VANCOUVER, B.C. — In a case of extreme parental alienation, a mother has been banned by a B.C. Supreme Court judge from seeing her teenage daughter for more than a year.
Because of the urgency of the matter, Justice Donna Martinson issued the terse, two-page ruling outlining 15 conditions the parents must follow, including that the mother, known only as Ms. A, not see her daughter until at least March 31, 2010.
The decision came after the mother alleged extreme emotional abuse by the father, which she claimed was putting the teen's safety at risk.
"I am satisfied that Ms. A's allegations are unfounded," Martinson wrote. "I am further satisfied that she has continued to undermine the relationship between M and her father and has acted in ways that are detrimental to M's psychological healing."
Names have been stripped from the court ruling to protect the girl's identity.
The judge has ordered that both the mother and maternal grandmother have no contact with the girl, which would be enforced by police if necessary.
The court has also ordered the mother to pay $320 per month for the girl's counselling, on top of the child support she is already paying.
Jessica Ko, the lawyer for the girl's father, said it's been a gruelling road for the dad who has been in court 17 different times to gain access to his daughter or defend himself against the mother's allegations.
"It went to the point where our client was essentially bankrupt from defending himself and pursuing this legal matter," said Ko.
She said the father is in a highly respected profession and should be able to recover financially.
Ko said the ruling banning the mother from any contact with the child was extremely unusual, because often the court attempts to find a balance in access between the parents.
"This is a case where there was found to be an extreme example of parental alienation by the mother towards the father."
Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
The Canadian Press: B.C. court bars mother from seeing daughter for more than a year
Copyright Notice: According to US Copyright law, copyright vests initially in the author(s) of the work. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have an interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: Title 17, Sec.107. If you are the copyright holder and choose to have your work removed from this website, email HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com and it will be done. However, we hope you prefer that our researchers continue to benefit from access to your work.
My two cents -
I dunno call me an optimist but If I were a gambling woman.. I'd bet my estranged husband Mr. Louis M. Argenzinao would wish that the only thing the court did to him was ban him from seeing our severely alienated children (S.U., Dawn Uccio, Louie Uccio, Nicky Uccio) for a year .. when all is said and done in my case.. where he alienated the children with what appears to be help from numerous benches in Richmond County Family and Matrimonial Court Judges.. and strong political connections to the Panepintos including Judge Barbara Panepinto and her husband, my estranged husbands boss, CYO Director Mr. Joseph Panepinto!
I'd like to guess the estranged abusive and alienating husband would consider a year penalty of staying away from the children a slap on the wrist compared to what I believe the out-come of this EIGHT YEAR LONG [IL]LEGAL KIDNAPPING will be!
It's about time these courts woke up to the emotional abuse children are suffering at the hands of an abusive bully who alienates them from the other parent, the bully they call mom or dad!
These children/young adults/adult survivors of alienation are destined for years of therapy to undo the damage these abusers (alienators) have done to them.. for nothing more than selfish abusive agendas!
1 comment:
I'm surprised at the action of the court, given its usual bias (toward the parent they picked as winner) and ignorance of PAS. But I'm baffled at its late action.
Where was this concern for PAS while it was happening? I can't help but notice the court may have not needed to take such drastic action if they would have taken the smallest of steps to notice what was going on and take a small step to prevent it.
Instead the court did what courts do best, make sure that everyone is a victim. First they allowed the PAS to emotionally hurt the father and nearly bankrupt him, then they are going to do the same to her so both are in the poor house. Not that she doesn't deserve it, its just that this was avoidable, but why bother when lawyers for both sides can be so enriched. Even child psychologists who are part of the Divorce Industry Parasites can be enriched.
And the court keeps on keeping everyone miserable.
That's why my anger towards my ex is completely overshadowed by the abusive system that allowed her to do it rather than fulfilling their mission to protect the citizenry.
So while we can congratulate this court for taking action to help undo the wrong that occurred. But lets not forget that they stood idly by and allowed the wrong to occur in the first place.
So from me the court won't get any praise, only the contempt that they show for the citizenry they are sworn to protect.
Post a Comment