Thursday, October 29, 2009

Parental Alienation: A Mental Diagnosis?

One of my comments on this site.
PAS and the usual suspects

You can get a flavour at the negative energy that is invoked when this subject arises. Those who believe it is "junk science" start sliming the theory and then other people. I want readers to take note of the vehemence of these deniers of abuse and then ask your self some reasonable questions.

In the normal course of family relationships children can be abused. In many countries it is the single mom who leads in this category for both maltreatment and death. You should note that some of the most passionate critics of this malady are moms who lost custody. Their first counter-attack is to call the opposing parent an abuser. Some organize themselves around lawyers who make a lucrative living from referrals, and call themselves protective parents. Most of these do not have fathers with custody in them. They are dominated by moms who have lost custody. In the USA 84% of decisions give maternal custody so when a mom does lose custody any reasonable person has got to understand there are serious issues. In Canada it is even more pronounced with over 90% of physical custody given to moms.

In both countries PAS has passed the relevant scientific tests for evidence that being Frye and Mohan. That it has not been given an entry in the DSM is often brought up as an issue yet the APA recommends custody evaluators use Dr. Gardner's books on PAS as part of the tool kit for their work. We should, however, not get hung up on semantics. Anyone with any contact or knowledge of children can recognize alienation of a child from a parent. Anyone with any kind of practical training can determine the cause. Common sense tells and close observation shows most children feel a sense of guilt if they are being abused by a parent thinking they have done something wrong. They usually don't hate the parent with the intensity an alienated child does. Abused children will try and please the abuser in order to get back in their good graces. They do not say to them without fear or reservation, "you smell, you hate mommy or daddy, you have bad breath, you have germs, you are over/underweight, you dress poorly, you are old, ugly, not liked by anyone and this list goes on. They will say this to your face on access visits in the hope you will take them back to the custodial parent.

In Canada the legal literature shows about a 2-1 ratio in terms of decided court cases where mom was the alienator. It is not strictly a one gender issue. Parental Alienation is real and is emotional abuse of children. Anyone who denies this is a person enabling this abuse.MJM




Thursday, October 29, 2009


  • Video
  • Comments (111)
  • Some experts say the extreme hatred some kids feel toward a parent in a divorce is a mental illness

    Posted October 29, 2009

    From an early age, Anne was taught by her mother to fear her father. Behind his back, her mom warned that he was an unpredictable and dangerous; any time he'd invite her to do anything—a walk in the woods, a trip to the art store—she would craft an excuse not to go. "I was under the impression that he was crazy, that at any moment he could just pop and do something violent to hurt me," says Anne, who prefers that only her middle name be used to guard her family's privacy. Typical of a phenomenon some mental-health experts now label "parental alienation," her view of him became so negative, she says, that her mother persuaded her to lie during a custody hearing when the couple divorced. Then 14, she told the judge that her dad was physically abusive. Was he? "No," she says. "But I was convinced that he would [be]." After her mother won custody, Anne all but severed contact with her father for years.

    Click here to find out more!
    Video: Children's Health Quick Tips
    Video: Children's Health Quick Tips

    If a growing faction of the mental-health community has its way, Anne's experience will one day soon be an actual diagnosis. The concept of parental alienation, which is highly controversial, is being described as one in which children strongly attach to one parent and reject the other in the false belief that he or she is bad or dangerous. "It's heartbreaking," says William Bernet, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, "to have your 10-year-old suddenly, in a matter of weeks, go from loving you and hiking with you...to saying you're a horrible, ugly person." These aren't kids who simply prefer one parent over the other, he says. That's normal. These kids doggedly resist contact with a parent, sometimes permanently, out of an irrational hate or fear.

    Bernet is leading an effort to add "parental alienation" to the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the American Psychiatric Association's "bible" of diagnoses, scheduled for 2012. He and some 50 contributing authors from 10 countries will make their case in the American Journal of Family Therapy early next year. Inclusion, says Bernet, would spur insurance coverage, stimulate more systematic research, lend credence to a charge of parental alienation in court, and raise the odds that children would get timely treatment.

    But many experts balk at labeling the phenomenon an official disorder. "I really get concerned about spreading the definition of mental illness too wide," says Elissa Benedek, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Ann Arbor, Mich., and a past president of the APA. There's no question in her mind that kids become alienated from a loving parent in many divorces with little or no justification, and she's seen plenty of kids kick and scream all the way to the car when visitation is enforced. But, she says, "this is not a mentally ill child."

    The phenomenon has been described for many decades, but it became a cause célèbre in 1985, when Richard Gardner, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, coined the term "parental alienation syndrome." As more dads fought fiercely for joint custody, he observed a surge in the number of children suffering from a distinct cluster of symptoms, including a "campaign of denigration" against one parent that sometimes included a false sex-abuse accusation and automatic parroting of the other parent's views.

    But sound research supporting a medical label is scant, critics say. The American Psychological Association has issued a statement that "there is no evidence within the psychological literature of a diagnosable parental alienation syndrome." What's more, concern has grown that "PAS" could be invoked by an abusive parent to gain rights to a child who has good reason to refuse contact, says Janet Johnston, a clinical sociologist and justice studies professor at San Jose State University who has studied parental alienation. In teens, she notes, parental rejection might be a developmentally normal response. Anecdotal reports have surfaced that some kids labeled as "alienated" have become suicidal when courts have ordered a change of custody to the "hated" parent, she says.

    In any case, divorcing parents should be aware that hostilities may seriously harm the kids. Sometimes manipulation is blatant, as with parents who conceal phone calls, gifts, or letters, then use the "lack of contact" as proof that the other parent doesn't love the child. Sometimes the influence is more subtle ("I'm sure nothing bad will happen to you at Mommy's house") or even unintentional ("I've put a cellphone in your suitcase. Call when everyone's asleep to tell me you're OK"). It's important to shield kids from harmful communication, says Richard Warshak, a clinical professor of psychology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and author of Divorce Poison. If something potentially upsetting about an ex must be conveyed, he advises imagining how you would have handled the conversation while happily married; how would you have explained Mom's depression, say?

    "The long-term implications [of alienation] are pretty severe," says Amy Baker, director of research at the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection in New York and a contributing author of Bernet's proposal. In a study culminating in a 2007 book, Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome, she interviewed 40 "survivors" and found that many were depressed, guilt ridden, and filled with self-loathing. Kids develop identity through relationships with both their parents, she says. When they are told one is no good, they believe, "I'm half no good."

    Now 23, divorced, and a parent herself, Anne has recognized only recently that she was manipulated, that her long-held view of her father isn't accurate. They live 2,000 miles apart but now try to speak daily. "I've missed out on a great friendship with my dad," she says. "It hurts."

    A Mangina Journalist makes sport of female on male violence ~ Go ballistic to protect the family jewels

    My observations of Mr. Baron's misandry:
    |
    fromMike Murphy
    sender timeSent at 13:44 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 17:33.
    toEBaron@png.canwest.com,
    wmoriarty@png.canwest.com,
    ERolfsen@png.canwest.com,
    KMercer@png.canwest.com
    ccJeremy Swanson
    date29 October 2009 13:44
    subjectGo ballistic to protect the family jewels Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves BY ETHAN BARON,
    mailed-bygmail.com



    Ethon:

    Re: Go ballistic to protect the family jewels
    - Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves
    BY ETHAN BARON, THE PROVINCE
    OCTOBER 29, 2009 7:23 AM


    You are making light of a vicious assault on a man. Would you do the same had the gender's been reversed. Not likely I do believe. Your editors are far too feminized and sanitized for that. We have copious numbers of manginas working in journalism who are clearly unable to see the double standard they represent when publishing such - whats that word - oh yes - drivel.

    Next time you want to seem funny at the expense of another man look in the mirror and ask yourself - would I do this if it were about a female. It is a very simple test.

    You are no David Letterman whose squirrel jokes are in far better taste than yours and that's not reaching a high plateau. Just ask his feminist critics or Sarah Palin. I do like Dave, however.

    Mike Murphy
    Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting









    Liberals make it harder for men to defend themselves

    For men living in Langley, or even just visiting, I offer the same advice I get from my neighbourhood squirrels: Watch your nuts.

    It appears a woman randomly assaulted a man in Langley, by kicking him where it counts.

    Anthony Clark says he was strolling along 200th Street when a young woman walked up and delivered a powerful blow to his groin with her foot.

    The kick exploded his testicle, which had to be surgically removed, Clark says.

    His description of the assailant -- young, slim, average height -- doesn't narrow the field enough to be very helpful.

    "To say, 'Yeah, beware of all women walking down the street, that would be tough,'" says Langley RCMP Sgt. Don Davidson.

    Because the victim didn't report any robbery, and random attacks by women against men are exceedingly rare, RCMP remain puzzled about a motive. The woman may be mentally ill, have an axe to grind against men, or there may be more to the story, Davidson suggests.

    For men, I offer the following solution: Armour yourselves.

    You have several choices, and one of them is on sale.

    For $199.95 US, marked down from $249.95 until Saturday, Tamiami Armor is selling a Level IIIA "ballistic cup." This snazzy little number, made of high-tech ceramic like that used in military flak vests, is fitted into a companion jockstrap.

    "It stops all handgun bullets," says a company spokesman, who inexplicably declined to be identified.

    Given that we're talking about an attack in the Lower Mainland, where gang-war bullets could potentially fly anywhere at any time, this tactical device would serve a double purpose.

    It would protect the family jewels from this female suspect as well as from gangsters' random slugs.

    The problem is, you'd soon find your protected package snarled in red tape, as the provincial government is bringing in legislation to outlaw body armour for ordinary citizens -- except by special permit.

    Banned will be any "garment or item designed, intended or adapted for the purpose of protecting the body from projectiles discharged from a firearm," the draft legislation says.

    Fortunately, less-expensive protection is available, without a permit, at martial-arts equipment stores. At the low end, you can buy a $15 plastic cup with jockstrap, but considering the force of the blow received by Clark, these cups might not be up to the job.

    "Being plastic, it's possible you could crack them," says Sam Logan, manager of Golden Arrow Martial Arts in Vancouver.

    It makes more sense to spring for the $40 steel cup.

    "It's a special order," Logan says.

    Clark says RCMP told him constables had heard of three or four similar attacks in Langley.

    Davidson says Langley Mounties are not aware of other such incidents.

    "They're saying they never told him that kind of thing," Davidson says.

    In the meantime, it may make sense to buy some protective gear.

    When it comes to safeguarding the important things in life, it's better to err on the side of caution.

    Just ask any squirrel.

    National Post editorial board: All-day kindergarten doesn't make sense





    Out of curiosity I did a little number crunching on current teacher demographics in Ontario by age category related to the following editorial in the National Post today just to see what the trend line looks like in our schools and indeed in the broader public service. Currently both the Provincial and Federal Public Service has a 55% female 45% male composition.

    Some of you will say there is Murphy on another one of his Feminist rants or if you are a mangina you might even call me intolerant names just like the feminists currently proffer periodically. Personally I could care less but I do have a need to elucidate (not hallucinate) on matters of males being discounted and females given greater value in almost all aspects of our daily discourse. My target, however, is not women it is feminists and politicians just in case someone was going to do the usual and call me a misogynist. I love women especially those like Sass and Kat26 who stand up and assert their equality.

    My crunching covers the current age groups by gender as follows and their dominance.

    Total teachers registered in the Province 219,181 - more to come courtesy of McQuinty.

    Total Female = 149,636 Male = 59,968 Ratio female to male is 265.50% >female

    It gets more interesting when you break them out by age cohort. Watch the trending from young to older

    Age 20-30 female 32,421 male 8,012 Female lead by 404.66%

    Age 31-40 f - 47,069 m -17,303 Female lead by 272.03%

    Age 41-50 f - 36,016 m -15,134 Female lead by 237.98%

    Age 51-60 f - 33,707 m -14,116 Female lead by 238.79%

    Age 61+ f -10,000 m - 5,403 Female lead by 185.08%

    Trending is obvious in that we have far fewer male teachers and accelerating under the McQuinty lefty Liberals.

    Why are males not interested in teaching? What impediments are in play through the schooling of boys that causes them to turn away from teaching as men?

    Here is possibly one reason and is a true story - " A couple of weeks ago an older girl bullied a 9 year old boy and roughed him up some. He did what we told him was right and he reported the incident to the female principal and female teacher. He was told not to be a sissy, nothing was done.

    A few days later he and a male friend were playing a bit rough and all hell broke lose. They were doing nothing wrong just being boys. They are still close friends but don't really understand why they were disciplined and the other incident was ignored. Try and explain to a 9 year old that this is the way it is. How does one explain the statement made, I can do this because I am a girl. What is this teaching young males."

    This is not isolated and goes on every day all across this country but in many and various ways.

    I haven't yet found the demographics for our other largest tax cost industry of health care but I will source them someday. I will posit I will find a largely female dominated Industry as well with trends of greater domination coming particularly in the higher ranks of Doctors.

    Wake up men - you are being feminized and marginalized in many ways and you do not even see it.




    National Post editorial board: All-day kindergarten doesn't make sense

    Posted: October 29, 2009, 2:00 PM by NP Editor

    Given Ontario's massive deficit, why is Premier Dalton McGuinty focused on imposing an expensive, full-day kindergarten program on the province?

    Cynics will say that the project is about burnishing his legacy, about leaving future generations of Ontarians something more than red ink. He's practically said as much, suggesting that once his kindergarten program was passed, "I find it hard to see somebody seeking to undo [it]."

    He is, of course, right: It is much harder to take away expensive entitlements than it is to introduce them in the first place. This is one of the reasons that the nanny state-- of which Mr. McGuinty might be considered governess-in-chief, these days -- is anxious to get into the business of hiring literal all-day nannies for Ontario's five-year-olds.

    Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Involvement after Separation and Divorce:


    The Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance and

    The Social Science and

    Humanities Research Council of Canada

    present…


    Dr. Edward Kruk,

    University of British Columbia,

    School of Social Work

    Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Involvement after

    Separation and Divorce:

    A Workshop for Parents and Professionals


    1. What do we know about separated and divorced fathers?
    2. How do we ensure responsible father involvement?
    3. Shared parenting after separation and divorce: How do we make it work in the best interests of children?


    This presentation will examine the barriers to fatherhood involvement with children after parental separation, and ways of overcoming those barriers, including a new approach to child custody and access after divorce.



    Kamloops

    Thursday October 22nd, 2009
    7:00-9:00PM
    Tournament Capital Centre
    910 McGill- Road Room C
    Kamloops, BC

    Vernon

    Friday October 23rd, 2009
    7:00-9:00PM
    The People Place
    101-3402 27 Avenue
    Vernon, BC

    Nanaimo

    Wednesday October 28th, 2009
    7:00-9:00PM
    Beban Park Recreational Centre
    500 Bowen Road, Room #19
    Nanaimo, BC

    Victoria

    Thursday October 29th, 2009
    7:00-9:00PM
    Fairfield Community Place- Garry Oak Room
    1330 Fairfield Rd
    Victoria, BC

    Vancouver

    Wednesday November 4th 2009,
    7:00—9:00 pm
    Council Chambers, City of Coquitlam
    3000 Guildford Way
    Coquitlam, B.C.

    Toronto

    Saturday November 21st, 2009
    2:00PM-4:00PM
    North York Central Library- Auditorium
    5120 Yonge Street,
    North York, Ontario




    The Canadian Christian Heritage Party declares open season on men

    The following is the CHP's rationalization for their declaration of open season on males in Canada.

    Tue, 27 Oct 2009

    Dear

    Thank you for your question regarding our platform statement:

    The CHP will maintain the registration of handguns but would restore the right of Canadians, especially women, to own .32 and .25 calibre weapons of barrel lengths shorter than 4.1 inches. Small handguns in the hands of women would do much to end the fear they currently experience because of violent ex-partners.

    The intent of "especially women" was not to suggest that domestic violence is primarily perpetrated by men against women. As you correctly point out, statistics show that men and women are about equal in abuse. However, they also show that more serious injury and death are generally men assaulting women.

    I've quoted below from a Macleans article from July 2006 entitled "Breakup Blast".

    Domestic violence goes across all relationships. But serious injury and death -- it's men stalking and killing women," says Peter Jaffe, a professor at the University of Western Ontario and academic director of the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children in London.

    The smaller calibre guns are lighter weight and easier for women to carry in a purse. That was the point behind specifying women.

    I hope this clears up that our intent was not to fear monger or bash men, rather it was to assure that women would also be able to defend themselves by having the ability to carry a light weapon.

    Vicki Gunn
    Executive Director
    CHP Canada

    This is my response to their policy. What they don't get is that 999,993 men out of every million male voters to not kill their spouses and the vast majority of Canadians do not get affected by DV. In families where it does occur it is pretty much equal and the women very likely initiates more than the man. Why you ask? Simply because she knows she can because the vast majority of men are socialized to not retaliate.

    Mike Murphy
    Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:24 PM
    To: electjim@rogers.com
    Cc: Jeremy Swanson

    Subject: Election pandering to women, to own .32 and .25 calibre weapons

    It was brought to my attention you are pandering to the feminist minority to enable all women, at the exclusion of men, to carry handguns with the sole purpose of killing men perceived by the woman to be a predator. It sounds like a licence for open season on males.
    I have been advised you are aware Intimate Partner Violence In Canada is about equal. The most recent figures from a 2004 Social Survey by Statistics Canada "Family Violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2005" shows an estimated 7% of women and 6% of men representing 653,000 women and 546,000 men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm

    Men are seriously injured in about 1/3 of these cases. You must, therefore, make note of this and provide for these men as well other wise it is blatant sexism you are promoting. In a country that has roughly 16.1 million females you are going to promote all of the adults of that gender who would like to, can carry hidden handguns because a tiny minority suffer physical abuse. The 653,000 who reported abuse of all kinds, is 7% of the then population and that is - I repeat - all forms of abuse. Physical abuse causing injury is a tiny proportion of even the 7%.

    In terms of spousal homicides in relation to the population of the country it is minuscule. On the basis of per million couples this is how it works out. 999,997 women do not kill their male spouses and 999,993 men do not kill their female spouses. I think we will see the male deaths increase under your proposal and in an effort to protect themselves we may see more illegal handguns in the possession of men.

    Contrary to Jaffe's narrow perspective women are more likely than men to stalk, attack and psychologically abuse their partners, according to a University of Florida
    study that finds college women have a new view of the dating scene. In a separate survey of 1,490 UF students, one quarter (25 percent) said they had been stalked during the past year and 7 percent reported engaging in stalking, of whom a majority (58 percent) were female.

    Here are a few more studies you might want to consult.

    Virtually all empirical survey data shows women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men in heterosexual relationships and that men suffer one-third of physical injuries from domestic violence. Over 200 of these studies (and growing), using various methodologies, are summarized by Professor Martin Fiebert at

    http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

    Harvard Medical School and the American Psychiatric Association both recently announced a major national study in the U.S. that found half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal and that: "Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women."

    http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

    http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.a...

    The study also found: "As for physical injury due to intimate partner violence, it was more likely to occur when the violence was reciprocal than nonreciprocal. And while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time)."

    A recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire found women are as violent and as controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide.

    http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n

    You quote Professor Jaffe and he is one of the feminist researchers who is famous for using very one sided data in his studies. He usually uses and reports only on subjects from transition shelters but never reports on how violent the women in the shelters have been toward their male partners. You will see from the above research you will be definitely putting a premium on females and putting a discount on being male.

    Did you know lesbian partners have a higher DV rate than heterosexual partners? Under your agenda both of them can have hand guns.

    I will be advising male colleagues across Canada about your intentions and will ask all men to work diligently against your anti-male and ultimately anti-family agenda unless you reconsider it.

    It is a highly divisive and polarizing proposal.

    Mike Murphy
    Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 6J8
    Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting




    Wednesday, October 28, 2009

    In Ireland ~ Children are the losers when parents go to court to battle

    Its comforting to see someone familiar with Irish Family Law, which treats dads in a manner similar to Canada (talk about world pandemics) make a suggestion about compulsory courses on shared parenting and I would also add counselling prior to litigation. It is one of many reforms required in Famil Law in many countries to firstly try and save marriages and secondly to get agreement before hiring a greedy Lawyer who tend to raise the stakes and the resulting adversity. They are "hired guns" not mediators and want to obtain the best deal for their clients and their egos. Dr. Jayne Major has a comprehensive reform package elsewhere in this blog.MJM








    Tuesday, October 27, 2009


    SHEILA WAYMAN

    THE ADVERSARIAL legal system is no use at all in reaching the best solution for children when their parents separate, according to psycho- therapist and author John Sharry.

    Judges, caught between two angry parents, think they can become little heroes and sort it out for the children, he says, “but the heroic thing to do would be to try to get the parents to sort it out”.

    He believes the courts should make a course on shared parenting mandatory for parents before hearing disputes over custody and access. That would help to impress on parents the need for co-operation for the sake of the children.

    Shared parenting, through which children have access to quality contact and care from both parents, has been proven to be the best outcome in most family break-ups, he argues.

    The rate of marriage breakdown is on the rise in the Republic, with 6,222 separations and divorces in 2008, an increase of 15.6 per cent from 2001. Parental separation is second only to the death of a parent in the amount of stress it causes children.

    “The single biggest factor in whether children will do well is the level of hostility between their parents,” says Sharry, co-author of a new edition of When Parents Separate: Helping Your Children Cope, published by Veritas. “If that is reduced and the parents can co-operate in the best interests of their children, then all the damage is mitigated.”

    Working in the Mater Child and Adolescent Mental Health service in Dublin, Sharry says the fallout from parental separation is a significant issue in children’s mental health.

    “At the end they usually only have one active parent, who is compromised. Everyone is in a worse situation.”

    It does not have to be like that, he stresses, but shared parenting is challenging. He advises parents that going to court only increases the difficulties.

    “When you fight your ex-partner over the children, everybody loses. A lot of money is spent and you can aggravate the difficulties for you and your children.”

    He has worked with families who have made huge progress in drawing up a mediated agreement. “But when they go to solicitors, their differences are aggravated, their tensions are aggravated and then they all have a go in court.”

    He has never seen court action useful in creating shared parenting. “If you impose a judgment, it is always second best to an agreement.”

    He acknowledges that if there are power differences, for example where one parent is not letting the other see a child at all, the court can help to rebalance that, but it should then tell the parents to sort the arrangements. He also welcomes the increase in the use of collaborative law outside the court system to help parents reach agreement.

    It is often not feasible for two former partners to live separately but nearby, particularly in the current economic climate. If they have to remain under the one roof, some do find ways to make it work for the children.

    Sharry worked with one family where the father had moved into a separate part of the house. “It wasn’t great, but I think their children preferred that. The problem is if the partners want new partners, which they tend to do.”

    There is an onus on parents to stay close after a break-up, Sharry explains. “Your desire might be to go to a new country and get away from the past. But if you are bringing children with you, you are really depriving them. Children are for life – it means you have a commitment to the place you have them,” he adds. “There are no easy outs.”

    A new edition of When Parents Separate: Helping Your Children Cope , written by John Sharry and Eugene Donohoe, is published by Veritas, €8.

    A talk of the same title will be given by John Sharry next Tuesday, November 3rd, in Donnycarney Community Centre, Dublin, 8pm-9.30pm, admission €20. To book, or for more information, see www.solutiontalk.ie or tel: 086-7340114.

    This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/1027/1224257487235.html

    Tuesday, October 27, 2009

    In Ireland ~ Children are the losers when parents go to court to battle







    Tuesday, October 27, 2009


    SHEILA WAYMAN

    THE ADVERSARIAL legal system is no use at all in reaching the best solution for children when their parents separate, according to psycho- therapist and author John Sharry.

    Judges, caught between two angry parents, think they can become little heroes and sort it out for the children, he says, “but the heroic thing to do would be to try to get the parents to sort it out”.

    He believes the courts should make a course on shared parenting mandatory for parents before hearing disputes over custody and access. That would help to impress on parents the need for co-operation for the sake of the children.

    Shared parenting, through which children have access to quality contact and care from both parents, has been proven to be the best outcome in most family break-ups, he argues.

    The rate of marriage breakdown is on the rise in the Republic, with 6,222 separations and divorces in 2008, an increase of 15.6 per cent from 2001. Parental separation is second only to the death of a parent in the amount of stress it causes children.

    “The single biggest factor in whether children will do well is the level of hostility between their parents,” says Sharry, co-author of a new edition of When Parents Separate: Helping Your Children Cope, published by Veritas. “If that is reduced and the parents can co-operate in the best interests of their children, then all the damage is mitigated.”

    Working in the Mater Child and Adolescent Mental Health service in Dublin, Sharry says the fallout from parental separation is a significant issue in children’s mental health.

    “At the end they usually only have one active parent, who is compromised. Everyone is in a worse situation.”

    It does not have to be like that, he stresses, but shared parenting is challenging. He advises parents that going to court only increases the difficulties.

    “When you fight your ex-partner over the children, everybody loses. A lot of money is spent and you can aggravate the difficulties for you and your children.”

    He has worked with families who have made huge progress in drawing up a mediated agreement. “But when they go to solicitors, their differences are aggravated, their tensions are aggravated and then they all have a go in court.”

    He has never seen court action useful in creating shared parenting. “If you impose a judgment, it is always second best to an agreement.”

    He acknowledges that if there are power differences, for example where one parent is not letting the other see a child at all, the court can help to rebalance that, but it should then tell the parents to sort the arrangements. He also welcomes the increase in the use of collaborative law outside the court system to help parents reach agreement.

    It is often not feasible for two former partners to live separately but nearby, particularly in the current economic climate. If they have to remain under the one roof, some do find ways to make it work for the children.

    Sharry worked with one family where the father had moved into a separate part of the house. “It wasn’t great, but I think their children preferred that. The problem is if the partners want new partners, which they tend to do.”

    There is an onus on parents to stay close after a break-up, Sharry explains. “Your desire might be to go to a new country and get away from the past. But if you are bringing children with you, you are really depriving them. Children are for life – it means you have a commitment to the place you have them,” he adds. “There are no easy outs.”

    A new edition of When Parents Separate: Helping Your Children Cope , written by John Sharry and Eugene Donohoe, is published by Veritas, €8.

    A talk of the same title will be given by John Sharry next Tuesday, November 3rd, in Donnycarney Community Centre, Dublin, 8pm-9.30pm, admission €20. To book, or for more information, see www.solutiontalk.ie or tel: 086-7340114.

    This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times


    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/1027/1224257487235.html

    Monday, October 26, 2009

    The Feminists and Political Panderers are at it again ~ Stronger Protection For Women And Children

    More pandering by the left to the feminists. It does not matter that DV is pretty much equal between genders, that the most dangerous place for a child is in the care of a single mom, that in some studies it shows females initiating DV in 70% of the cases, in more recent studies it shows females will suffer fewer injuries if they do not initiate the abuse, and there are no DV shelters for men even though they are seriously injured in a third of cases. The legislation is blatantly and prejudicially aimed at men but read further below over its origins. Restraining orders only work for honest people. If someone truly wants to harm their partner no piece of paper will stop them. Its like a padlock that will only keep honest people out. How many criminals will it keep out?

    The genesis of the legislation was the death of Katelyn Sampson, a small innocent girl at the hands of a drug addicted female hooker, who was her guardian approved by Bentley's court system, and her Mother who gave her over to the addict was also hooked on drugs. They were recipients of the largess of Ontario taxpayers.

    This kind of legislation is designed to pander to the DV Industry and the ideologues who work in academia, the Status Of Women offices and the AG's department.MJM



    October 26, 2009 1:45 PM

    McGuinty Government Reforms Family Justice For Ontarians

    Restraining orders in Ontario have been strengthened to improve the security of those suffering from domestic violence, most of whom are women and children.

    A breach of a restraining order made under the new provisions will now be prosecuted as a criminal offence. This increases the protections available to victims of domestic violence. For example, if a person is charged with breaching a restraining order and is likely to re-offend if released, a judge or justice of the peace can now detain this person until the trial.

    This part of Ontario's family law reform legislation came into force on October 15, 2009. The legislation also expanded protections to allow partners who live together in a relationship for less than three years to apply for restraining orders.

    QUICK FACTS
    • A new evidentiary test sets out considerations for judges when granting restraining orders.
    • The judiciary now has clear authority to order specific terms in restraining orders, to better protect victims of domestic violence and their children.

    http://www.news.ontario.ca/mag/en/2009/10/stronger-protection-for-women-and-children.html

    "These changes will mean victims of domestic violence will have increased protections in what is often their time of greatest need. More Ontarians will now have access to restraining orders, helping them to keep themselves and their children safe from harm."

    – Chris Bentley
    Attorney General


    "Ontario's new family law reforms will offer more protection to women who are being abused and provide better opportunities for them to build brighter futures for themselves and their children. This is an important step in moving forward on our government's agenda to help women and children live free from fear of domestic violence."

    – Laurel Broten
    Minister Responsible for Women's Issues

    CONTACTS

    • Brendan Crawley
      Communications Branch
      (416) 326-2210
    • Erin Moroz
      Minister's Office
      (416) 326-1785



    Ministry of the Attorney General
    ontario.ca/attorneygeneral

    THE BEST Put Down LINE EVER? Major General Peter Cosgrove is an 'Australian treasure!'

    This story is priceless and aroused a strong urge within me to have a verbal duel with a feminist. On a Monday morning no less. Unfortunately it is a hoax but a damn good one. http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.aspMJM

    General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.

    Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you've got to love this!

    This is one of the bes,t comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.



    FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

    So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?


    GENERAL COSGROVE:

    We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.



    FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
    Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?


    GENERAL COSGROVE:

    I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.



    FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

    Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?


    GENERAL COSGROVE:

    I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.



    FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

    But you're equipping them to become violent killers.


    GENERAL COSGROVE:

    Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?


    The radio cast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.



    Sunday, October 25, 2009

    Caroline Overington in OZ out does herself ~ Replace shared care with Canada model

    My letter to the editor of the Paper:

    fromMike Murphy
    sender timeSent at 17:43 (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 18:02.
    toletters@theaustralian.com.au
    cconline@theaustralian.com.au
    date25 October 2009 17:43
    subjectCaroline Overington "Replace shared care with Canada model"

    My Dear Editor:

    Re: Caroline Overington "Replace shared care with Canada model", October 29, 2009 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26259132-17044,00.html


    I have followed Ms. Overington's feminist rants over the years and always wondered why there was no counter balancing to these views which are often factually incorrect. There is no exception with this article. I also find it interesting she gets her facts wrong from the Australian women's movement frequently but now dares venture to the top of the world and quotes from feminist lawyers reports which are famous for their lack of veracity and use of mendacity.

    There is no difference in feminist discourse it appears no matter its national source. The information used is to promote feminist privilege and maternalist superiority often through the use of cherry picked statistics or pure fiction.

    In Canada judges order maternal custody in over 90% of cases. They offer breadcrumbs to dads through the use of a legal fiction called joint custody but physical custody goes to mom who rules. Possession is not just 9/10ths of the law it is the whole of the law. Is this the model Australia aspires to by going backwards. Why doesn't Overington discus the Danish, Dutch, Belgian or French model? Perhaps even the German Cochem example? All are representative of shared parenting in practice and working for children and parents alike.

    A few observations on her lack of sources and citation. "THE Rudd government has been urged to replace shared parenting laws with a model similar to that of Canada..." Urged by whom?

    "The Australian understands that the Canadian model has been put to Attorney-General Robert McClelland..." Put to the AG by whom - a feminist lawyer group with less than 50 members in a country of 31 million? She quotes not just herself as "understanding" but your newspaper.

    "Unlike the Australian family law regime, Canada does not require a court to presume that the best interests of the child are met by shared parenting" ..."It is unlikely that a breastfeeding baby would be placed in a shared care arrangement, as happens in Australia under the shared parenting law;" There is no shared parenting law in Canada, as yet, but bill C-422 is on the Parliamentary order table. If no shared parenting then the court presumes the status quo of maternal care which was the status quo in Australia prior to 2006.

    Overington is using the non-existence of a shared parenting regime in Canada to propose Australia, in effect, go back to the status quo. Interesting circular logic. We call that a Non sequitur in most English speaking countries and indeed others.

    "Canadian states and territories spell out some of the tests for the "best interests" principle." Overington needs to do more research on the socio-political and geographic nature of Canada. We have no states but we do have 3 territories on top of the world, one of which lays claim to the North Pole housing a magical figure called Santa Claus. Some of Overington's statements and conclusions are just as magical perhaps even mythological.

    The Canadian Divorce Act, and most Provincially related Family legislation, is gender neutral but yet judges still award maternal custody in a 9-1 ratio to moms. I would suggest our judges need direction, as did yours, in balancing the gender difference. Our research by experts like Professor Edward Kruk, at the University Of British Columbia (the latter a Province) shows parents need a minimal 40% contact rate to maintain a parental bond. He also describes numerous negative social outcomes for children in sole care homes.

    Can I recommend you hire a male reporter to help balance your reporting and opinion columns by feminists. It might make those like Overington actually do real research.

    Mike Murphy
    Promote Bill C-422 Equal Shared Parenting






    Caroline Overington | October 26, 2009

    Article from: The Australian

    THE Rudd government has been urged to replace shared parenting laws with a model similar to that of Canada, where shared parenting after divorce is not necessarily considered in the best interests of the child.

    The Australian understands that the Canadian model has been put to Attorney-General Robert McClelland as an option to consider as he wrestles with changes to the reforms introduced by the Howard government in 2006.

    Canada places the interests of the child ahead of the right of either parent to insist upon a shared-care arrangement.

    Unlike the Australian family law regime, Canada does not require a court to presume that the best interests of the child are met by shared parenting.

    It encourages the courts to take into account the benefit to children of having a relationship with both parents after divorce, but also takes into account the roles played by each party before separation, and the consequences to children of too much disruption in their lives.

    It is unlikely that a breastfeeding baby would be placed in a shared care arrangement, as happens in Australia under the shared parenting law; nor is it likely that children would be ordered into an arrangement that sees them woken from naps to visit their other parent, as also happens here. It is understood that the Canadian model has been put to Mr McClelland in the form of submissions from women lawyers, and from women's groups opposed to the shared parenting laws.

    It is also understood that the main group representing divorced and separated men, the Shared Parenting Council, has put up no alternative to the current regime.

    The group missed the deadline for submissions to the review of the law being chaired by retired family court judge Richard Chisholm. Rather than proceed without a paper from the fathers group, Professor Chisholm has offered to take a late submission.

    Child custody in Canada is governed by the Divorce Act, which says that courts shall "take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage".

    That formulation is supported by case law, which also puts the interests of the child first.

    Canadian states and territories spell out some of the tests for the "best interests" principle.

    Some say any disruption of the child's life must be taken into account before shared care is considered.

    Men's groups have tried to bring shared parenting to Canada, most recently in August, but so far they have failed.


    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,26259132-17044,00.html

    Saturday, October 24, 2009

    MELANIE PHILLIPS: If we don't take children and benefits from incapable mothers, the alternative is social catastrophe


    By Melanie Phillips
    Last updated at 10:06 AM on 07th September 2009

    Once again, Britain is recoiling from the sickening spectacle of childhood innocence being turned into its monstrous antithesis.

    Two young brothers aged ten and 11 from Edlington, South Yorkshire, subjected two other little boys aged nine and 11 to sadistic attack and torture, leaving one fighting for his life.

    What is so horrifying is that the attackers showed no empathy whatsoever with the suffering of another living being.

    A sketch of the two brothers facing Sheffield Crown Court

    A sketch of the two brothers facing Sheffield Crown Court. They will be sentenced next month.

    People call these boys 'evil' because such absence of feeling is inhuman. But they are not evil. They are children.

    We are all born with the capacity for both good and bad. Everything depends on whether the immature child is raised in a way that develops the good and discourages the bad, or whether something goes wrong with that process.

    To label these boys 'evil' is to let the real villains off the hook. These children are the product of evil attitudes within the adult world.

    Their personalities have been warped and their ability to feel for others blocked off because they have been deprived of the essential condition for developing into normally functioning human beings: a secure and loving family in which the basics of civilised life are programmed into children's characters.

    Instead, they were abandoned to fend for themselves in a pit of absolute degradation, cruelty and inhumanity.

    Their mother, who has seven sons by three fathers, is an alcoholic and drug addict who left them to forage from rubbish bins and fed them cannabis to keep them quiet; their father is a drunken brute, who regularly beat them and forced them to watch violent horror films.

    We know that there are thousands of other children being raised in broadly similar backgrounds. There are areas of the country where the overriding problem is not material poverty but social, cultural and spiritual disintegration - at the heart of which is the collapse of family life.

    Children are being born to lone mothers who were themselves raised in shattered homes by mothers who in turn came from identical backgrounds. The outcome is households in which children are neglected and maltreated, subjected to drug and alcohol abuse, violence and emotional chaos; and where the cruelty and indifference they endure is often translated into the sadistic way they treat others.

    Indeed, only last week we learned of another case, in West Yorkshire, where three boys aged 13 and 14 pleaded guilty to stripping, kicking and beating a 13-year-old with wire and bricks.

    Of course, only a tiny minority of children grow into attackers or sadists. And many lone parents do a heroic job in raising their children to become responsible adults. But the fact remains that family disintegration sets up chronic disadvantages for a child. Where these are not addressed, a cycle of deprivation is often transmitted down through the generations which replaces civilised behaviour by sheer savagery.

    For the past three decades, warnings that the disintegration of the family would result in social catastrophe were brushed aside. What was deemed more important was never to hurt the feelings of those living in fragmented households and to throw welfare benefits at them instead.

    Those who objected that this merely fuelled family breakdown were told they were cruel and heartless because depriving such families of welfare benefits would harm the children.

    Now in Edlington we can all see the result: four child victims, two of them horrifically attacked and tortured by two others whose very humanity has been taken away from them.

    Barnardo's chief Martin Narey says babies should be removed from bad parents

    Barnardo's chief Martin Narey says babies should be removed from bad parents

    The question now is what to do about a problem that has become a social and cultural emergency. When Iain Duncan Smith's Social Justice Commission refers to 'broken Britain', it is not exaggerating.

    Mr Duncan Smith himself suggests various imaginative schemes to repair such families, such as ones where both mother and child are taken into care. But such projects are too expensive and intensive to be applied to all the shattered lives which are growing so exponentially.

    The problem has to be tackled at source. That's why the head of Barnardo's, , has now said babies born to such mothers should be removed from them at birth and adopted.

    That may sound harsh - but the alternative, in smashed personalities, brutality and sadism, is much harsher. And all the evidence suggests that adopted children generally do very well indeed.

    By contrast, the care offered by social services is often worse than useless. Despite the fact that it knew all about the Edlington boys' previous history of sadistic behaviour, Doncaster social services - which itself has a record of gross inadequacy - placed them with a foster couple who not surprisingly were totally unable to control such deeply disturbed children.

    Whatever needs to be done to address the weakness in social work, surely what is necessary is not just to try to pick up the pieces of shattered family life but to prevent it from breaking in the first place.

    The key is to switch off the motor behind this catastrophe: the prevailing attitudes of a ruling elite which, pretending to be non-judgmental about family background, has actually smashed the traditional family to smithereens.

    Far from alleviating poverty, distress and misery, these self-regarding 'progressives' instead created and perpetuated these ills. Holding that the real crime was not to produce neglected or emotionally disturbed children but to ' stigmatise' those who raised them in such a way, they incentivised family breakdown by handing out welfare benefits with no conditions attached to behaviour.

    Through being paid automatically the birth of every child, child benefit has been an effective engine of mass fatherlessness. Other benefits, housing and child care payments offered to lone parents similarly rest on the assumption that the main problem to be addressed is always material poverty.

    But this is merely one aspect of these mothers' desperate need, which is rooted overwhelmingly in the fact that they cannot cope with looking after themselves, let alone their children.

    The independence afforded by the current benefits set-up is thus often a tragic delusion and cruel trap. Accordingly, a more humane response to unmarried motherhood is to treat it for what it really is - a potential disaster for both mother and baby.

    Both should be looked after in motherand-baby units with specialised help. Turning off the benefits spigot would also remove the financial incentives that have made such disasters a commonplace - as indeed was intended by the well-heeled intelligentsia, who set out to make unmarried motherhood 'normal' but whose own income cushioned themselves against the worst of the damage that the removal of such constraints on behaviour inflicted upon the poor.

    Hurling accusations of 'heartlessness' against their opponents concealed the fact that these 'progressives' were themselves causing unlimited damage and misery - not to mention a steady supply of jobs for themselves in interventionist programmes to 'rescue' the lives they were so cavalierly continuing to destroy.

    It is those people who made morality into a dirty word. Since the essence of morality is feeling for others, and since the essence of psychopathy is the absence of any such feeling, is it any wonder that the result of the doctrines imposed by these 'progressives' has been the creation of psychopathic children?

    The Edlington disaster can therefore be laid at their door. The next time they start moaning about flint-hearted 'moralisers' they should be firmly reminded of that fact. The rest of us have a society to rescue before it is all finally too late.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1211620/MELANIE-PHILLIPS.html#

    The work of Fathers 4 Justice and the Pain of Fathers ~ Activism in the UK

    Equal and Shared Parenting ~ The Movie