American Mothers Political Party Denounces “Dominick’s Law” In Michigan
American Mothers Political Party Denounces “Dominick’s Law” In Michigan
Written by Staff
Tuesday, 20 March 2012 14:07
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
American Mothers Political Party
March 20, 2012
American Mothers Political Party
Denounces “Dominick’s Law” In Michigan
Mothers are the natural guardians of children as Corrine Baker was when she used her own body as a shield to try and protect her child, Dominick Calhoun.
Neighbors ignored her screams and authorities said Baker did not do “enough” to protect her son from a fatal beating inflicted by her then-live-in boyfriend, Brandon Joshua-Frederick Hayes, who was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for torture, murder and child abuse. This is what second degree (scapegoating) manslaughter looks like is when a woman endures this kind of beating trying to protect her child.
It has been duly noted that those supporting and those who are the purported “creators” of Dominick’s Law and the recent threats that have been made against those that support Dominick’s mother. We are not deterred.
According Michigan Legislature:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/20112012/billintroduced/House/htm/2011-HIB-5078.htm
(g) "Serious mental harm" means an injury to a child's mental
condition or welfare that is not necessarily permanent but results
in visibly demonstrable manifestations of a substantial disorder of
thought or mood which significantly impairs judgment, behavior,
capacity to recognize reality, or ability to cope with the ordinary
demands of life.
“Dominick's Law” will only justify what Michigan has done to this battered mother who tried to protect her child and all future domestic abuse victims. In essence, the pseudo-scientific theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) will be legal in Michigan if this law is passed the way it is currently written. What is “enough” to protect a child from harm?
American Mothers Political Party is not just mothers but fathers, sisters aunts, daughters, sons, nieces, nephews, family, friends, coworkers and neighbors who support battered mothers and their rights to raise their children.
Until human mothers are honored or recognized as the natural guardians of her children, no rights will exist for any one. “Mother” is the cry of the dying soldier on the battlefield, “Mother” is the first person everyone sees when they are born, all other species “get this” - all except the terribly wrong and failed “human experiment”' of the murder of motherhood, and everyone's else’s rights over mother nature’s.
AMPP will not support this law as it is currently written and will continue to denounce those that mean to do the supporters of mothers harm.
# #
Videos http://vodpod.com/ampp/corrinebaker
Take a Look at what 2nd degree (scapegoating) manslaughter is when you endure this kind of beating trying to PROTECT her CHILD.The DA is scapegoating the Calhoun's are scapegoating and Dominick's law will only JUSTIFY what MI has done to this battered mom who tried to protect!! 15-30 years!! Scapegoating!!!
A Word of Caution About Parental Alienation--Dr. Richard Warshak
Amplify’d from pasisascam.wordpress.com
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38
Page 12:
C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department
2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases
Dr. Richard Warshak would not allow opposing comments in his first article on the Huffington Post, including information about all the professional organizations that have debunked the use of “parental alienation” in child custody cases. This includes a warning from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
Part 2: Questions for Richard Warshak and His Parental Alienation Syndrome...or Divorce Poison...or Whatever
Amplify’d from www.randijames.com
myour son (<--see, I'm trying!).
Whiney, Whiney Dr. Richard Warshak—HE alone responsible for Censorship of Comments on Huffington Post
Several comments were made about the American Bar Association, the American Judges Association, the National District Attorney’s Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges debunking the use of “parental alienation” in child custody cases because of it’s well known use by abusers to take custody of children. Of course, anyone who makes the kind of money that Warshak makes ($20,000 per patient per four days in “treatment”) doesn’t care who claimed what for what purpose, they just know they will make money. He doesn’t care that children may be in the custody of someone who beat the other parent, probably in front of the children, or may have even been sexually abusing the children. No, he doesn’t care, but the professional organizations know what the deal is. They know that victims of abuse have lost their children to abusers, and corrupt individuals that support the use of this legal tactic should be shut down:
Amplify’d from familycourtmafia.putblog.org
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38
Page 12:
C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34
Richard Warshak's Mentor Richard A. Gardner's Opinion of Parental Alienation versus Child Sex Abuse; is this what
"If the mother has reacted to the abuse in a hysterical fashion, or used it as an excuse for a campaign of denigration of the father, then the therapist does well to try and 'sober her up'... Her hysterics... will contribute to the child's feeling that a heinous crime has been committed and will thereby lessen the likelihood of any kind of rapproachment with the father. One has to do everything possible to help her put the 'crime' in proper perspective. She has to be helped to appreciate that in most societies in the history of the world, [men having sex with children] was ubiquitous, and this is still the case." -- Richard A. Gardner, in True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse (1992), pp. 584-585
Amplify’d from huffington.posterous.com
Parental alienation theory is about shutting up and censoring victims of child abuse. "Having a relationship with the father" is posited as more important than avoiding child rape. More quotes from Richard Gardner, Richard Warshak's mentor. Yoshimisu Huffington asks: how many cats, do you think, actually have harmed infants, versus homo sapien males? And yet we cats aren't allowed in the nursery! More: Do children "need" two parents? Before applying "treatment" for parental alienation, doesn't it have to be established -- rather than assumed -- that the specific child in question actually is suffering a harm that needs to be addressed?
