be contrasted with the more subtle maneuvers typically seen in Parental Alienation Syndrome, such as "virtual allegations" (Cartwright, 1993). Here, the mother setting up a Parental Alienation Syndrome may hint that abuse may have occurred, whereas the individual suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome falsely claims that abuse has actually occurred.
Criterion 3B: Malicious Lying to Others
Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome may engage a wide range of other individuals in their attacks upon the ex-husband. However, with this particular criterion, the individual with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome specifically lies to other individuals in the belligerency against the father. Some examples include the following.
One furious mother called the president of the (1500 employee) workplace of her divorcing husband, claiming falsely that he was using business property for personal gain and was abusing their mutual children at his work locale.
One woman falsely told slate officials that her ex-husband was sexually abusing their daughter. The child was immediately taken away from him and his access to her was denied.
During the course of a custody dispute, one mother falsely informed the guardian, who was investigating the parenting skills of each parent, that the father had physically abused her.
Snyder (1986) has reported on the difficulty imposed upon legal authorities when confronted with someone who is an excellent liar. Consistent with research on the inability of "specialists" to detect lying (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), a skilled fabricator can be a compelling witness in the courtroom (Snyder, 1986). While sometimes seen in borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that pathological lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) is not restricted to that particular character disorder.
Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the Husband
Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome have few if any boundaries in their campaign against the divorcing husband. Violations of law are common in many cases, although the laws broken may be relatively minor. However, in some cases, the violations of law may be quite serious.
One woman deliberately drove her automobile into the house of her ex-husband where their mutual children resided.
In the midst of a custody battle, one woman broke into the residence of her divorcing husband and stole important business papers.
An angry divorcing mother called a Christian evangelical television station and pledged $1000, giving the name, address, and phone number of her divorcing Jewish husband as the pledgee.
The above descriptions may remind the reader of certain personality disorders (e.g., antisocial, borderline, sadistic) but these behaviors may be demonstrated by individuals with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome who do not appear to meet official diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder. Further, in each of the four examples provided above, none of the Malicious Mothers involved was sentenced for such behavior by a Judge.
Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder
In assessing the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, it is important to note that many of the above clinical examples seem to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental disorder diagnosis or treatment. In fact, one mother who engaged in extreme maliciousness toward her divorcing husband had several mental health professionals testify that she was not suffering from any type of mental disorder. Clearly, it would seem that individuals who have Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome may or may not have a concomitant mental disorder.
In the author's experience, for each mental disorder that might come to mind to account for some of this behavior, an exceptional case presents. For example, in some cases an Adjustment Disorder might seem an appropriate diagnosis, yet one woman still denied her ex-husband visitation 10 years after the divorce. Other cases might suggest a possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis, yet one woman who repeatedly violated the law in attacking her ex-husband, received no personality disorder diagnosis despite being evaluated by masters level and doctoral level examiners. In some instances, Intermittent Explosive Disorder might be considered, yet the anger for many of the mothers does not appear to be intermittent.
Finally, the reader should appreciate that while diagnostic accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good as one would like (e.g., the personality disorders, see Turkat, 1990), the problem is compounded in family law where incompetent mental health examiners sometimes become involved in the judicial process (Turkat, 195)3). Clearly, the relationship between Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome and other mental disorders is a complex one which requires significant investigation.
DISCUSSION
The above description of the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome raises a variety of important clinical, legal, and scientific issues.
From a clinical perspective, families that involve a Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome are subject to serious episodes of stress and distress. Yet, there is no scientific evidence on how to treat this phenomenon. It is particularly compromised by the fact that many of these cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria deny that there is anything wrong with them.
An additional difficulty is that many therapists are unaware of this pattern of malicious behavior (Heinz and Heinz, 1993). As such, there are therapists who are "fooled" by such cases and, as noted earlier, will come to court testifying that there is nothing wrong with the mother involved.
From a legal perspective, there are some attorneys who may unintentionally encourage this type of behavior (Gardner, 1989). On the other hand, there are some attorneys who deliberately encourage such behavior, as the financial rewards for them are time dependent. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorney (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). However, even for the subset of attorneys for whom this may be true, there is a point of diminishing returns. Furthermore, independent of economic considerations, many who become involved with family law courtrooms find that these types of cases are not handled well (Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992).
The woman who is not disturbed "enough" to lose custody of her children in the courtroom will not have money denied to her because she engages in this behavior; nor will she go to jail. Thus, many clients report significant frustration when they and their children are exposed to this type of behavior, and the courts seem to do little if anything about.
In a review of pertinent law literature on bias against men in family law proceedings, Tillitski (1992) concluded that there is widespread discrimination. This is well illustrated by one family law Judge's statement that, "I ain't never seen the calves follow the bulls, they always follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the mamas" (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992 p. 742). Similarly, it is noted that visitation rights of fathers are not enforced as rigidly as are child support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Such bias against men in family law proceedings results in a unique group of fathers who unintentionally become relatively helpless victims of the system (Tillitski, 1992). This situation would seem to reinforce much of the vicious behavior displayed by women suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
The issue of sex distribution of the disorder certainly needs to be addressed. The overwhelming majority of custodial parents are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Gardner (1989) has noted that Parental Alienation Syndrome appears most commonly in females, although it is possible for a male who has custody of the children to engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. The author's experience with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is similar to Gardner's. However, the present writer has yet to see a case of a father engaging in all of the criteria listed. This does not mean that it is not possible for there to be a "Malicious Father" Syndrome. In fact, Shepard (1992) reports that there is significant abuse of some custodial mothers by non-residential fathers. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are females who are required to pay chiltl support, but we have yet to heara about "Deadbeat Moms." Given at the present time that a case in which the father met all of the criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syntlrome has yet to be documented, it appears advisable to await scientific evidence to guide issues of nosologic labeling.
How prevalent is the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome? The answer is unknown. Gardner (1989) reports that approximately 90% of all custody battles involve some aspects of parental alienation. Further, Kressel (1985) reviewed data indicating that up to 40% of maternal custodians denied visitation to the ex-husband in order to punish him. Relatedly, Arditti (1992) reported that 50% of a sample of divorced fathers (N = 125) indicated that visitation was interfered with by the mother. While aspects of parental alienation may be common, it is highly unlikely that such a percentage of maternal custodians would meet all of the criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
In regard to incidence, it would appear through the title of this syndrome that the malicious behavior is precipitated by the divorce process.
However, this is clearly an empirical question. While the malicious actions may first be noted during a divorce process, it is possible that maliciousness may have been present earlier but undetected. Research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal, 1986) supports this speculation. Relatedly, it may also be that there are some cases of pre-existing mental disorder that have not been discovered until the stress of the divorce itself unfolds.
Finally, it should be noted that research on the nature of post-divorce family functioning is beginning to emerge. Some data exist on the role of parental conflict in children's postdivorce functioning (e.g., Frost and Pakiz, 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley and Stewart, 1990; Kudek, 1988), but studies have yet to appear on the more extreme cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
The Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome represents an important societal phenomenon. The disorder affects children, parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health professionals, and others. Until this phenomenon is explored more thoroughly in the scientific and clinical literature, the problems imposed by individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome will continue to plague us. Hopefully, the present manuscript will stimulate research so that clinical and legal management guidelines can be developed.
REFERENCES
Artlitli, J. A. (1992). Factors related to custody, visitation, and child support for divorced fathers: An exploratory analysis. J. Div. Remarr. 17: 23-42.
Beal, E. W., and Hockman, D. (1991). Adult Children of Divorce, Delacorte Press, New York.
Cartwright, D. F. (1993), Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 21: 205-215.
Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report to the supreme court of Georgia. Georgia State Univ. Law Rev. 8: 539-807.
Ekman, P., and O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46: 913-920.
Enos, D. M., and Handal, P. J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54: 820-824.
Frost, A. K., and Pakiz, U. (1990). The effects of marital disruption on adolescence: Time as a dynamic. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 544-555.
Furstenberg, F. F., Morgan, S. P., and Allison, P. D. (1987). Paternal participation and children's well being after marital dissolution. Am. Sociological Rev. 52: 695-701.
Gardner, R. A. (1987). The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation Between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, NJ.
Gardner, R. A. (1989). Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, NJ.
Greif, G. L. (1985). Single Fathers, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and Thieves. Simon & Schuster, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Healy, J. M., Malley, J. E., and Stewart, A. J. (1900). Children and their fathers after parental separation. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 531-543.
Hetherington, E. N., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.). (1988). Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Heinz, H. R., and Heinz, S. A. (1993). Emotional incest: The tragedy of divorcing families. Am. J. Fam. Law 7: 169-174.
Hernandez, D. J. (1988). The demographics of divorce and remarriage. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-22.
Hodges, W. E (1991). Interventions for Children of Divorce, (second edition), Wiley, New York.
Keane, G. (1990). Florida Divorce Handbook, Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.
Koel, A., Clark, S. C., Phear, W. P., and Hauser, B. B. (1988). A comparison of joint and sole legal custody agreements. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 73-90.
Kressel, K. (1985). The Process of Divorce, Basic Books, New York.
Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mothers' perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by non-custodial fathers in families with low and high levels of pre-separation interparental conflict. J. Appl. Devel. Psychol. 9: 315-328.
Laosa, L. N. (1988). Ethnicity and single parenting in the United Stales. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 23-49.
Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welfare 71: 357-367.
Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient. Am. J. Psychiatry 143: 1287-1289.
Tillitski C. J. (1992). Fathers and child custody: Issues, trends, and implications for counseling. J. Ment. Health Counsel. 14: 351-361.
Turkat I. D. (1990). The Personality Disorders: A Psychological Approach to Clinical Management, Pergamon, New York.
Turkal, I. D. (1993). Questioning the mental health expert's custody report. Am. J. Fam. Law 7: 175-179.

Ira Daniel Turkat, Florida Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of Medicine,
1225 Avenida Del Circo, Venice, Florida 34285.

Friday, February 6, 2015

Petition to The Senate/Congress of The United States of America to Stop Parental Alienation by Making it a Crime Punishable by Law

STOP THE EPIDEMIC OF PARENTAL ALIENATION NOW..

               Petition2Congress

We The Undersigned Call Upon The Senate/ Congress Of The United States Of America to Stop Parental Alienation By Making it A Crime Punishable By Law.

This petition is for all children world wide who are suffering as a result of the selfish affairs between two parents. When a child is alienated from a parent, it is not just a mere separation between two people, it is the creation of a life-long hiatus affecting the child for the rest of his/her life.

Parental alienation is child abuse by one parent who programs the child or children of the marriage to denigrate or target the other parent in an effort to undermine and interfere with the childs relationship with that parent. This syndrome is often a sign of the offending parents inability to separate from the couples conflict and focus on the childs needs. Rather, the offending parent uses the children in his or her war against the other parent.

Parental alienation deprives children of their right to be loved and to show love to both of their parents. The alienating parent (and often other family members) mentally manipulate or bully children into believing a loving parent is the cause of all of the their or the familys problems; therefore the other parent must be the enemy, be feared, hated, disrespected and avoided. Hatred is not a normal emotion for children, rather it must be taught.

Signs of parental alienation include:
Bad-mouthing the other parent to the children
Limiting contact
Erasing the parent from the childrens lives
Forcing the children to reject the other parent
Forcing the children to choose sides
Creating the impression the other parent is dangerous
Belittling comments to the other parent in front of the children
Calling the children to testify against the other parent
Convincing the children the other parent is creating financial hardship on the family

Every child has a fundamental right and need for a loving relationship with both parents and to be denied that right by one parent, without sufficient justification (abuse, serious neglect, etc.), is in itself a form of child abuse, since it is the child who is violated by an alienating parents behavior. The children suffer most. Reunification of the family takes a skilled professional and can be a trying time since the children are often in a continued abusive relationship with the alienating parent, who cannot let go of his or her own conflict with the other parent.

Children deserve better as parental alienation leaves children with deep emotional scars as damaging as abducted children or victims of sexual abuse and extreme conflicts. Children often are left with post-traumatic stress syndrome due to the damage caused by the alienating parent. The severe effects of parental alienation on children are well-documented: low self-esteem and self-hatred, lack of trust, depression and substance abuse are widespread in children who have suffered through parental alienation. Children internalize the hatred that is taught to be targeted to the alienated parent.


The absence of love and the lack of presence to the child from many of his/her family members, such as: grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, and sisters. It uproots the child's identity, and by doing this horrific act they are destroying the child's emotional foundation.

A parent should not have the right to want to damage the relationship of their own child with the other parent at their own child's expense!

What we do to help our children today as a nation will remain immortal. We Must Abolish Parental Alienation!

Parental alienation is a crime committed against innocent children and should be punishable by law.

Please don't allow another child to suffer do to parental alienation. Make the difference by signing this petition!

Please, help abolish parental alienation. It affects all of us.
We must have emotionally stable children in order to live in a stable world.

When you do nothing, you feel overwhelmed and powerless. But when you get involved, you feel the sense of hope and accomplishment that comes from knowing you are working to make things better.

If you are reading this petition find it in your heart to understand the pain and the suffering of innocent children. Every single signature is going to make the difference to help abolish the pain and suffering due to parental alienation.

Being there for your children at all times is the indispensable element of pure love.

Dr. Michelle King.

Petition2Congress