Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome

Court makes remarkable Apology to Malicious Mother who poisoned children against their Father

November 29, 2011 Reprinted courtesy of Fathers4Equality at www.f4.com.au/blog

 

The below article is about a disgraceful act by Australia’s Family Law Courts,  to completely destroy any shred of child protection provisions left in Australia’s Family Law act, by making an unprecedented apology to a malicious mother who has alienation her children against their father.
This is the Court, at its highest levels,  over-turning a sitting Magistrates decision and rewarding a Mother who has engaged in Parental Alienation to an extreme degree, for no apparent legally justified reason.
You have to seriously ask why the Family Law act was amended by the Gillard Labor government recently when the Judiciary has already interpreted out any provisions designed to promote a child’s meaningful relationship with both parents.

Chief Federal Magistrate John H. Pascoe is a fool and an unfit custodian of a child’s best interests for sinking so low as to apologise to such a malicious woman, all in the name of appeasing women’s groups. This is the kind of precedent that will encourage Parental Alienation as the standard tactic for getting sole custody of your children, especially if you are an unfit parent.
To all separating Australian Mothers, message from the Court: ‘We encourage you to involve your children in divorce proceedings, to their detriment, and to alienate them against their father. If you do so, we guarantee that you will get sole custody, even if we have to sack a sitting Judicial Officer for acting in the best interests of your children.’
Just keep one point in mind here..the federal Magistrates Court has tried to sack a Magistrate who did nothing worse than act according to the law, and in the best interests of the children. If this is not an indication that the institutions of the Family Law Courts are infected by an ideology rather then dispensing the law as intended in the Act, then God knows what is.
=======
A SYDNEY mother has received a written apology from the chief of the Federal Magistrates Court after her three children were removed from her care for refusing to visit their father.
In a letter of a type rarely seen in Australia, Chief Federal Magistrate John H. Pascoe said he was “very deeply concerned” at the distress the mother suffered after her children were taken from her.
He said the treatment the mother received in court was “quite inconsistent with the aims of the court in dealing with family matters” and added: “I have a great deal of sympathy for you.”
The woman, who cannot be named, was accused in court of “poisoning” the children against their father by involving them in the custody dispute. The children were twin boys aged 14 and their 12-year-old sister.
The magistrate in the case, Joseph Harman, told the woman he believed she was doing irreparable psychological harm to the children by not encouraging them to see their father.
In a hearing at the Parramatta branch of the Federal Magistrates Court, Mr Harman said the children would have no relationship with their father if they were allowed to stay with their mother. He based his ruling on the findings of a court psychologist.
Under the laws on shared parenting brought in by the Howard government in 2006, couples were encouraged to “co-parent” their children after divorce.
The Senate passed amendments to those laws last week. Men’s rights groups have complained the Labor government is winding back shared care, but women’s groups say the amendments are necessary to protect children from harm.
When Mr Harman told the Sydney mother he had decided to send the children to live full-time with their father, her lawyer immediately objected, saying the “extraordinary” move “would remove the children from the mother, instantly, with no communication whatsoever”.
Mr Harman replied: “That’s a bit like what happened in June-July last year, when the children were removed from any time with their father, and haven’t communicated with him since.”
Counsel for the mother told the court the children had become hysterical when told of the order, and were refusing to leave the court with their father.
The magistrate said this was typical of children who had been taught to fear their father.
The mother left the court “distressed and about to vomit” and an ambulance was called. Two NSW police officers attended the court after the children began damaging court property in the foyer.
The mother’s lawyer then told the court that if the children were forced to go with their father they would run away.
“That’s why I’ve invited the Department (of Community Services) to intervene,” Mr Harman said. “If they don’t comply, they will be in a refuge. They won’t be going home with mum.”
Two senior child welfare officers from the NSW Department of Community Services were called to the court. Mr Harman told them: “We have two children, sorry, three children, two of whom are twin boys who have just turned 14, so young, strong and full of testosterone, and a 12-year-old girl.
“They are now expressing very strong entrenched views that they are not going anywhere with their father. I have just made an order that they are to go home with him.
“I have also made an order, subject to the power of arrest if anyone breaches it, that neither mum nor any member of her family are to go and talk to them.
“If these children refuse to go anywhere with their father, I would like you to exercise your emergency powers and take them into care.
“Those are the three options: they go home with dad or they go home with the director. They are not leaving this building with mum.”
He added: “If you need the assistance of police or security, downstairs will help with that.”
However, neither police nor the social workers were willing to physically force the children, who were described as “verging on hysterical”, into a refuge or into their father’s care.
One of the police officers told Mr Harman the children were in “a highly aggressive, agitated and hysterical state” and one social worker tried to explain it would be impossible to force the children to go with the father, since it may “see them break away, or run away, and be vulnerable on the streets”.
Mr Harman conceded defeat, saying: “These children have now been present in this court since 11.30am, and accordingly have been here for the best part of eight hours and have maintained a steadfast refusal to leave (the court) with the father.”
He said the children’s mother had helped whip “them into a frenzy” about being sent to a refuge, and so he agreed to let the children leave with a maternal aunt. Their mother was banned from any contact with them for a month, including by mobile telephone and email. She was also banned from going within 500m of their school.
The mother has told The Australian the order removing the children was overturned after a month, with no explanation.
“They came back to me, and they are still with me, and I never heard another word from the court until I suddenly got that apology (on November 9),” the mother said. “He did so much damage to my children, I believe he should be sacked.”
Mr Harman was asked to stand down from the court last month while he received counselling for a series of judgments that had to be overturned on appeal.
In one case, he revealed he had a sexual relationship with the lawyer who was acting for the wife, and then refused to disqualify himself from the hearing.
Mr Pascoe said he had been made aware of “some complaints” against Mr Harman, who had “agreed to be restricted to non-sitting duties”.
Mr Harman has since resumed hearing cases at Parramatta “on a limited basis” and is subject to continuing review of his performance.
He did not respond to a request for an interview.
Mr Harman was appointed by federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland in July last year. In a statement, Mr McClelland said he was “aware of concerns raised in relation to Federal Magistrate Harman in the performance of his judicial duties”.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, magistrates “must not be removed from office, except by the Governor-General, on an address from both Houses of Parliament . . . praying for his or her removal on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.
by Carolyn Overington

How will my children survive Obsesive Parental Alienation?

Harmonie & Jasper suffer daily under Severe Parental Alienation – What is this?

http://www.videojug.com/interview/parental-alienation
How can they survive such an obsesive brainwashing of unjustified hatred ?

Parental Alienation Is Emotional Abuse of Children

Parental Alienation Is Emotional Abuse of Children . Children Should not be forced to choose one parent over the other Published on June 28, 2011 by Amy J.L Baker Ph.D  Parental alienation is a set of strategies that parents use to undermine and interfere with a child's relationship with his or her other parent. This often but not always happens when parents are engaged in a contested custody battle. There is no one definitive set of behaviours that constitute parental alienation but research with both parents and children has revealed a core set of alienation strategies, including bad-mouthing the other parent, limiting contact with that parent, erasing the other parent from the life and mind of the child (forbidding discussion and pictures of the other parent), forcing the child to reject the other parent, creating the impression that the other parent is dangerous, forcing the child to choose, and belittling and limiting contact with the extended family of the targeted parent.
Parents who try to alienate their child from his or her other parent convey a three-part message to the child: (1) I am the only parent who loves you and you need me to feel good about yourself, (2) the other parent is dangerous and unavailable, and (3) pursuing a relationship with that parent jeopardizes your relationship with me. In essence the child receives the message that s/he is worthless and unloved and only of value for meeting the needs of others. This is the core experience of psychological maltreatment (emotional abuse) as defined by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC).

[Image]Research with "adult children" of parental alienation syndrome (that is, adults who believe that when they were children one parent turned them against the other parent) confirms that being exposed to parental alienation represents a form of emotional abuse. Furthermore, these adults reported that when they succumbed to the pressure and rejected one parent to please the other, the experience was associated with several negative long-term effects including depression, drug abuse, divorce, low self-esteem, problems with trusting, and alienation from their own children when they became parents themselves. In this way the cycle of parental alienation was carried forward through the generations. Thus, parental alienation is a form of emotional abuse that damages the child's self esteem in the short run and is associated with life-long damage.
As is often true with other forms of abuse, the child victims of parental alienation are not aware that they are being mistreated and often cling vehemently to the favoured parent, even when that parent's behaviour is harmful to them. This is why, mental health and legal professionals involved in cases of parental alienation need to look closely at the family dynamics and determine what the cause of the child's preferences for one parent and rejection of the other parent are. If the favoured parent is found to be instigating the alignment and the rejected parent is found to be a potential positive and non abusive influence, then the child's preferences should not be strictly heeded. The truth is, despite strongly held positions of alignment, inside many alienated children want nothing more than to be given permission and freedom to love and be loved by both parents.

Finding The Father -by Robert Bly

Finding the Father - by Robert Bly

My friend, this body offers to carry us for nothing -as the ocean carries logs
So on some days the body wailswith its great energy;
it smashes up the boulders, lifting small crabs that flow around the sides

Someone knocks on the door. We do not have time to dress. He wants us to go with him through the blowing and rainy streets, to the dark house.

We will go there, the body says, and there find the father whom we have never met, who wandered out in a snowstorm the night we were born, and who then lost his memory, and has lived since longing for his child, whom he saw only once

. .while he worked as a shoemaker, as a cattle herder in Australia, as a restaurant cook who painted at night.

When you light the lamp you will see him.

He sits there behind the door
the eybrows so heavy, the forehead so light
lonely in his whole body, waiting for you

A Word to Mothers: You can lose your children to parental alienation

A mother's day warning

Published on May 7, 2011 by Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D. in Caught Between Parents

As mother's day approaches I want to take a moment to unequivocally state that yes mothers even good mothers can lose their children to parental alienation. One common myth that seems to be "out there" in the world is that parental alienation is something that only happens to fathers and that mothers, because they tend to have residential custody and because (the theory goes) the courts are biased against fathers, rarely lose their kids this way. While no one has data about the exact gender break down, I can say that without a doubt some mothers do and have been victimized in this way. I believe that part of why this is not talked about as much as fathers' experiences of parental alienation is that mothers who do lose their kids this way are overcome with shame and humiliation and tend to not want to go public with their story. In my conversations with targeted mothers a common theme is that they perceive other people as thinking that they must have done something wrong for their child to reject them. Many stay silent for this reason, to avoid being blamed and shamed. Another complicating factor is that many women's rights group denounce the existence of parental alienation, claiming that it is a fabricated problem designed to hurt mothers. Thus, women seeking support and guidance from these groups may be given the message that they are mistaken and/or must stay silent. It is time for targeted mothers to go public and be open about their experience, and make it clear that it is possible to be both a feminist and a victim of parental alienation. I strongly believe that the more people talk about this problem, the more likely it is that it can be prevented and treated. Too often custody cases get bogged down in whether the problem is real rather than focusing on how to resolve the alienation and help heal parent child relationships. In my experience an alienating parent needs three things: (1) motive to undermine the child's relationship with the other parent, (2) access to the child, and (3) skillful use of alienation strategies. These are not the sole purview of either gender.

irishtimes.com - Last Updated: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 11:37

Children 'used as pawns' in disputes

The Manchester-based firm Pannone says that the majority of complaints are made by parents worried about being replaced in their children's affections.

Separated parents are using their children as pawns in disputes over new partners during the summer holidays, according to family lawyers.

One of the UK’s leading family law firms claims that up to three quarters of disputes over residence or contact with children are the result of rows about former partners’ new relationships.
The Manchester-based firm Pannone says that the majority of complaints are made by parents worried about being replaced in their children’s affections.
Cara Nuttall, an associate at Pannone, said: “Spending time with parents during the summer holidays increases the likelihood of children meeting their mother or father’s new partner and, therefore, the potential for problems.
“These situations are so emotive that parents sometimes don’t act or think in a rational manner.”
Pannone also believes that up to 30 per cent of complaints about residence or contact with children are in fact attempts to stop former partners making a fresh start.
Ms Nuttall said: “In our experience and that of colleagues across the country, the problem often lies more with the parents than the children involved.
“Even though it may be difficult to do, parents need to focus on a child’s best interests.”