American Mothers Political Party: November 2010

Faces of the Family Court Crisis from James Hall Photography on Vimeo.

A project for Center for Judicial Excellence (centerforjudicialexcellence.org).
Video and photography by James Hall (88zero.com).
Original score by Matteo Favero (figuramusicstudio.com/​)
To learn more go to: centerforjudicialexcellence.org/​PhotoExhibit.htm

 Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

Presents:

 American Mothers Political Party BTR—LIVE Radio

 

 www.AmericanMothersPoliticalParty.org

SPECIAL GUEST! Susan Murphy-Milano is a non-fiction author and violence expert—a defender of victims' rights. A radio show host, Susan has appeared on Oprah, 20/20, American Justice, and CNN.

As a nationally recognized women's advocate, she was instrumental in the passage of the Illinois Stalking Law and the Lautenberg Act.

Susan's 4th book, "Time's Up” How to Escape Abusive and Stalking Relationships Guide , A Survival Manual for those in abuse, stalking and Violent Relationships.

Creator and Co-host of the hottest shows on Blog Talk radio: "Intimate Partner Homicide Investigation" with co-host Sheryl McCollum Director of the Cold Case Institute and sponsored by www.websleuths.com and Crime Wire www.blogtalkradio.com/crimewire for families seeking answers in suspicious and unsolved crimes with co-hosts veteran law enforcement and authors Vito Colucci, Jr., and Dennis N. Griffith.

We will be discussing the latest case of a suicidal fathers rampage, John Skelton, who on Thanksgiving day gave his children to a woman so that he could commit suicide.

He survived but the children and the mystery woman are still missing. We will be asking Susan questions on how this case relates to the countless she has experienced and taking your thoughts and questions.

This is the show you don't want to MISS!

 

Shooters On The Line. Abusers Of The Badge
Follow my videos on vodpod

1st collector for children taken away from mother by court
Follow my videos on vodpod

Family court consequences | Anonymoms
Follow my videos on vodpod

DUNG

by mamaliberty

WHATS BROWN AND SOUNDS LIKE A BELL?

I think the appropriate word for this dude isninny….

UK based mail online MR. Justice Coleridge states that:

Mothers who refuse to let separated fathers see their children should have them taken away, a senior family court judge said yesterday.

The children should be handed over to the full time care of the father if the mother persistently defies court orders, Mr Justice Coleridge said.

He called for a ‘three strikes and you’re out rule’ by which children would be taken away if mothers ignored three court orders.

The judge said that family courts are losing their authority because so many people take no notice of their judgments.

Around 5,000 new cases a year come before the family courts in which parents – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact.

Judges are extremely reluctant to jail such mothers because of the damaging effects on the children, so many continue to get away with it.

Mr Justice Coleridge, 61, said: ‘If I were to call it three strikes and you’re out it sounds insensitive but something like it perhaps should be the norm.’

He added that occasionally it might be necessary to send a mother to jail.

First things first….how you could even take this Marie Antoinette cross dressing wannabe serious is beyond me!  If the laws were applied the same for fathers abusers to be to held to the same standards in family court we would have no issue.

BUT….this is NOT the case in family court. 

Mothers and children are dying at the hands of their former abuser thanks to family court ordered visitation abuse.  Maternal deprivation is NOT acceptable any longer.

So as the old Monty Pythons Flying Circus recurring joke goes….Whats brown and sounds like a bell?

The idiot above.

MORE OUTRAGE ABOUT RICHARD WARSHAK AND THE HUFFINGTON POST: WE WON’T SHUT UP, WE WON’T GO AWAY

Another one of the commenters with me on the Huffington Post whose comments were also refused has written about this on RH Reality Check.  Please go to the website here and comment…the comments are starting to include Mens Rights Advocates who discount claims of domestic violence as false and “domestic violence is 50/50″ drivel so common from them.  We know men suffer from domestic violence, but the actual numbers are about 85/15 women victims versus men victims.  Nobody…absolutely nobody… should suffer from domestic violence.  But to hide and deny it, as well as giving labels to protect abusers, is ABSOLUTELY wrong.  The Huffington Post and Richard Warshak need to know that, although I highly suspect they do.  The money is just too good in the “parental alienation” scam to ignore.

HuffPo’s Divorce Section: No Room for Reason on Domestic Violence?

By Joan Dawson

November 17, 2010 – 8:21am

The Huffington Post, in an effort to beef up its divorce section, is featuring controversial psychologist and author, Richard Warshak. In his first column “Stop Divorce Poison,” Warshak speaks of the equally controversial topic of parental alienation (PA); he or HuffPo have censored comments made by domestic violence advocates and survivors, and many of the remaining comments espouse misinformation, stereotypes, and sexist remarks.

Why should this concern women and those in the reproductive rights community?

“Parent Alienation,” the idea that one parent (typically the mother) poisons the mind of the child against the other parent, is dangerous because it casts doubt on mothers’ claims of child abuse; the more she tries to protect her child and gather evidence, the more she exhibits “parental alienation.” If she fails–and she’ll face an uphill battle fighting bias, paying exhorborant fees, and fearing for her child(ren)’s safety trying to succeed–she can be fined, jailed and/or she could lose custody. PAS can and has turned the table on women trying to protect themselves or their child(ren) from abuse. (Several cases that have received media attention can be found here, here, and here.

We fight for rights during pregnancy; we can’t leave women in the dust after they deliver. Villifying a protective mother, jailing her or taking her offspring is the worse you can do to a woman – abusers understand this, it’s time we do, too.

Warshak and the idea of PA

Warshak starts off with, “Mother Theresa does not marry Saddam Hussein.” But then we would have to ask, what was Hussein’s wife like?, because Warshak is making a comparison between spouses. Perhaps she was no Mother Theresa, but surely she wasn’t as evil as Saddam.  Already we have an imbalance. All human beings can exhibit evil or wrong-doing, but not all humans are equal in this respect, as Warshak wants us to believe. Some are worse than others.  And while women are far from perfect, many women in abusive relationships fall in love with a guy only to find out months or years later that he is abusive. Abusers, unfortunately, don’t come with a sign on their forehead.

Warshak then explains that parents who alienate their child(ren) cannot “harness the emotions unleashed by divorce and they exhibit “rage,” “enlist children as allies,” and use “bad-mouthing, lies, exaggerations…,” which Warshak likens to political mud-slinging campaigns. Some parents may deliberately or inadvertently denigrate the other parent. This may be evident in their parenting skills, but the main problem with PA is that it’s indistinguishable from the fear that comes from an abusive situation and can harm protective parents while rewarding abusive ones.

Jay Silverman’s study at Harvard, as reported in Newsweek, found 54 percent of custody cases were in favor of the batterer and nearly every case used parental alienation to counter the claims of abuse.

Warshak’s belief that “abused children cling tightly to their abuser” must explain why he seeks to reunite children with potential abusers then. Warshak runs a “treatment facility” in Texas that, for the whopping price tag of $40,000, reunites child(ren), at times forcibly, with the denigrated parent. I’ve included a link to a case in Canada, where an alienated mother, who had the financial resources, sought to reunify with her sons at his center. Note Warshak never actually met the sons but called it alienation nonetheless.

Domestic violence advocates and censorship

The domestic violence community, along with many major medical and psychological associations, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, rejects PA as a legitimate diagnosis. At least eight of us, representing domestic violence advocates and survivors, tried to post comments on Warshak’s article explaining our position. While a few posts remained, most, in our supposition, were deleted because they disagreed with the author. One advocate was banned. Apparently, this is not the first time people have complained about the comment section of the Huffington Post.

Nearly all the comments were citations to research, quotes and other factual information, including how PAS does not meet the standard of scientific reliability, about Warshak’s reunification center and its $40,000 price tag, and quotes from experts in the field, among other comments calling into question his analysis.

I included this quote from Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence and a former President of the Amercian Psychiatric Association:

“PAS is junk science at its worst…Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent’s own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors.”

Mothers have informed us that when they make a good faith allegation, it is they who are doubted (see, for instance, cases such as those of Katie Tagle, where the judge called her a liar, gave the ex custody, and her baby was murdered by its father; or Amy Castillo, another woman who was denied a protective order and lost three children when her ex-husband drowned them in a hotel bathtub) and labeled abusive or ordered to undergo a polygraph test or psychiatric evaluation. The stereotype that women lie to gain the upperhand in custody cases, which occurs in only a fraction of cases, has more branding power than do mere facts. According to research, men in cases where both abuse and custody are in question actually make more false claims, according to research. The American Bar Associationprovides further information on custody myths.

Poisonous comments

Many of us understand the origins of PA are rooted in the misogynist and pro-pedophilia attitudes of Dr. Richard Gardner, who thought the mass sexual-abuse hysteria was caused by vindictive women falsely accusing fathers of abuse. (8) In reality, many protective parents feel as if this were a witchhunt against them — mothers are not trusted, they’ve cast a spell on the kids to hate Dad –they must be punished! Jail them! Fine them! Take away their children! Like the “witches” of long past who would either sink or swim, mothers are in a similar bind – if they report abuse, they’re punished for being an alienator; if they don’t report it, they can be punished for failure to report.

Meanwhile, many of the alienating behaviors readers commented on can be attributed to personalities, parenting skills, or, in cases of abuse, domestic violence by proxy, whereby one parent continues to exert control and/or abuse over another. One advocate keeps a blog of parents that kill their child(ren) in cases pertaining to divorce and custody. She’s up to 136. Despite the fact that these marriages ended, the domestic violence continues and these deaths would be classified as domestic violence fatalities.Overwhelmingly, these killings are committed by men – with no tango partner, Mr. Warshak. In other words, party of one.

You can tell from the comment section how much these guys like women. If they got together, I can just imagine them in a big smokey room with leather chairs giving each other the wink and nod about the comment pertaining to Mother Theresa and Saddam Hussein. The idea of ‘equality with a vengeance’ comes to mind.

One poster, Target NoMore, refers to those opposing PA as a ‘special interest group’ that doesn’t want to stop the problem. People who want to protect children are not “special interest groups.”

If HuffPo is going to feature controversial authors whose work is not only rejected by the scientific community but also puts children at risk, why not at least allow evidence to be introduced in the comments section? What are they afraid of?

Read more here : http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/11/17/huffpos-divorce-section-room-reason-domestic-violence

NOTE TO THE MEDIA: Trag·e·dy (trj-d) n. pl. trag·e·dies - 1. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances...

 

THESE CASES ARE NOT "TRAGEDIES". THEY ARE
OUTRAGES:

Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN

KANSAS

CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI CASE, Shawnee County, Kansas. Claudine lost custody of her baby daughter Rikki to Hal Richardson, the man who did this, thanks to Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their "co-parenting." WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
            Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele's previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine's being able to call the police.
            But don't blame the judges alone. Stupidity rarely works its evil in a vacuum. A truly egregious outrage requires that could-be good men do nothing. Guardian ad litem Scott McKenzie deserves a substantial portion of the credit for this travesty. I ask, how in hell can this happen in the United States of America? For more information, also see http://www.kansas.net/%7Efreepress/7-12-01-8.html

Google M. Jill Dykes, Rene M. Netherton, Court Appointed Child Abusers in Topeka Kansas

It’s monetary--- it’s all about the money.

CA3- Children Against Court Appointed Child Abusers the CACA STOPS here.

Stop The Gravy Train—you’ll stop the Child Trafficking by way of family Courts.

OUTRAGES: Bad decisions, Bad judges, Bad experts, Bad ethics, Bad ...

Outrageous family law decisions: a call for reform of the family courts and family laws. The problems caused by therapeutic jurisprudence, …

Bad laws, bad decisions, bad judges, bad experts, bad ethics, bad ideas, and other things that are BAD FOR CHILDREN

Dianne Post

Attorney

Posted: November 16, 2010 03:18 PM

Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law

Read More: Child Abusers , Childrens Custody , Custody Battles , Human Rights , Mother's Rights , U.S. Courts, Women's Rights , Politics News

Ten mothers, one victimized child now an adult, and six organizations working in the field of child abuse and family law filed a petition on April 10, 2007, at the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C., against the United States for the pattern and practice of courts awarding custody or unsupervised visitation to child abusers and molesters. The petitioners come from Kansas, Georgia, California, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Illinois and Nevada.

Ten years earlier, on Mother's Day, May 11, 1997, a group of mothers who lost custody of their children gathered on the steps of the U. S. Capitol in Washington, D. C. Entitled "Give Us Back Our Children," the event was held to represent the increasing numbers of women who are losing custody of their children to batterers and child abusers. This event, co-sponsored by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the House of Ruth, My Sister's Place, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), brought attention to the plight of women and children unfairly victimized by the legal system, and to dispel the myth that women always win custody of their children. That was 13 years ago. The situation today is even worse. The stories of these petitioners are not unique. They are the tip of the proverbial iceberg indicating a grave and growing injury to human rights.

Wendy Titelman is one of the petitioners. Her attorney, Richard Ducote, who has represented battered women for years, said:

After twenty years in family law courtrooms throughout the country, I confidently say that no woman, despite very abundant evidence that her child has been sexually molested by her ex-husband or that she has been repeatedly pummeled by the violent father of her child, can safely walk into any family court in the country and not face a grave risk of losing custody to the abuser for the sole reason that she dared to present the evidence to the judge and ask that the child be protected.

Sol Gothard, Judge of the Court of Appeals in Louisiana said:

There are very few times in law when you can state anything categorically, but I can certainly say that beyond any doubt whatsoever, the problem expressed by Wendy Titelman in this book is epidemic and widespread, and it has been this way for the forty-four years that I have been involved with the legal system.

Karen Anderson has been fighting for her children for 17 years. Her son Jeff Hoverson, now of age, has joined in the petition. He recounts that the day he was taken from his mother at 10 years of age was traumatizing:

So now I had no brothers, no pets, I was 3-4 hours from my home, and again... no mom. This is when I was damaged so severely emotionally... No one told me anything about my mom or why I was at my dad's or why we were in San Francisco on a sidewalk. I asked but received no answers. I felt that if I wasn't told anything that I was worthless to everyone. I was made into a possession rather than a child.

The facts of the individual cases are a catalog of proven domestic violence and child sexual molestation ignored by the courts. The mothers are labeled as mentally ill or having Parental Alienation Syndrome, though PAS has absolutely no scientific validity and is used in a very discriminatory way to remove children from mothers who try to protect the children and themselves from violence and abuse. Yet in these petitioners' cases it is used over and over to punish the protective parent.

This problem has been brought to the attention of family court systems, states and the national government all to no avail. In 1990, Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. 20 years later, it continues unabated. Legislation has been passed. Judges have been educated. Still it continues. Thus petitioners are turning to international courts to protect their human rights and the rights and safety of their children.

While state courts are responsible for custody cases, the federal government is responsible to ensure that their judicial systems operate in accordance with the Organization of American States Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man. The specific articles the petitioners claim to have been violated are:

Article I. Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
The courts place the children directly in danger without regard to their right to life, liberty or security of person. In addition, often the arrangements made for visitation are unsafe to the mother as well.

Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.
The gender discrimination both in the courts in general and in custody cases in particular has been known, studied and proven for years. The gender bias studies in the 1980's showed bias that has never been corrected. The studies of custody have shown that it is a complete myth that women get custody over men or that men are disfavored in family court. It is such a pervasive myth that years of litigation and proof has not shaken it -- to the harm of the victims of violence.

Article IV. Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.

Litigants, especially mothers, who report child abuse are punished with jail or the loss of custody of their children. The protective parents are in a Catch-22 situation. If they do not protect their children, they are charged with failure to protect and the child protection agencies take their children. If they do act to protect, the courts put the children directly into the arms of the abuser.

Article V. Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.

Often the protective parents who report abuse are labeled mentally ill or diagnosed with such imaginative syndromes as parental alienation or munchhausen's by proxy. Often they are ordered into counseling or in the case of one petitioner, taken to the mental hospital.

Article VI. Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefor.

By separating the protective parents from their children for no valid reason, the parent is denied the right to establish a family. Some of these petitioners have not seen their children for years. Every single petitioner was denied contact with their child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them.

Article VII. All women, during pregnancy and the nursing period, and all children have the right to special protection, care and aid.

Often battering begins during pregnancy, yet special protection is not afforded the mothers, even when they have an order of protection. Much research has proven that children of abusers are likely to be abused themselves and have a higher rate of sexual molest. Yet courts continue to refuse to protect the children. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the DeSheney case that the state does not owe any right of protection to children even when they know of the abuse and have in fact placed that child in that home with the father. This is in plain violation of the Declaration.

Article XVIII. Every person may resort to the courts to ensure respect for his legal rights. There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights.

The lack of due process in family court is legion. Ex parte hearings and communications, decisions without hearings, refusal to admit the mother, refusal to admit evidence of violence is rampant in the cases and violates the most basic principles of due process. Little attention or time is given to these decisions that shape a child's life forever.

Article XXIV. Every person has the right to submit respectful petitions to any competent authority, for reasons of either general or private interest, and the right to obtain a prompt decision thereon.

The gender bias studies of the 1980's showed that courts are not competent when dealing with women. Unfortunately, things have not improved. In spite of training, legislation and lobbying, judges continue to ignore statutes that mandate no custody to abusers. The petitioners have tried to hold the judges accountable by appeal or disciplinary procedures, all to no avail.

Article XXV. No person may be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures established by pre-existing law.

The many children who are put directly into harms way by being placed with an abuser or molester are deprived of their liberty. When courts ignore evidence of violence, they are not following pre-existing law. It is commonplace for judges to completely ignore state statutes that mandate that custody will not go to a perpetrator thereby violating state law as well as putting children in danger.

Article XXX. It is the duty of every person to aid, support, educate and protect his minor children, and it is the duty of children to honor their parents always and to aid, support and protect them when they need it.

These petitioners have tried to protect their children. It is the courts that have prohibited them. The cost to both child and parent is overwhelming and devastating.

The Gonzales case, also filed at the InterAmerican Commission, illustrated in their hearing the failure of the American justice system to protect battered women and children. That case dealt with the failure of the police department. This case deals with legal abuse -- the failure of the legal system, the courts, the guardians ad litem, the attorneys for the children, the state protective agencies to both follow the law and to protect the helpless children who face the horror of violence daily.

Unfortunately, the IACHR has not moved on the case. After more than three years, they have not even examined it or forwarded it to the U.S. government. How many children have to suffer before justice is done?

ANOTHER BATTERED MOTHER SPEAKS OUT, AND THREATENED BY FAMILY COURT JUDGE WITH LOSS OF CHILD BECAUSE SHE DOES

FILED IN: BAD JUDGES, CALIFORNIA, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, CHILD CUSTODY ISSUES,CHILD CUSTODY FOR SALE, CHILDREN WHO WITNESS ABUSE, CORRUPT BASTARDS, DOMESTIC ABUSE,DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FATHERS RIGHTS, JUDGE SCOTT GORDON, MEL GIBSON, OKSANA GRIGORIEVA,BATTERED WOMEN, CHILD CUSTODY FOR ABUSERS

Again, another battered woman speaks out, and the judge threatens to take custody of her baby from her.  Shame on Judge Scott Gordon and all the other judges that want to hide how women are being beaten and abused.  My money is on her losing her baby to that dangerous, drunken asshole.  That is standard operating procedure in family court now.

And by the way, why is it a “custody war?”  Drunken asshole Mel Gibson threatened to kill her…he ASSAULTED her…he should be in prison.  Why should custody be any question?  Because abusers are getting custody of children in family court.  Bet there is some $$$ involved too.  This MUST stop!

Oksana Grigorieva Defies Judge with Larry King

11/14/2010 7:40 AM PST by TMZ Staff

Oksana Grigorieva has defied the judge in her custody war with Mel Gibson by taping an interview with Larry King Saturday night, TMZ has learned … and it’s Oksana’s opening salvo in “speaking out on behalf of battered women.”

Oksana did the interview (which was supposed to only last a half-hour but ended up an hour) along with one of her lawyers, Marty Garbus — this despite Judge Scott Gordon telling Oksana that if she did media, she might pay when it comes to awarding custody … this according to Oksana’s team.

Sources connected with Oksana tell TMZ she did the interview because “she feels she’s been silent too long and feels bad for other battered women if she stays silent.” Sources tell TMZ Oksana is now working with a group called Peace Over Violence — an L.A.-based battered women’s group — and she’s planning a number of news conferences in the near future.

We’re told Larry King played portions of a number of the tapes Oksana secretly recorded, in which Mel goes crazy. King asks for her reaction to the various tapes.

And we’re told Oksana repeats over and over that she believes Mel is a great father, but he needs therapy to deal with his issues so he can safely be around Lucia.

Oksana is also working with a lobbying group in Sacramento — California Partnership to End Domestic Violence — on battered women legislation.

STRAIGHT FROM THE ASSHOLES MOUTH

\BOLO; Be On the Look Out For

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine being amidst the horrible situation of having your child beat severely by his father and then having Warren County Kentucky Whores of the Court being the most evil and corrupt as one can imagine.  One such Whore of the Court is Edin Smajlagic who posted vile comments on his public facebook profile. (see pic above)
Smajlagic is involved in the Kimberly Harris/Christian Coffey case that continues in Warren County. He denied the mothers dinner visit with Christian because he cant supervise what is discussed off site. Yet he allows abuser Steven Coffey a supervised visit at Pizza Hut with Sarah the foster mom on October 27. 
After Smajlagic was exposed for his biased and frightening facebook posts he then contacted fellow blogger and posted threatening and bullying tactics http://www.webpagescreenshot.info/img/915402-1115201064903PM
Threatening a state employee? These are not threats....you have been weighed and measured....FAIL

Posted by BRING IT ON at 10:56 AM

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz

Labels: Christian Coffey, Edin Smajlagic, Family Court Corruption, Kentucky Court Whores,Kimberly Harris, Rice-Holderfield, Warren County Kentucky

0 comments:

Courtesy Australian Shared Parenting Law Debate

Zahra, is unfortunately one of many children who died at the hands of decision that the family court made. From the late eighties when Ken Bryne introduced Gardner's concept of parent alienation deeming victims of violence and protective parents as "unfriendly parents" until now, so many women and children died at the hands of judges. Judges who werewarned by experts in family violence of such grave consequences if they continued to ignore victims. Anyone with common sense would look no further than the collection of analysis on familicides to know that by ignoring victims of family violence is playing with lives.

In Australia, two generations of victims have grown up through the system where there are now parents facing the same system that abused them as a child, now plaguing their children. The system that had always had the power to protect, but failed to do so for the sake of a cheap and quick service. Thats right, the lives of Australian women and childrenhave been hijacked in favor of a cheap and quick service that catersprimarily for men. Bright futures that could have been the one who cured cancer, solved our environmental crisis or made some other wonderful contribution to our community was lost in favor of a "cheap and quick" service. We don't know what Zahra Baker, Darcey Freemanor those whom in death remain nameless could have done for Australia and the wider global community. Whether the parent is a mother or a father abusing, there are signs and symptoms that the family court haveignored, despite so many that have spelled it out.

A task that victims and survivors alike should never have had to do in Australia was to lobby for a protection that should never have been robbed from them. A basic human right:

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Arguably, mens rights groups claimed that such acts were a "right", but not when they are disproportionate to children's and womens rights. These "rights" deprived both children and mothers of basic human rights. The situation was so appalling that it got a mention in a UN report against Australia.

The Family Law Amendment 2010 proposal is not only spot on, but it is vital not just in the value of life, but the value of Australia's future. The reason why Australia thrives is because so many of these women work hard to raise these children despite all odds and some of these children have made great contributions to the Australian community and the rest of the world.

Much anger, action and outrage has been raised about the deaths that occurred in 9/11, but if all of the deaths of women and children from family violence had occurred in one location - it would be the greatest act of terrorism in history. The question is why it is not as important, why action was not taken sooner and why women and children are continuing to endure abuse at the order of the family court or perhaps, "Her Majesties Pleasure".

The Australian Liberal Party, a rogue right wing cell that lost all meaning of "liberal"(except in global trade concepts), is beyond the phrase, "Out of touch" when they vow publicly to "fight" basic protection measures desperately needed for women and children. No matter how nicely put it, we all know now that its happening. It cannot be denied. there are too many that have been affected by these laws, too many that have been affected by child abuse and violence. Everyone knows and cares about at least someone that has gone through it and the campaigns simply spell it out.

As much as the liberals might have wet dreams about a totalitarian society like 1984, its just not going to happen. The mindset behind control was never an intelligent choice in the first place, it was nothing more than reviving the retro-thug from the dark ages. The art of surviving great challenges and pursuing noble endeavors is the only true intelligence and one that cannot be tested by academia, but of action and results within a collective sense of integrity.

If you wish to add your name to a historical change for the better, you can sign the petition here:

http://www.gopetition.com/petition/40638.html

Posted by Melanie at 10:35 PM

Labels: Australian Liberal Party, Family Law Amendments 2010, Zahra Baker

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/DVP.html

As more and more abused women lose custody to batterers in family courts, they are wrongly embracing the very ideas that enabled their abusers to gain custody in the first place. False accusations of “parental alienation" are often used by batterers to gain custody and to defend against accusations of abuse.

Some unfortunate women after years of enduring domestic violence have lost custody to the batterers who abused them. In these cases, batterers have made good on their threat to attack their ex-partner in the place she is the most vulnerable—by taking her children away from her. After separation, these batterers continue to wage their campaign of manipulation and abuse by attempting to convince involved children that their mothers never loved them. Looking for a way to describe their batterers' behavior, some mothers have called what their batterer is doing "parental alienation syndrome."

In reality, what these women are describing from their ex-partners is better termed Domestic Violence by Proxy (DV by Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson, author of Health and Healing. DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior which is a parent with a history of using domestic violence or intimidation, uses a child as a substitute when he no longer has access to his former partner. Calling this behavior “parental alienation” is not strong enough to convey the criminal pattern of terroristic behaviors employed by batterers.

When his victim leaves him, batterers often recognize that the most expedient way to continue to hurt his partner is to assert his legal rights to control her access to their children. By gaining control of the children, an abusive male now has a powerful tool which allows him to continue to stalk, harass and batter an ex-partner even when he has no direct access to her. Moreover, by emotionally torturing the child and severing the bond between children and their mother, he is able to hurt his intended victim -- the mother -- in a way she cannot resist.

DV by Proxy includes tactics such as: threats of harm to children if they display a positive bond to the mother, destroying favored possessions given by the mother, and emotional torture (for example, telling the child the mother hates them, wanted an abortion, and is not coming to get them because they are unloved).

DV by Proxy may also include coaching the child to make false allegations regarding their mother's behavior and harming or punishing the child for not complying. DV by Proxy perpetrators may also create fraudulent documents to defraud the court in order to prevent the mother from gaining custody. Whether or not the child is biologically related to them is irrelevant to perpetrators of DV by Proxy. The perpetrator's main motivation is to hurt his ex; whether or not his own child is harmed in the process is irrelevant to him.

This is very different from "parental alienation syndrome" as described by the late Richard A. Gardner. Dr. Gardner described PAS as an internal process by which a child aligns themselves with a preferred parent to protect themselves from the divorce conflict. “PAS” is conceptualized as a psychological process of identification with a parent who, according to the theory, encourages this identification at the expense of the other parent.

PAS inducing parents, according to Gardner, are often unconscious of what they are doing to encourage the identification. In contrast, perpetrators of DV by Proxy are very conscious of what they are doing. Controlling, coercive, illegal acts often done by abusive and controlling people, usually men, are not subtle, and do not encourage an identification with a parent. Criminal, fraudulent, coercive acts are visible and obvious. These behaviors encourage compliance by threats and fear. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and often illegal. These behaviors include: battery, destruction of property, locking children in rooms to prevent them from calling parents, falsifying documents, along with other similar overt behaviors.

The most dangerous aspect of Gardner's PAS theory is that that the alienating parent's behavior is theorized to be so subtle as to be unobservable. In other words, the behaviors that are supposed to cause the alienation are assumed to be happening without any proof that they have actually occured. As many women have discovered this makes a charge of "alienation" almost impossible to defend against.

While Gardner's theories regarding PAS have been shown to be overly general and have not been supported by careful research, behaviors seen in DV by Proxy can be readily observed. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and planned; many are illegal, and if the child is given the freedom to talk, will be described in great detail by the child.

If the child's formerly favorable view of the victimized parent changes when exposed to tactics like this over time then it is more likely a form of "Stockholm Syndrome" or traumatic attachment to the abuser, rather than the alignment with one parent and negative reaction to the other that Gardner described as "alienation".

A recent and comprehensive article on PAS and its use in the court system, by Jennifer Hoult can be downloaded here.

For further information:

• Are Protective Parents Losing Custody to Alleged Abusers?Evidence shows that women who raise concerns about family violence during custody litigation run the risk of losing their children.
• Stopfamilyviolence.org: The people's voice for family peace. Stop Family Violence is a national grassroots organization with a mission to organize and amplify our nation's collective voice against family violence.
• CA3 -Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse
• High-conflict divorce or stalking by way of family court?Massachusetts Family Law Journal, 2004.http://www.mincava.umn.edu/reports/linda.asp
• Hoult, Jennifer. (Spring 2006). The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy,Children's Legal Rights Journal, 26(1) pp. 1-61. (download PDF)

How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?

According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer.  Read rest of Article here: http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/ampp-article-library-family-court-custody-abuse-dv/1-research-articles-family-court-bias-custody-abuse-battered-moms/41-how-many-children-are-court-ordered-into-unsupervised-contact-with-an-abusive-parent-after-divorce

 

• AMPP Home
• AMPP Article Library
  • News
    • PRESS RELEASE: AMPP Stands Behind Christian Coffey HIS Mother and All Their Supporters
    • Melinda Stratton: Another Mother 'Hunted' Down
  • Media
    • Dr. Phil Exposes the Crisis in Family Court
    • INTERVIEW WITH DOMINIQUE LASSEUR, PRODUCER OF “BREAKING THE SILENCE: CHILDREN’S STORIES”
  • Family Court Related Research and Articles
    • Some Concerns About False Allegations of Abuse Are Accurate
    • How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?
    • Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: Legal Trends, Risk Factors, and Safety Concerns
    • Family Court and Fathers’ Rights = A Deadly Combination
    • Mother’s Day Proclamation at the White House 1870 and 2010
    • NIMH - Monkey Brain Scans With and Without Mom
    • Confirmed: Protective Mothers Were Right
    • Justice is biased!! The laws play Russian Roulette with children’s lives
    • 88 Killer Dads - Father's Rights
    • High Conflict Cases Likely Have History of Domestic Violence
    • Family Law Act Aids Abusive Fathers, Imperils Children
  • Federal Fatherhood Initiatives
    • U. S. Fatherhood Initiatives - Control of Women and Children Under the Guise of "Responsible Married Fatherhood"
    • Attention Judges and Lawmakers: This is the REAL AGENDA of the Father’s Rights Movement
    • Maternal Deprivation Inflicted on Battered Women and Abused Children
    • Senate Judiciary Chairman - Response to Proposed Changes to Child Custody Law
    • Hearing to Review Responsible Fatherhood Programs
    • The National Fatherhood Initiative: Supporting a Misogynistic Agenda
  • Family / Criminal Law and Research
    • ABUSIVE FATHERS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SEEK SOLE CUSTODY IN CHILD CUSTODY BATTLES
    • Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life
    • Whores Of The Court and the Rape of American Justice
    • Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody
• AMPP Blog
• Videos
• TV
• Store
• Promoted Blogs
• Contact
• Site Map

Dombrowski et al v. United States (2007) A petition filed on behalf of 10 protective mothers, one victimized child now grown to adult, and six organizations at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the United States for the pattern and practice of courts granting custody and unsupervised visitation to abusers and molesters.

 

Claudine Dombrowski Photos of Abuse

As you view these photos keep in mind that the court awarded FULL CUSTODY of their daughter to the "man" who did this to Claudine.

To read Claudine's history that was submitted to the IACHR, click here

If you want to know some of the many reasons women stay in abusive relationships, click here

AFTER THE BIRTH OF HER DAUGHTER, 1994

AFTER EX-HUSBAND BEAT HER WITH A CROW BAR, 1996

AFTER EX-HUSBAND RAPED AND BATTERED HER, 2000

AFTER EX-HUSBAND HIRED SOMEONE TO ASSAULT HER, 2003

THE "COFFEE TABLE" IN THE FATHER'S HOME IS A CHILD'S COFFIN.  MOUNTED ON THE WALL ABOVE THE SOFA IS A GUN.

Permalink:

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

 

 

Full Text of IACHR Petition.

On May 11,2007,  just before Mother’s Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimized child, now an adult,  leading national and state organizations filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. Their petition claims that U.S. courts, by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters, has failed to protect the life, liberties, security and other human rights of abused mothers and their children. 

PRESS RELEASE

OVERVIEW and FAQ's in materials on the right side of this page.

Scroll down to read full petitition, including case histories of several of the petitioners.  You will be horrified to learn what is happening to abused women and children in courtrooms all across this country.

Exhibit 28: Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories
Connecticut Public Broadcasting, Tatge Lasseur Productions, 2006 Underwritten by a grant from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.
Full length of this documentary was submitted to the IACHR.  

Full Petition to the IACHR (large file)

Table of Contents

Introduction

Petitioners

• Dombrowski KS
• Titelman GA
• K.A  Amador Co., CA
• J.H.  Amador Co., CA
• Shockome NY
• Navratil CA
• Horton NY
• Petitioners A, B, C are confidential to protect their safety.  Not included in public materials.
• Organization petitioners

Court Gender Bias - academic studies

Court Gender Bias -experiential studies

Attempts to Remedy Problem

Summary of Problem

Alleged Violations of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man

Compliance

Additional Supporting Organizations - list

List of Exhibits

EXHIBITS

1. Photos of petitioner Claudine Dombrowski . (graphic)

2. Affidavit and book, Let My Children Go, A Mother’s Journal , Wendy Titelman, Kinderlex Books, 2005.

3. Letter from California Protective Parents Association .

4. Affidavit from Kourts for Kids.

5. Letter from StopFamilyViolence.org .

6. EXPOSE  The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes:   A Resource Book for Lawmakers, Judges, Attorneys and Mental health Professionals, Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation, Los Gatos, CA, 1999.
( very large file - long time to load)

7. Chesler, Phyllis, Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody,  McGraw-Hill Book Company, NY, 1986, select pages.

8. Battered Mothers’ Testimony Project:   A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence, Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, June 2003.

9. Common Misconceptions in Addressing Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes , Jaffee, Crooks, and Poisson, 57 Juvenile and Family Court Journal Fall 2003.

10. Justice in the Domestic Relations Division of the Philadelphia Family Court:  A Report to the Community, Women’s Law Project, Philadelphia, Pa, April 2003.

11. California Protective Parents Network , national survey, September 2001 to December 2004.
          Part 1 - table
          Part 2 - report

12. Jana Bommersbach, Jana’s View, Phoenix Magazine , May 2006, p. 28.

13. Article Launched: 6/18/2006 12:00 AM , Mom termed 'parental alienator' wins rare vindication in courts , BY TROY ANDERSON, Staff Writer, LA Daily News.

14. Hoult, Jennifer, J.D., The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome:   Science, Law and Policy,  Children’s Legal Rights Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, Spring 2006.

15. Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence:  A Judges Guide , National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2004, revised 2006.

16. Report on Women’s Rights in the United States under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in response to the Second and Third Periodic Report of the United States of America, July 2006.

17. Courageous Kids personal stories.
            Part 1 - Courageous Kids Network
            Part 2 - Case Studies
            Part 3 - Letter to IACHR by siblings
            Part 4 - Alana Krause, Girl, Interrupted

18. Letter from Legal Momentum to Daniel Meron, DHHS , Washington, DC dated 28 February 2007.

19. European Parliament, A6-0404/2005, Report , 9.12.2005 on the current situation in combating violence against women and any future action (2004/2220(INI)) Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality Rapporteur: Maria Carlshamre PE 364.709v02-00 2/17 RR364709EN.doc

20. Testimony to the Truth Commission , Fourth Battered Mothers Custody Conference, January 2007.

21. Examples of Injustices in NYC Family Courts , Battered Women’s Resources Center, January 2007.

22. Letter and columns from The Parenting Project , Rhode Island.

23. Letter from the Illinois Coalition for Family Court Reform .

24. Letter from Child Abuse Forensic Institute , Napa, CA.

25. Legal Momentum letter and summary of Battered
     Mother's Speak Out

26. Letter from National Coalition Against Domestic Violence

27. Letter from Justice for Children

28. Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories , Connecticut Public Broadcasting (see above for excerpt)

29. Letters of support from additional organizations.

National organizations

• National Center on Sexual and Domestic Violence , TX
• The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence , PA 
• Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute , MD
• National Alliance to End Sexual Violence , Washington, DC
• Domestic Violence Report , Washington, DC
• Family Violence Prevention Fund , San Francisco, CA
• National Organization for Women and National Organization for Women Foundation , Washington, DC
• National Family Court Watch Project , MI

                   State Organizations

• Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence
• California National Organization for Women , Sacramento, CA
• Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• Michigan National Organization for Women
• New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• Tennessee Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence
• National Organization for Women – New York State, Inc .

• Children Who Witness Violence, Claudine Dombrowski,Custody and Abuse, Dianne Post, Domestic Violence,Human Rights, IACHR,InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights, Mother's Day, Petition

Permalink:

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/304

SUPPORT GROUPS FOR NONCUSTODIAL MOMS

 

I have had a lot of mothers contact me lately, and if I haven’t gotten back with you yet, I apologize.  I am still hospitalized from an accident I had in August, trying to do something about my broken down vehicle, which also served as my home.  I continue to post as much as I can however, since I know how important it is to get information out in a timely fashion, to let new noncustodial moms know they are not alone, and to continue to highlight our issues as the White House and other agencies have been coming to my site the last couple years, more frequently lately.  The most recent visit by the White House was last month to see the pictures and other coverage we had on the D.C. Rally Oct 1st and 2nd.  I thought I’d take this opportunity to highlight some very good support groups for noncustodial mothers that are available.   Also, I have covered the upcoming Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York, being held January 7th through the 9th 2011, for several years now.  I highly recommend this conference as it will give you the opportunity to network with the professionals working on this issue.  Here is a recent post on it:

Eighth Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference: Start Making Plans to Attend This January

Download the brochure for the event:  BMCC VIII brochure final outsideand BMCC VIII brochure final inside.

Here are the great support groups that are available:

1.  Noncustodial Moms Breaking the Silence: A very good group with group members all over the country and some in Australia, Europe and the Middle East.  Approximately 350 members.  You must apply and talk with a moderator on the phone to gain access to the group, but this ensures safety for all the members.

2.  Massachusetts Protective Mothers for Custodial Justice

3.  California Protective Parents Association

4.  Mothers of Lost Children – California

5.  Mothers of Lost Children – Indiana

6.  Alaska Moms for Custodial Justice

Also, join the American Mothers Political Party.  AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.

FILED IN: ACTIVISM, ALASKA, BATTERED MOTHERS CUSTODY CONFERENCE, CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA PROTECTIVE PARENTS ASSOCIATION, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE, INDIANA, MASSACHUSETTS,NONCUSTODIAL MOTHERS, SUPPORT FOR NONCUSTODIAL MOMS