"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
http://dontletdestinycatchyousleeping.blogspot.com/
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
WIFE JAILED FOR VISITATION ABUSE & PARENTAL ALIENATION
"Accordingly, and after careful consideration of the circumstances of the nature and extent of the multiple instances of violation of the court order, the plaintiff is sentenced to a period of incarceration for six weekends, to be served on the first and third weekends of each month for the months of June, July and August, 2010. Prior to these weekends of the plaintiff's incarceration, she shall transport the children to the defendant's home to assure their continued care and well being."
Lauren R. v. Ted R., New York State Supreme Ct., October 27, 2010 (below- first link)*
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15593161527073954729&q=++Lauren+R.+v.+Ted+R.&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000002
Original Link- http://njdivorceblog.typepad.com/new_jersey_divorce_law_me/2010/10/wife-jailed-for-visitation-abuse-parental-alienation.html
Here is the case in it's entirity-
LAUREN R. v. TED R., 2010 NY Slip Op 50931 - NY: Supreme Court 20102010 NY Slip Op 50931(U)
LAUREN R., Plaintiff,
v.
TED R., Defendant.
203699-02
Supreme Court, Nassau County.
Decided May 25, 2010.
ROBERT A. ROSS, J.
The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the "best interest of the child," when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.
Parental access, commonly referred to as "visitation," is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170. In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:
1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;
2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law §750,753;
3. Tort action for custodial interference;
4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240
While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), inasmuch as a Court's finding of willful interference "per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit" (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), when a pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conduct must [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.
The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O'Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be "an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding — the "strong likelihood of unfitness" becomes a "factor" that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.
Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006; Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769.Under the circumstances of this case, this Court's finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children's best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties' children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. The Court granted defendant's motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.
The parties' Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties' Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from "alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant," or to "hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so." Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children's education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to "exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact," "to foster a feeling of affection," and not to "do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children's opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children's love and affection for the [Defendant]." To sustain the defendant's application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party's rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both. In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties' stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.
CONTEMPT
The Court's findings here were based, in part, upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their character, temperament and sincerity. Matter of Carl J.B. v. Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736; see, also, Klat v. Klat, 176 AD2d 922; Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499. I have also considered the extensive post-hearing submissions of each of the parties and the attorney for the children. Here, the defendant's burden of proof in this matter was met so overwhelmingly, as to exceed the burden of proof required (see, Bulow, supra). Instead, it was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" [cf., Rubackin v. Rubackin, 62 AD3d 11]. The acts perpetrated by the plaintiff were not only in willful violation of the Stipulation of Settlement, as incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce, but such as to demonstrate a continuing and calculated effort to violate the parental access of the defendant to the infant issue. The movant here demonstrated that the plaintiff violated a clear and unequivocal Court order, thereby prejudicing his rights. See, Judiciary Law §753[A][3]; Vujovic v. Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490. The specific findings of fact are detailed herein, and considering the extent, nature, and continuing pattern of alienation perpetrated by the plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiff's conduct was calculated to and did, in fact, impair, impede or prejudice the rights and remedies of the defendant herein. See, Silverman v. Silverman, N.Y.L.J., 11-22-95, p. 26, col. 1; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Hoglund v. Hoglund, 234 AD2d 794.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
AND INSTANCES OF ALIENATION
Plaintiff intentionally scheduled their child's (N.'s) birthday party on a Sunday afternoon during defendant's weekend visitation, and then refused to permit defendant to attend. She demanded that N. be returned home early, in order to "prepare" for her party, but D., the other child, was enjoying the time with her father and wished to remain with him until the party began. Plaintiff castigated N. for "daring" to invite her father to take a picture of her outside her party. According to the plaintiff, "this doesn't work for me!" Plaintiff threatened to cancel N.'s party, and warned her that her sister, too, would be punished "big time" for wanting to spend time with her father. Plaintiff's taped temper tantrum, offered into evidence, vividly detailed one instance of how D. and N. have been made to understand that enjoying time with their father will be met with their mother's wrath and threat of punishment. Plaintiff conceded that when she completed N.'s registration card for XXX., she wrote that defendant is "not authorized to take them. I have custody. Please call me." At trial, she claimed to fear that defendant would retrieve the girls directly from school. However, she later admitted that defendant had never even attempted to pick them up at school. Her testimony at trial sharply contradicted her sworn affidavit dated January 23, 2008, in which she stated that "the defendant consistently attempts to pick up the girls unannounced from their schools and activities, which disrupts not only the girls, but those in charge of the aforementioned." In her sworn affidavit, plaintiff claimed that she completed the registration card because defendant sought to attend the end of D.'s art class and then had the audacity to drive his daughter home. The art class "incident" occurred well after the registration card was completed by the plaintiff. Moreover, nothing in the parties' agreement prohibits the defendant from visiting the children at extra-curricular events or from driving them to or from such events. In point of fact, there was no dispute that D.'s Friday art class in Huntington ended as defendant's alternate weekend visitation commenced. Plaintiff wrote to Dr. L.[1] (then the XXX. principal) and Ms. T. (N.'s fifth grade teacher), demanding that they restrict their conversations with the defendant to N.'s academics, as plaintiff is "solely responsible for her academic progress and emotional well being. Notwithstanding the nature of their joint legal custody plaintiff insisted before me that, "I have custody, he has visitation." The plaintiff made/completed an application for admission to XXX on behalf of N. in October, 2007. On the application, she checked the box "Mother has custody," rather than the box directly below which says "Joint custody." She identified her new husband, R. L., as N.'s "parent/guardian," and she failed to mention the defendant. During cross examination, plaintiff insisted that she only omitted reference to the defendant for fear that his financial circumstances would adversely impact N.'s chances for acceptance. However, no financial information was requested anywhere on the application. Moreover, plaintiff acknowledged that none was required until after an applicant was invited to attend. By applying to XXX without defendant's knowledge — but with N. completely involved in the process, plaintiff orchestrated the decision to be made, as well as alienating the child. Had the defendant not consented to N.'s attendance at XXX, after the fact, N. would be angry with him for purportedly interfering with the enrollment, even if defendant's objections to a private school placement were sound. In no event was he consulted as to this educational decision. When asked how she might handle things differently now, plaintiff did not indicate that she would first discuss the possibility of a private school with the defendant, as she is obligated to do pursuant to the Stipulation. In a similar pattern of being advised "after the fact," defendant testified that there were countless times when plaintiff deliberately scheduled theater tickets, family events and social activities for the girls during his visitation, and he was compelled to consent or risk disappointing the girls. These occurrences continued even during the time span of proceedings before me. Plaintiff was forced to concede at trial that the defendant was prevented from enjoying his visitation rights after he returned with the girls from his niece's Bat Mitzvah until this Court granted defendant's emergency application to compel the plaintiff to allow the defendant to take D. and N. for the ski trip he had scheduled for his half of the Christmas recess. Plaintiff insisted that it was D. and N. who refused to see their father, because they were angry with the "choices" he had made on their behalf, including his objection to N. attending XXX. Defendant was made aware of the children's position because they parroted their mother's demands on several occasions. D. even read from a script during the brief dinners he was permitted. As plaintiff wrote in one e-mail when she was describing her role with respect to the children: "I am in charge here, not them. What I [sic] say goes. They may bring their shoes. You are responsible for the rest. End of story."
In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007. I observed the plaintiff smirk in the courtroom as defendant emotionally related how he was deprived of spending Hanukkah with his children, and was relegated to lighting a menorah and watching his daughters open their grandparents' presents in the back of his truck at the base of plaintiff's driveway on a December evening. The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet "their" demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother's therapist, and that he pay for 75% of D.'s Bat Mitzvah but limit his invitations to a handful of guests and have no role in the planning of the event. Plaintiff's contention that she had no involvement in these children's "demands" was belied by the very fact that the children had intimate knowledge of their mother's position on all of these issues. The children, in effect, were evolved into plaintiff's sub-agents and negotiators, having specific details of the financial demands of the plaintiff, and information as to the marital agreement. The mother alluded to the ambivalence of the children in seeing the defendant. But such abrogation to the children's wishes, under these circumstances, was in violation of the agreement. It was wholly improper for the mother to adhere to the children's wishes to forego visitation with their father (see, Matter of Hughes v. Wiegman, 150 AD2d 449). Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant's role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant — notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance — hesitating and defensive — with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant's joint custodial arrangement into farce. The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible. Plaintiff relegated the defendant to waiting endlessly at the bottom of her long driveway. When defendant drove up her driveway on October 26, 2007, so that the children would not have to walk down with their heavy bags in a torrential rain, plaintiff ran down the driveway where she had left her car, drove up the driveway and blocked defendant's vehicle. The children watched as the police listened to their mother angrily demand that their father be arrested and, when the police refused, heard their mother scream that she is a taxpayer and the police work for her. She frequently disparaged the defendant in the presence of the children, calling him a "deadbeat," "loser," "scumbag" and "f____g asshole." On one particular occasion, while holding N. and D. in her arms, plaintiff said to the defendant, "We all hope you die from cancer." Just this past summer, when defendant insisted that D. retrieve her clothes from plaintiff's home in preparation for their visit to N. on her camp visiting day, plaintiff urged to defendant that "Judge Ross will not be around forever, d____." Before the beginning of each of defendant's vacations with the children, the plaintiff staged prolonged and tearful farewells at the base of the driveway, during which plaintiff assured the children that they will return to "their family soon," and if "things get too bad, they can always tell Daddy to bring them home." The crescendo of the plaintiff's conduct involved accusations of sexual abuse. Plaintiff falsely accused defendant of sexual misconduct in June, 2008, shortly after defendant moved to Huntington and the children's friends were enjoying play dates at defendant's home. Plaintiff testified that D. shared that she was uncomfortable when the defendant tickles her, and conceded that she knew there was nothing "sexual" involved. Undaunted by the lack of any genuine concern for D.'s safety, plaintiff pursued a campaign to report the defendant to Child Protective Services. To facilitate this, she spoke with W. M, the psychologist at the school D. attended. Plaintiff also "encouraged" D. to advise Dr. C. (the chidren's pediatrician) that defendant inappropriately touched her — but he saw no signs of abuse. Plaintiff also advised Dr. A., Ms. M., Dr. R. (the children's prior psychologist) and family friends of the allegations and, ultimately, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services opened a file on June 3, 2008, and began an investigation. According to the Case Narrative contained in the New York State Case Registry, a complaint was made that "On a regular basis, father inappropriately fondles 13 year old D.'s breasts. This makes D. feel very uncomfortable. Last Sunday, Father hit D. on the breast for unknown reason . . ." When the caseworker and Suffolk County detectives interviewed D. on June 3, 2008, she reported only that her father tickles her on her neck and under her arms, and she categorically denied her father ever fondled her breasts. She admitted that her father was not attempting to make her uncomfortable, but that he still regards her to be a tomboy. The detectives closed their investigation. Thereafter, and significantly, when the CPS caseworker met with plaintiff on August 19, 2008, plaintiff was quick to state that her ex-husband "did it again." Plaintiff claimed that the defendant hugged D. too hard. According to the caseworker's notes, the caseworker repeatedly cautioned the plaintiff not to bring the children into her disputes with the defendant. This warning was contained in CPS records. Although unfounded child abuse reports are required to be sealed (see, Social Services Law §422[5]), such reports may be introduced into evidence "by the subject of the report where such subject ... is a plaintiff or petitioner in a civil action or proceeding alleging the false reporting of child abuse or maltreatment" (Social Services Law §422[5][b][1]). Allegations that defendant had injured the child were found to be baseless and, by making such allegations, plaintiff needlessly subjected the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services, placing her own interests above those of the child. This report was not made in "good faith" — rather, the investigating agency warned the mother not to re-utilize the allegations and her children in her custodial litigation with the defendant. The concern of a pending contempt proceeding did not affect the plaintiff's conduct. For example, knowing that defendant had parenting access with D. on July 3, 2009, plaintiff invited D.'s close friend, C. C., to a country club for a fireworks display and advised D. of this invitation. She then instructed D. to tell her father she was invited to a friend's party on that date. Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that "it was not her responsibility to make plans for T." The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, incorporated but not merged into their Judgment of Divorce. The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to undermine the relationship between the children and their father and replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant's parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any semblance of "good faith," and her imposition upon the children to fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they want to have with their father. The unfortunate history here also reflects the plaintiff's hiring and firing of three different counsel, expressed disdain towards the children's attorney, and utter disregard for the authority of the Court.
CHANGE OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING TO BE HELD
There was no request in the moving papers for a change of custody. During the course of the extensive hearing held before me, application was made by the defendant for an immediate change of custody. It is improper for a trial court to take action and grant relief without appropriate notice to one of the parties affected. Such notice during the course of the proceeding for undemanded relief does not constitute adequate notice, and could serve to prejudice the plaintiff. Siegel Practice Commentary, McKinney's Consol. Law of New York, Book 7B, CPLR 3017.6. The Court did not grant the relief for a change in custody in the course of the hearing for contempt. However, Domestic Relations Law §240 provides that upon an application, the Court may modify a previous direction with respect to the right of visitation "after such notice to the other party....and given in such manner as the Court shall direct." See, Domestic Relations Law §240. The request for a change in custody during the course of the contempt hearing clearly has provided adequate notice by which to schedule a hearing. The request during the hearing to amend the motion to conform to the evidence presented at this hearing, is now granted, to the extent of ordering a prompt hearing on a modification of custody. Heintz v. Heintz, 28 AD3d 1154; cf. Sipos v. Kelly, 66 AD2d 1022. See, also, Fisk v. Fisk, 274 AD2d 691. The parties are to appear before me on June 4, 2010 to be heard on selection of a forensic examiner and to be heard on allocation of fees. See, Uniform Rules §202.7; also see,
Ragone v. Ragone, 62 AD3d 772; Domestic Relations Law §237(d)(4). The scheduling of the modification of custody hearing will be facilitated at that time.
THE COURT'S ROLE IN ADDRESSING ALIENATION
Differing "alienation" theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent's relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a "parent's ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child," a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the "interference with the non-custodial parent and child's relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent." See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793. Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent's right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 NY Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009].
SENTENCE
An imposition of sentence upon a finding of contempt should contain a language permitting the contemnor an opportunity to purge. See, Heyn v. Burr, 19 AD3d 896; Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733; Cooper v. Cooper, 21 AD3d 869. Under the circumstances here, where determination is made of a past violation of an order of parental access/joint custody, there can be no purge since it is no longer within the plaintiff's power to perform the act. See, Kruszczynski v. Charlap, 124 AD2d 1073; Young v. Young, 129 AD2d 794. Moreover, the use of remedial intervention — parenting coordination/counseling — during the course of the trial was unsuccessful, and even if re-utilized here, the Court cannot condition release from imprisonment upon future compliance. See, Martinez v. D.S.S., 44 AD3d 945.
Accordingly, and after careful consideration of the circumstances of the nature and extent of the multiple instances of violation of the court order, the plaintiff is sentenced to a period of incarceration for six weekends, to be served on the first and third weekends of each month for the months of June, July and August, 2010. Prior to these weekends of the plaintiff's incarceration, she shall transport the children to the defendant's home to assure their continued care and well being. See, Marallo v. Marallo, 128 AD2d 710; Gordon v. Janover, 238 AD2d 545; Munz v. Munz, 242 AD2d 789; Kruszczynski v. Charlap, supra; Barcham-Reichman v. Reichman, 250 AD2d 609.
COUNSEL FEES
Given the finding of a willful violation of the Judgment of this Court (Stack, J.) Dated March 26, 2004 [erroneously dated as 2003], and given the fees requested ($134,352.92 for defendant's counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children's fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees, shall be the object of a hearing to be held before me on June 4, 2010. While the parties consented to such determination on submission, the issues presented lend themselves to the Court's assessment of the parties' finances. To facilitate a complete record, a hearing is ordered herewith. See, Judiciary Law §773; Gordon v. Janover, supra. On the Court's own motion, this decision and order will be stayed until June 4, 2010 to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to seek Appellate Review, if so advised, and it is
ORDERED, that the plaintiff, L. R., is adjudged to be in civil contempt of the Judgment of Divorce dated March 26, 2004; and it is further
ORDERED, that the parties and their counsel shall appear before me for sentencing on June 4, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., which date may not be adjourned without written order of this Court; and it is further
ORDERED, that the plaintiff, L. R., is sentenced to a period of six weekends imprisonment in the Nassau County Correctional Facility, pursuant to the schedule set forth herein; and it is further
ORDERED, that this order and execution of this sentence shall be stayed until June 4, 2010; and it is further
ORDERED, that this decision shall be deemed an order and/or warrant of commitment pursuant to and in accordance with Judiciary Law §772; and it is further
ORDERED, that a copy of this Decision and Order shall be served upon the Sheriff of Nassau County and/or the Warden of the Nassau County Correctional Facility to facilitate the schedule of weekend incarceration, to be imposed as follows: Friday, June 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, June 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, July 9, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, July 23, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, August 6, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, August 20, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 6:00 p.m; and it is further
ORDERED, that this Court finds that the conduct of the plaintiff was calculated to, or actually did, defeat, impair or prejudice the defendant's rights or remedies.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
My two cents- It's about time, I love stories like this.. I presonally want to see more. more more- put 'em all in jail!!! Lets keep the pressure on 'em, Parent Alienation and it's result Parent Alienation Syndrome IS CHILD ABUSE!
P.S. For those of you that want to take an active role in your cases, do you know that you can use google scholar to find any kind of law as it applied to a real life case?
Check it out @ http://scholar.google.com/ make sure to mark "legal opinions" then narrow it down to your state or federal cases in the drop down menu when you get there! It's our own personal law library!
Lauren R. v. Ted R., New York State Supreme Ct., October 27, 2010 (below- first link)*
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15593161527073954729&q=++Lauren+R.+v.+Ted+R.&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000002
Original Link- http://njdivorceblog.typepad.com/new_jersey_divorce_law_me/2010/10/wife-jailed-for-visitation-abuse-parental-alienation.html
Here is the case in it's entirity-
LAUREN R. v. TED R., 2010 NY Slip Op 50931 - NY: Supreme Court 20102010 NY Slip Op 50931(U)
LAUREN R., Plaintiff,
v.
TED R., Defendant.
203699-02
Supreme Court, Nassau County.
Decided May 25, 2010.
ROBERT A. ROSS, J.
The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the "best interest of the child," when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.
Parental access, commonly referred to as "visitation," is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170. In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:
1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;
2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law §750,753;
3. Tort action for custodial interference;
4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240
While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), inasmuch as a Court's finding of willful interference "per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit" (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), when a pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conduct must [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.
The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O'Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be "an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding — the "strong likelihood of unfitness" becomes a "factor" that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.
Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006; Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769.Under the circumstances of this case, this Court's finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children's best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties' children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. The Court granted defendant's motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.
The parties' Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties' Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from "alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant," or to "hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so." Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children's education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to "exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact," "to foster a feeling of affection," and not to "do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children's opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children's love and affection for the [Defendant]." To sustain the defendant's application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party's rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both. In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties' stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.
CONTEMPT
The Court's findings here were based, in part, upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their character, temperament and sincerity. Matter of Carl J.B. v. Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736; see, also, Klat v. Klat, 176 AD2d 922; Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499. I have also considered the extensive post-hearing submissions of each of the parties and the attorney for the children. Here, the defendant's burden of proof in this matter was met so overwhelmingly, as to exceed the burden of proof required (see, Bulow, supra). Instead, it was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" [cf., Rubackin v. Rubackin, 62 AD3d 11]. The acts perpetrated by the plaintiff were not only in willful violation of the Stipulation of Settlement, as incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce, but such as to demonstrate a continuing and calculated effort to violate the parental access of the defendant to the infant issue. The movant here demonstrated that the plaintiff violated a clear and unequivocal Court order, thereby prejudicing his rights. See, Judiciary Law §753[A][3]; Vujovic v. Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490. The specific findings of fact are detailed herein, and considering the extent, nature, and continuing pattern of alienation perpetrated by the plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiff's conduct was calculated to and did, in fact, impair, impede or prejudice the rights and remedies of the defendant herein. See, Silverman v. Silverman, N.Y.L.J., 11-22-95, p. 26, col. 1; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Hoglund v. Hoglund, 234 AD2d 794.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
AND INSTANCES OF ALIENATION
Plaintiff intentionally scheduled their child's (N.'s) birthday party on a Sunday afternoon during defendant's weekend visitation, and then refused to permit defendant to attend. She demanded that N. be returned home early, in order to "prepare" for her party, but D., the other child, was enjoying the time with her father and wished to remain with him until the party began. Plaintiff castigated N. for "daring" to invite her father to take a picture of her outside her party. According to the plaintiff, "this doesn't work for me!" Plaintiff threatened to cancel N.'s party, and warned her that her sister, too, would be punished "big time" for wanting to spend time with her father. Plaintiff's taped temper tantrum, offered into evidence, vividly detailed one instance of how D. and N. have been made to understand that enjoying time with their father will be met with their mother's wrath and threat of punishment. Plaintiff conceded that when she completed N.'s registration card for XXX., she wrote that defendant is "not authorized to take them. I have custody. Please call me." At trial, she claimed to fear that defendant would retrieve the girls directly from school. However, she later admitted that defendant had never even attempted to pick them up at school. Her testimony at trial sharply contradicted her sworn affidavit dated January 23, 2008, in which she stated that "the defendant consistently attempts to pick up the girls unannounced from their schools and activities, which disrupts not only the girls, but those in charge of the aforementioned." In her sworn affidavit, plaintiff claimed that she completed the registration card because defendant sought to attend the end of D.'s art class and then had the audacity to drive his daughter home. The art class "incident" occurred well after the registration card was completed by the plaintiff. Moreover, nothing in the parties' agreement prohibits the defendant from visiting the children at extra-curricular events or from driving them to or from such events. In point of fact, there was no dispute that D.'s Friday art class in Huntington ended as defendant's alternate weekend visitation commenced. Plaintiff wrote to Dr. L.[1] (then the XXX. principal) and Ms. T. (N.'s fifth grade teacher), demanding that they restrict their conversations with the defendant to N.'s academics, as plaintiff is "solely responsible for her academic progress and emotional well being. Notwithstanding the nature of their joint legal custody plaintiff insisted before me that, "I have custody, he has visitation." The plaintiff made/completed an application for admission to XXX on behalf of N. in October, 2007. On the application, she checked the box "Mother has custody," rather than the box directly below which says "Joint custody." She identified her new husband, R. L., as N.'s "parent/guardian," and she failed to mention the defendant. During cross examination, plaintiff insisted that she only omitted reference to the defendant for fear that his financial circumstances would adversely impact N.'s chances for acceptance. However, no financial information was requested anywhere on the application. Moreover, plaintiff acknowledged that none was required until after an applicant was invited to attend. By applying to XXX without defendant's knowledge — but with N. completely involved in the process, plaintiff orchestrated the decision to be made, as well as alienating the child. Had the defendant not consented to N.'s attendance at XXX, after the fact, N. would be angry with him for purportedly interfering with the enrollment, even if defendant's objections to a private school placement were sound. In no event was he consulted as to this educational decision. When asked how she might handle things differently now, plaintiff did not indicate that she would first discuss the possibility of a private school with the defendant, as she is obligated to do pursuant to the Stipulation. In a similar pattern of being advised "after the fact," defendant testified that there were countless times when plaintiff deliberately scheduled theater tickets, family events and social activities for the girls during his visitation, and he was compelled to consent or risk disappointing the girls. These occurrences continued even during the time span of proceedings before me. Plaintiff was forced to concede at trial that the defendant was prevented from enjoying his visitation rights after he returned with the girls from his niece's Bat Mitzvah until this Court granted defendant's emergency application to compel the plaintiff to allow the defendant to take D. and N. for the ski trip he had scheduled for his half of the Christmas recess. Plaintiff insisted that it was D. and N. who refused to see their father, because they were angry with the "choices" he had made on their behalf, including his objection to N. attending XXX. Defendant was made aware of the children's position because they parroted their mother's demands on several occasions. D. even read from a script during the brief dinners he was permitted. As plaintiff wrote in one e-mail when she was describing her role with respect to the children: "I am in charge here, not them. What I [sic] say goes. They may bring their shoes. You are responsible for the rest. End of story."
In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007. I observed the plaintiff smirk in the courtroom as defendant emotionally related how he was deprived of spending Hanukkah with his children, and was relegated to lighting a menorah and watching his daughters open their grandparents' presents in the back of his truck at the base of plaintiff's driveway on a December evening. The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet "their" demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother's therapist, and that he pay for 75% of D.'s Bat Mitzvah but limit his invitations to a handful of guests and have no role in the planning of the event. Plaintiff's contention that she had no involvement in these children's "demands" was belied by the very fact that the children had intimate knowledge of their mother's position on all of these issues. The children, in effect, were evolved into plaintiff's sub-agents and negotiators, having specific details of the financial demands of the plaintiff, and information as to the marital agreement. The mother alluded to the ambivalence of the children in seeing the defendant. But such abrogation to the children's wishes, under these circumstances, was in violation of the agreement. It was wholly improper for the mother to adhere to the children's wishes to forego visitation with their father (see, Matter of Hughes v. Wiegman, 150 AD2d 449). Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant's role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant — notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance — hesitating and defensive — with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant's joint custodial arrangement into farce. The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible. Plaintiff relegated the defendant to waiting endlessly at the bottom of her long driveway. When defendant drove up her driveway on October 26, 2007, so that the children would not have to walk down with their heavy bags in a torrential rain, plaintiff ran down the driveway where she had left her car, drove up the driveway and blocked defendant's vehicle. The children watched as the police listened to their mother angrily demand that their father be arrested and, when the police refused, heard their mother scream that she is a taxpayer and the police work for her. She frequently disparaged the defendant in the presence of the children, calling him a "deadbeat," "loser," "scumbag" and "f____g asshole." On one particular occasion, while holding N. and D. in her arms, plaintiff said to the defendant, "We all hope you die from cancer." Just this past summer, when defendant insisted that D. retrieve her clothes from plaintiff's home in preparation for their visit to N. on her camp visiting day, plaintiff urged to defendant that "Judge Ross will not be around forever, d____." Before the beginning of each of defendant's vacations with the children, the plaintiff staged prolonged and tearful farewells at the base of the driveway, during which plaintiff assured the children that they will return to "their family soon," and if "things get too bad, they can always tell Daddy to bring them home." The crescendo of the plaintiff's conduct involved accusations of sexual abuse. Plaintiff falsely accused defendant of sexual misconduct in June, 2008, shortly after defendant moved to Huntington and the children's friends were enjoying play dates at defendant's home. Plaintiff testified that D. shared that she was uncomfortable when the defendant tickles her, and conceded that she knew there was nothing "sexual" involved. Undaunted by the lack of any genuine concern for D.'s safety, plaintiff pursued a campaign to report the defendant to Child Protective Services. To facilitate this, she spoke with W. M, the psychologist at the school D. attended. Plaintiff also "encouraged" D. to advise Dr. C. (the chidren's pediatrician) that defendant inappropriately touched her — but he saw no signs of abuse. Plaintiff also advised Dr. A., Ms. M., Dr. R. (the children's prior psychologist) and family friends of the allegations and, ultimately, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services opened a file on June 3, 2008, and began an investigation. According to the Case Narrative contained in the New York State Case Registry, a complaint was made that "On a regular basis, father inappropriately fondles 13 year old D.'s breasts. This makes D. feel very uncomfortable. Last Sunday, Father hit D. on the breast for unknown reason . . ." When the caseworker and Suffolk County detectives interviewed D. on June 3, 2008, she reported only that her father tickles her on her neck and under her arms, and she categorically denied her father ever fondled her breasts. She admitted that her father was not attempting to make her uncomfortable, but that he still regards her to be a tomboy. The detectives closed their investigation. Thereafter, and significantly, when the CPS caseworker met with plaintiff on August 19, 2008, plaintiff was quick to state that her ex-husband "did it again." Plaintiff claimed that the defendant hugged D. too hard. According to the caseworker's notes, the caseworker repeatedly cautioned the plaintiff not to bring the children into her disputes with the defendant. This warning was contained in CPS records. Although unfounded child abuse reports are required to be sealed (see, Social Services Law §422[5]), such reports may be introduced into evidence "by the subject of the report where such subject ... is a plaintiff or petitioner in a civil action or proceeding alleging the false reporting of child abuse or maltreatment" (Social Services Law §422[5][b][1]). Allegations that defendant had injured the child were found to be baseless and, by making such allegations, plaintiff needlessly subjected the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services, placing her own interests above those of the child. This report was not made in "good faith" — rather, the investigating agency warned the mother not to re-utilize the allegations and her children in her custodial litigation with the defendant. The concern of a pending contempt proceeding did not affect the plaintiff's conduct. For example, knowing that defendant had parenting access with D. on July 3, 2009, plaintiff invited D.'s close friend, C. C., to a country club for a fireworks display and advised D. of this invitation. She then instructed D. to tell her father she was invited to a friend's party on that date. Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that "it was not her responsibility to make plans for T." The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, incorporated but not merged into their Judgment of Divorce. The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to undermine the relationship between the children and their father and replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant's parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any semblance of "good faith," and her imposition upon the children to fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they want to have with their father. The unfortunate history here also reflects the plaintiff's hiring and firing of three different counsel, expressed disdain towards the children's attorney, and utter disregard for the authority of the Court.
CHANGE OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING TO BE HELD
There was no request in the moving papers for a change of custody. During the course of the extensive hearing held before me, application was made by the defendant for an immediate change of custody. It is improper for a trial court to take action and grant relief without appropriate notice to one of the parties affected. Such notice during the course of the proceeding for undemanded relief does not constitute adequate notice, and could serve to prejudice the plaintiff. Siegel Practice Commentary, McKinney's Consol. Law of New York, Book 7B, CPLR 3017.6. The Court did not grant the relief for a change in custody in the course of the hearing for contempt. However, Domestic Relations Law §240 provides that upon an application, the Court may modify a previous direction with respect to the right of visitation "after such notice to the other party....and given in such manner as the Court shall direct." See, Domestic Relations Law §240. The request for a change in custody during the course of the contempt hearing clearly has provided adequate notice by which to schedule a hearing. The request during the hearing to amend the motion to conform to the evidence presented at this hearing, is now granted, to the extent of ordering a prompt hearing on a modification of custody. Heintz v. Heintz, 28 AD3d 1154; cf. Sipos v. Kelly, 66 AD2d 1022. See, also, Fisk v. Fisk, 274 AD2d 691. The parties are to appear before me on June 4, 2010 to be heard on selection of a forensic examiner and to be heard on allocation of fees. See, Uniform Rules §202.7; also see,
Ragone v. Ragone, 62 AD3d 772; Domestic Relations Law §237(d)(4). The scheduling of the modification of custody hearing will be facilitated at that time.
THE COURT'S ROLE IN ADDRESSING ALIENATION
Differing "alienation" theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent's relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a "parent's ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child," a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the "interference with the non-custodial parent and child's relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent." See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793. Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent's right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 NY Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009].
SENTENCE
An imposition of sentence upon a finding of contempt should contain a language permitting the contemnor an opportunity to purge. See, Heyn v. Burr, 19 AD3d 896; Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733; Cooper v. Cooper, 21 AD3d 869. Under the circumstances here, where determination is made of a past violation of an order of parental access/joint custody, there can be no purge since it is no longer within the plaintiff's power to perform the act. See, Kruszczynski v. Charlap, 124 AD2d 1073; Young v. Young, 129 AD2d 794. Moreover, the use of remedial intervention — parenting coordination/counseling — during the course of the trial was unsuccessful, and even if re-utilized here, the Court cannot condition release from imprisonment upon future compliance. See, Martinez v. D.S.S., 44 AD3d 945.
Accordingly, and after careful consideration of the circumstances of the nature and extent of the multiple instances of violation of the court order, the plaintiff is sentenced to a period of incarceration for six weekends, to be served on the first and third weekends of each month for the months of June, July and August, 2010. Prior to these weekends of the plaintiff's incarceration, she shall transport the children to the defendant's home to assure their continued care and well being. See, Marallo v. Marallo, 128 AD2d 710; Gordon v. Janover, 238 AD2d 545; Munz v. Munz, 242 AD2d 789; Kruszczynski v. Charlap, supra; Barcham-Reichman v. Reichman, 250 AD2d 609.
COUNSEL FEES
Given the finding of a willful violation of the Judgment of this Court (Stack, J.) Dated March 26, 2004 [erroneously dated as 2003], and given the fees requested ($134,352.92 for defendant's counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children's fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees, shall be the object of a hearing to be held before me on June 4, 2010. While the parties consented to such determination on submission, the issues presented lend themselves to the Court's assessment of the parties' finances. To facilitate a complete record, a hearing is ordered herewith. See, Judiciary Law §773; Gordon v. Janover, supra. On the Court's own motion, this decision and order will be stayed until June 4, 2010 to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to seek Appellate Review, if so advised, and it is
ORDERED, that the plaintiff, L. R., is adjudged to be in civil contempt of the Judgment of Divorce dated March 26, 2004; and it is further
ORDERED, that the parties and their counsel shall appear before me for sentencing on June 4, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., which date may not be adjourned without written order of this Court; and it is further
ORDERED, that the plaintiff, L. R., is sentenced to a period of six weekends imprisonment in the Nassau County Correctional Facility, pursuant to the schedule set forth herein; and it is further
ORDERED, that this order and execution of this sentence shall be stayed until June 4, 2010; and it is further
ORDERED, that this decision shall be deemed an order and/or warrant of commitment pursuant to and in accordance with Judiciary Law §772; and it is further
ORDERED, that a copy of this Decision and Order shall be served upon the Sheriff of Nassau County and/or the Warden of the Nassau County Correctional Facility to facilitate the schedule of weekend incarceration, to be imposed as follows: Friday, June 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, June 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, July 9, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, July 23, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, August 6, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.; Friday, August 20, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 6:00 p.m; and it is further
ORDERED, that this Court finds that the conduct of the plaintiff was calculated to, or actually did, defeat, impair or prejudice the defendant's rights or remedies.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
My two cents- It's about time, I love stories like this.. I presonally want to see more. more more- put 'em all in jail!!! Lets keep the pressure on 'em, Parent Alienation and it's result Parent Alienation Syndrome IS CHILD ABUSE!
P.S. For those of you that want to take an active role in your cases, do you know that you can use google scholar to find any kind of law as it applied to a real life case?
Check it out @ http://scholar.google.com/ make sure to mark "legal opinions" then narrow it down to your state or federal cases in the drop down menu when you get there! It's our own personal law library!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Control Your Destiny
This post isn't my "usual" type of post, it may not even be related.. or is it..
I started a new blog Don't Let Destiny Catch You Sleeping @ http://dontletdestinycatchyousleeping.blogspot.com/
The reason for that blog.. is explained in my first post..
"A year or so ago, when a fairly new friend of mine told me she was "reading cards" and asked me if it was ok for her to "read my cards" for practice, I said sure why not.
Did I believe in "The Cards?" Nah, no way!
But it wasn't costing me a dime and if nothing else I thought it would be entertaining.
So off she went to do a reading/report for me...
WOW! That's all I can say.. wow, wow, wow! Was I in for a shock! Probably the shock of my life.
She came back and said.. "Now it all makes sense!" Ok, so I was thinking.. "WHAT makes sense?"
My life has been filled with trauma. However, I've always managed to keep my head above water. To rise above so to speak. To make it through it all.. and come out on the other side, better than when I went in.
Ok, so was that what made sense? Hmm, ohhh yes, yes, yes!
I've decided to create this blog and add it to my other blogs in the hopes of helping others see what lies ahead so they can make it through their own 'personal challanges.'
To give them the insight. The insight I wish I had back then...
Back then, when it mattered most. Before I got sucked up into a world I knew nothing of.. a world I would have never ever believed existed, behind the doors of Family Court!
But, here's the kicker! If I had known anything about my "Birth Card" I would have not only understood my life much better.. I would have never 'gone into court with a man' the year my life was destroyed.. by going into court with a man! It was all there in my Cards. The warning was like a flashing red light.. Do NOT go into court with a man!
Additionally, a year later, I would have known that "life as I once knew it, was about to end" and I would have done things much differently!
Ehhh, I could go on and on.. about what I found out to late. But I'll tell you one thing...
Looking at my past yearly spreads, has made a believer out of me! Everything that went either right or wrong.. was right there for me to use to my advantage.. if I only knew!
Don't let destiny catch you sleeping.
Email me @ HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com and let me do a Birth Card Reading/Report for you.. find out what's in your future so that you can let it work for, not against you!
Don't believe me! Do what I did, look into your past cards and see how much truth is in those.. then you tell me if you want a yearly report or not. I'll put my kidneys on the line, that you will!
Don't wait another day. Email or Call me @ (917) 651-6974 and ask for your reading today!
I'll post and explain my "Birth Card" in a follow up post.. it will all then make sense to you too...
I'm telling ya, it all came into place in that one report!"
I started a new blog Don't Let Destiny Catch You Sleeping @ http://dontletdestinycatchyousleeping.blogspot.com/
The reason for that blog.. is explained in my first post..
"A year or so ago, when a fairly new friend of mine told me she was "reading cards" and asked me if it was ok for her to "read my cards" for practice, I said sure why not.
Did I believe in "The Cards?" Nah, no way!
But it wasn't costing me a dime and if nothing else I thought it would be entertaining.
So off she went to do a reading/report for me...
WOW! That's all I can say.. wow, wow, wow! Was I in for a shock! Probably the shock of my life.
She came back and said.. "Now it all makes sense!" Ok, so I was thinking.. "WHAT makes sense?"
My life has been filled with trauma. However, I've always managed to keep my head above water. To rise above so to speak. To make it through it all.. and come out on the other side, better than when I went in.
Ok, so was that what made sense? Hmm, ohhh yes, yes, yes!
I've decided to create this blog and add it to my other blogs in the hopes of helping others see what lies ahead so they can make it through their own 'personal challanges.'
To give them the insight. The insight I wish I had back then...
Back then, when it mattered most. Before I got sucked up into a world I knew nothing of.. a world I would have never ever believed existed, behind the doors of Family Court!
But, here's the kicker! If I had known anything about my "Birth Card" I would have not only understood my life much better.. I would have never 'gone into court with a man' the year my life was destroyed.. by going into court with a man! It was all there in my Cards. The warning was like a flashing red light.. Do NOT go into court with a man!
Additionally, a year later, I would have known that "life as I once knew it, was about to end" and I would have done things much differently!
Ehhh, I could go on and on.. about what I found out to late. But I'll tell you one thing...
Looking at my past yearly spreads, has made a believer out of me! Everything that went either right or wrong.. was right there for me to use to my advantage.. if I only knew!
Don't let destiny catch you sleeping.
Email me @ HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com and let me do a Birth Card Reading/Report for you.. find out what's in your future so that you can let it work for, not against you!
Don't believe me! Do what I did, look into your past cards and see how much truth is in those.. then you tell me if you want a yearly report or not. I'll put my kidneys on the line, that you will!
Don't wait another day. Email or Call me @ (917) 651-6974 and ask for your reading today!
I'll post and explain my "Birth Card" in a follow up post.. it will all then make sense to you too...
I'm telling ya, it all came into place in that one report!"
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Mental Health Experts Publish New Book Urging DSM to Include Parent Alienation in Upcoming Edition
(DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association’s “bible” of diagnoses. The group is led by William Bernet, M.D., Professor, Department of Psychiatry of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
More- Click here: Mental Health Experts Publish New Book Urging DSM to Include Parental Alienation in Upcoming Edition « Fathers & F
More- Click here: Mental Health Experts Publish New Book Urging DSM to Include Parental Alienation in Upcoming Edition « Fathers & F
Follow The Money- Drug Company Payments to Doctors
Dollars for Docs
What Drug Companies are Paying Your Doctor
You can search by doctor and state here: http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/
"Drug companies have long kept secret details of the payments they make to doctors for promoting their drugs. But seven companies have begun posting names and compensation on the Web, some as the result of legal settlements. ProPublica compiled these disclosures, totaling $258 million, into a single database that allows patients to search for their doctor."
Monday, October 4, 2010
Canadian Symposium on Parental Alienation in New York City
“Approximately one percent of all children in the United States experience some form of parental alienation.”
I borrowed this from Mike Jeffries..
Mike is the author of " A Family’s Heartbreak: A Parent’s Introduction to Parental Alienation"
Thanks Mike for all you do!
That statement from Dr. William Bernet, a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, was one of the many eye-opening insights from the recent Canadian Symposium on Parental Alienation in New York City. Bernet was the symposium’s keynote speaker.
Approximately 2oo parents, legal and mental health professionals attended the conference to learn more about parental alienation and how to address the family dynamic both legally and therapeutically.
More- Blog « A Family's Heartbreak: A Parent's Introduction to Parental Alienation
Refresh - Go to homepage
I borrowed this from Mike Jeffries..
Mike is the author of " A Family’s Heartbreak: A Parent’s Introduction to Parental Alienation"
Thanks Mike for all you do!
That statement from Dr. William Bernet, a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, was one of the many eye-opening insights from the recent Canadian Symposium on Parental Alienation in New York City. Bernet was the symposium’s keynote speaker.
Approximately 2oo parents, legal and mental health professionals attended the conference to learn more about parental alienation and how to address the family dynamic both legally and therapeutically.
More- Blog « A Family's Heartbreak: A Parent's Introduction to Parental Alienation
Refresh - Go to homepage
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Share your Meetup Group's web presence! - The Official Meetup HQ Blog
When I'm not blogging.. or MIA for to long, you can find me here..
Share your Meetup Group's web presence! - The Official Meetup HQ Blog
Share your Meetup Group's web presence! - The Official Meetup HQ Blog
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Hot topic: psychiatry experts grapple with whether to classify parental alienation as disorder
NEW YORK - The American Psychiatric Association has a hot potato on its hands as it updates its catalog of mental disorders — whether to include parental alienation, a disputed term conveying how a child's relationship with one estranged parent can be poisoned by the other.
There's broad agreement that this sometimes occurs, usually triggered by a divorce and child-custody dispute. But there's bitter debate over whether the phenomenon should be formally classified as a mental health syndrome — a question now before the psychiatric association as it prepares the first complete revision since 1994 of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
"We're gotten an enormous amount of mail — more than any other issue," said Dr. Darrel Regier, vice chair of the task force drafting the manual. "The passions on both sides of this are exceptional."
On one side of the debate, which has raged since the 1980s, are feminists, advocates for battered women and others who consider "parental alienation syndrome" to be an unproven and potentially dangerous concept useful to men trying to deflect attention from their abusive behavior.
"This is a fabricated notion — there's no science to support it," said Joan Meier, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has written extensively on domestic violence and child custody.
On the other side are legions of firm believers in the existence of a syndrome, including hundreds gathering for a conference on the topic this weekend in New York. They say that recognition of parental alienation in the psychiatrists' manual would lead to fairer outcomes in family courts and enable more children of divorce to get treatment so they could reconcile with an estranged parent.
"This is a problem that causes horrible outcomes for children. ... All the arguments I've heard against it are trivial," said Dr. William Bernet, a psychiatry professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Bernet is among the speakers at this weekend's conference, which organizers bill as the largest ever on parental alienation. He will be describing his efforts as lead author of the proposal submitted to the psychiatric association to recognize parental alienation either as a "mental disorder" or a "relational problem."
The psychiatric association first published its manual of diagnostic disorders, known as the DSM, in 1952. The last major revision was published in 1994 and updated in 2000, and the fifth edition — DSM-5 — is due for publication in May 2013.
Work groups in various fields have been reviewing numerous proposals for additions to the 283 disorders in the current edition. Parental alienation remains on a list of proposals that are subject to further review, though it did not pass muster with the work group dealing with childhood and adolescent disorders.
"There is not sufficient scientific evidence to warrant its inclusion in the DSM," Regier said in a statement.
In an interview, Regier — who directs the APA's research division — said the proposal technically remains alive pending final presentations by the end of 2011. But he described chances for inclusion of parental alienation as "slim" — given that it has not been selected for field trials that normally would be a prerequisite for official recognition.
Bernet said it was "flatly ridiculous" for the APA to contend there is not enough information available to warrant including parental alienation in the DSM. He cited legal developments and new research in numerous foreign countries.
His proposal defines parental alienation disorder as "a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents are engaged in a high conflict divorce, allies himself or herself strongly with one parent, and rejects a relationship with the other parent, without legitimate justification."
The weekend conference at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine is the brainchild of Joseph Goldberg, who is based near Toronto and in 2008 founded an organization called the Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome.
Goldberg runs a consulting service for lawyers and parents litigating issues related to parental alienation. In his online biography, he says he "fought one of the most brutal case of parental alienation in Palm Beach County history" during a child-custody dispute with his ex-wife in Florida that extended from 2003 to 2006.
"This touches lives of more people than anyone imagines," Goldberg said by telephone from Canada. "It's not just about a child turned against a parent, through hatred. This affects grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, friends — all of them thrown out when a child rejects a parent."
Some of Goldberg's allies doubt the psychiatric association is ready to include parental alienation in its manual. New York-based psychologist Amy Baker, who has written a book about parental alienation, suggested the association might "play it safe" and decline to recognize it for fear of provoking feminist groups.
However, Goldberg is hopeful.
"There's a long way to go over the next few years before they make a final decision," he said. "There will be enormous pressure. ...I think it will be difficult for the APA not to include it."
Parental alienation surged onto the pop-culture radar screen a few years ago as a consequence of the bitter divorce and child custody battle involving actors Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. Baldwin was harshly criticized by some feminist groups for citing parental alienation syndrome as a source of his estrangement with his daughter.
The concept is a source of confusion and division in the legal profession, as some lawyers try to evoke parental alienation and others challenge that tactic.
Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lerhmann, chair of the American Bar Association's family law section, said the issue of possible alienation can be raised in child custody proceedings whether or not any such phenomenon is classified as a disorder by health professionals.
"Anyone who's in this business knows there are situations where that in fact is happening — and sometimes it's alleged but is not happening," she said. "Even if it's not in the manual, relevant evidence can still be brought in."
Meier, the George Washington law professor, has urged judges to be cautious in how they allow the topic to be raised in cases where one estranged parent is accused by the other of abuse.
"You've got to assess the abuse first, without poisoning it with a claim of alienation," Meier said. "Only after abuse is ruled out do you then move on to the question of alienation."
Elizabeth Kates, a Pompano Beach, Fla., lawyer who deals often with child custody cases, is skeptical of the role parental alienation can play in such disputes: "It's a very easy claim to make ... but the problem arises when it's used in court to obscure the investigation of whether there's been abuse."
She said the initial impetus for recognition of parental alienation syndrome came in large part from the fathers' rights movement, but suggested much of the momentum now comes from psychologists, consultants and others who could profit if the concept had a more formal status in family court disputes.
"It's monetary," Kates said. "These psychologists and therapists make huge money doing the evaluations and therapies."
Original Article- Hot topic: psychiatry experts grapple with whether to classify parental alienation as disorder StarTribune.com
Symposium on Parental Alienation Syndrome: http://www.cspas.ca/
Critique of PAS: http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/faq.htm
American Psychiatric Assn.: http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV.aspx
My two cents- As most of my regular readers know I am 150% for inclusion of Parent Alientation and Parent Alienation Syndrome into the D.S.M. however, some of my newer readers might not know why. Well here goes..
I was a child of abuse. Children of abuse only know abuse, so therefore we attract abusers- PERIOD!
I happen to be a female, but there isn't a gender for abusers nor is there a gender for those that are abused.
Abusers male or female take over where the abusive parent left off.. the sad thing is that the abused have no idea they are actually inviting abusers to abuse them.
How so? We learned early in like to do whatever it took to appease the abuser!
We learned to dote on their every whim. To satisfy their every need. To bow down, give in, and do whatever it took to keep them from abusing us.
Often times sacrificing our own needs. We weren't allowed to have needs. If we had needs that meant that the abusers needs would have to take a back seat.
Well that isn't gonna happen!
So when we were growing up we were actually being conditioned to serve the evil bastards that raised us. (yeah, yeah I know~ your parent isn't an evil bastard.)
YES they were- and dealing with that fact is the only way to stop being abused as an adult! PERIOD!!
Ya see, this is how it works. As a child of one of these abusers (emotional or physical) we believed "that was normal" Normal doesn't necessarily equate to healthy- PERIOD!
Here's where my favorite quote comes in "How would you know you were limited if you couldn't see past your limitations" ~ me.
Answer~ You wouldn't! PERIOD!
So here we are, busted, broken and alienated.. and all we can think is- why are 'they' doing this to us. Why won't 'they' stop! Why, why, why- all I want is peace. I just want to raise my kids without the drama.. blah blah blah blah WAKE UP!
As long as we need to keep the peace.. cuz that is what we learned to do to stay alive as children. KEEP THE MOTHER-FUKIN-PEACE.. avoid the next beating, avoid the wrath of emotional terror abusers can reign on an innocent child... Don't rock the abusers boat, hope they appreciate our passivity.. more blah blah bullshit!
Then we (the abused) become the persecutors! We yell, scream, storm out..' blah blah.. we use one of a dozen or more defenses.. what-the-fuck-ever we learned to do as children to 'get away' from our original abusers..
But guess what? We didn't walk away.. we didn't put a stop to the abuse. No, we were conditioned as abused children to be the peace makers, the laid back.. the don't rock the boat- ABUSED! Or we learned to lash out! Show them just how pissed of they got us. Teach them a lesson. Yeah, OK!
The only lesson we taught them was that we would 'allow' them to do this to us OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
How so?
WE FUCKIN STAY! PERIOD!
So, in short (short my ass- well, it is what it is.. this story can't be taught in short anything) But, anywho.. our learned behavior, invites abusers to abuse. Part of the abusers make up is -- entitlement! They were conditioned by one of us.. a parent that put up with our spouses abuse! It was then that the future abuser learned to feel entitled, like the abuser they were raised by. They decided as children to not get abused.. to instead ABUSE!
Parent Alienation is nothing short of an abuser feeling 'entitled' to hurt the other, using any means possible.. what better way to hurt your partner than to get whomever it is on YOUR side? To tell your lies to.. to sell your delusions to.. to align with? Whom better to destroy your partner with, than your children?
There is no-one better! The children are the perfect tool to abuse with.
So believing that parent alienation is not an abusers tool.. a way of life for the 'entitled' is in fact lying to yourself. Or in the case of those women's groups.. it is to keep your/their head in the sand and do whatever it is, to take the heat off you/them- THE ABUSER! (depending on who's reading this)
Bottom line? Women abuse just as much, if not more than men. The difference is often (not always) between emotional and physical abuse. But, remember.. abuse is abuse.. PERIOD! Abusers have no boundaries! Abusers (parents that will and do alienate) play victim- that's their M.O! Poor me!!
Then the world- including their own children (the future alienated children who suffer from Parent Alienation Syndrome- aka Stockholm Syndrome) feel so bad.. they do whatever it takes to make mommy or daddy feel better.
EVEN IF- it means turning on their other parent (the Alienated). These poor kids (and or weak minded adults) are brainwashed (for lack of a better and or much longer explanation)!
Viola! There you have it.. someone that use to love another- now believes it's their opinion to hate the one they originally loved! They have no idea they were brainwashed..
With these facts in mind..
(1) Abusers play victim to manipulate..
(2) An abusers make up, is to feel entitled..
(3) Abusers keep their victim[s] under their control..
(4) Abusers are relentless in getting the world to see their side..
(5) The abused is feed lie after lie..
(6) The lies contradict what the abused knows..
(7) The abused becomes stressed out listening to the abuser day in and day out.. bad mouth the future alienated parent (lover-neighbor-sister-stranger- whomever is the target)..
(8) Those conflicting messages overwhelm the future brainwashed..
(9) Those lies include telling the future alienated how lucky they are that the abuser is there to 'protect' the abused from the perceived enemy!
(10) Instead of the abused having a breakdown by their own minds conflicting messages/beliefs.. they must align with the abuser.. it becomes survival!
So, is it possible for only men to act like this?
HELL-MOTHER-FUCKIN--- NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
With our culture of wanting to 'protect' the abused woman..
Of needing to 'protect' the victim..
How easy would it be for an abuser who feels entitled, to use our 'learned protectiveness' to abuse?
How easy? Ask those women's groups!
Ok, ok, ok.. hold on- don't get your panties in an uproar!
I'm NOT saying that abused women abuse! No, I'm not even hinting at that!!
I know abused women.. are abused period!
But what I AM saying is.. that unless you know the M.O.(profile) of an abuser and the M.O. (profile) of 'the abused' along with knowing the politics of those women's groups.. and then you factor in the millions of dollars given by our federal government in funding.. to 'save the abused!' You are willing to believe the lie!
What lie?
Pfttttttttttt they lie that parent alienation is an abusers excuse to abuse!
Truth is parent alienation aka Stockholm Syndrome is VERY REAL! And used BY abusers to align the innocent/or in some cases the stupid public WITH the abuser aka the alienator!
Then they cry abuse play the victim, to hide the truth.. that THEY are the abuser not the abused!
And they 'professionals' that disagree with this very real truth.. must somehow be involved with the politics of it all! Follow the money!
This is MY OPINION, after years of research..I KNOW the truth. Don't be an asshole and just blindly believe me! Stop being abused! Learn the real truth for yourself!!
Please see the links below for earlier posts which explain the psychological science of how this happens.
It's a cycle! The abuse cycle.. and it will go on for generations to come.. until someone says NO, ENOUGH- PERIOD!
Personality Disorder Glosary - Alienated
A post for someone very special, a dear friend of mine
By George.. I think I've got it! PA/PAS
The Long History of PAS
Parent Alienation Leaves bruises deep inside
Domestic violence: Male entitlement mentality a factor
Stop the Gender Wars
My Personal Debate over Maternal Alienation and Parent Alienation
Refresh - Go to homepage
There's broad agreement that this sometimes occurs, usually triggered by a divorce and child-custody dispute. But there's bitter debate over whether the phenomenon should be formally classified as a mental health syndrome — a question now before the psychiatric association as it prepares the first complete revision since 1994 of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
"We're gotten an enormous amount of mail — more than any other issue," said Dr. Darrel Regier, vice chair of the task force drafting the manual. "The passions on both sides of this are exceptional."
On one side of the debate, which has raged since the 1980s, are feminists, advocates for battered women and others who consider "parental alienation syndrome" to be an unproven and potentially dangerous concept useful to men trying to deflect attention from their abusive behavior.
"This is a fabricated notion — there's no science to support it," said Joan Meier, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has written extensively on domestic violence and child custody.
On the other side are legions of firm believers in the existence of a syndrome, including hundreds gathering for a conference on the topic this weekend in New York. They say that recognition of parental alienation in the psychiatrists' manual would lead to fairer outcomes in family courts and enable more children of divorce to get treatment so they could reconcile with an estranged parent.
"This is a problem that causes horrible outcomes for children. ... All the arguments I've heard against it are trivial," said Dr. William Bernet, a psychiatry professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Bernet is among the speakers at this weekend's conference, which organizers bill as the largest ever on parental alienation. He will be describing his efforts as lead author of the proposal submitted to the psychiatric association to recognize parental alienation either as a "mental disorder" or a "relational problem."
The psychiatric association first published its manual of diagnostic disorders, known as the DSM, in 1952. The last major revision was published in 1994 and updated in 2000, and the fifth edition — DSM-5 — is due for publication in May 2013.
Work groups in various fields have been reviewing numerous proposals for additions to the 283 disorders in the current edition. Parental alienation remains on a list of proposals that are subject to further review, though it did not pass muster with the work group dealing with childhood and adolescent disorders.
"There is not sufficient scientific evidence to warrant its inclusion in the DSM," Regier said in a statement.
In an interview, Regier — who directs the APA's research division — said the proposal technically remains alive pending final presentations by the end of 2011. But he described chances for inclusion of parental alienation as "slim" — given that it has not been selected for field trials that normally would be a prerequisite for official recognition.
Bernet said it was "flatly ridiculous" for the APA to contend there is not enough information available to warrant including parental alienation in the DSM. He cited legal developments and new research in numerous foreign countries.
His proposal defines parental alienation disorder as "a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents are engaged in a high conflict divorce, allies himself or herself strongly with one parent, and rejects a relationship with the other parent, without legitimate justification."
The weekend conference at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine is the brainchild of Joseph Goldberg, who is based near Toronto and in 2008 founded an organization called the Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome.
Goldberg runs a consulting service for lawyers and parents litigating issues related to parental alienation. In his online biography, he says he "fought one of the most brutal case of parental alienation in Palm Beach County history" during a child-custody dispute with his ex-wife in Florida that extended from 2003 to 2006.
"This touches lives of more people than anyone imagines," Goldberg said by telephone from Canada. "It's not just about a child turned against a parent, through hatred. This affects grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, friends — all of them thrown out when a child rejects a parent."
Some of Goldberg's allies doubt the psychiatric association is ready to include parental alienation in its manual. New York-based psychologist Amy Baker, who has written a book about parental alienation, suggested the association might "play it safe" and decline to recognize it for fear of provoking feminist groups.
However, Goldberg is hopeful.
"There's a long way to go over the next few years before they make a final decision," he said. "There will be enormous pressure. ...I think it will be difficult for the APA not to include it."
Parental alienation surged onto the pop-culture radar screen a few years ago as a consequence of the bitter divorce and child custody battle involving actors Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. Baldwin was harshly criticized by some feminist groups for citing parental alienation syndrome as a source of his estrangement with his daughter.
The concept is a source of confusion and division in the legal profession, as some lawyers try to evoke parental alienation and others challenge that tactic.
Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lerhmann, chair of the American Bar Association's family law section, said the issue of possible alienation can be raised in child custody proceedings whether or not any such phenomenon is classified as a disorder by health professionals.
"Anyone who's in this business knows there are situations where that in fact is happening — and sometimes it's alleged but is not happening," she said. "Even if it's not in the manual, relevant evidence can still be brought in."
Meier, the George Washington law professor, has urged judges to be cautious in how they allow the topic to be raised in cases where one estranged parent is accused by the other of abuse.
"You've got to assess the abuse first, without poisoning it with a claim of alienation," Meier said. "Only after abuse is ruled out do you then move on to the question of alienation."
Elizabeth Kates, a Pompano Beach, Fla., lawyer who deals often with child custody cases, is skeptical of the role parental alienation can play in such disputes: "It's a very easy claim to make ... but the problem arises when it's used in court to obscure the investigation of whether there's been abuse."
She said the initial impetus for recognition of parental alienation syndrome came in large part from the fathers' rights movement, but suggested much of the momentum now comes from psychologists, consultants and others who could profit if the concept had a more formal status in family court disputes.
"It's monetary," Kates said. "These psychologists and therapists make huge money doing the evaluations and therapies."
Original Article- Hot topic: psychiatry experts grapple with whether to classify parental alienation as disorder StarTribune.com
Symposium on Parental Alienation Syndrome: http://www.cspas.ca/
Critique of PAS: http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/faq.htm
American Psychiatric Assn.: http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV.aspx
My two cents- As most of my regular readers know I am 150% for inclusion of Parent Alientation and Parent Alienation Syndrome into the D.S.M. however, some of my newer readers might not know why. Well here goes..
I was a child of abuse. Children of abuse only know abuse, so therefore we attract abusers- PERIOD!
I happen to be a female, but there isn't a gender for abusers nor is there a gender for those that are abused.
Abusers male or female take over where the abusive parent left off.. the sad thing is that the abused have no idea they are actually inviting abusers to abuse them.
How so? We learned early in like to do whatever it took to appease the abuser!
We learned to dote on their every whim. To satisfy their every need. To bow down, give in, and do whatever it took to keep them from abusing us.
Often times sacrificing our own needs. We weren't allowed to have needs. If we had needs that meant that the abusers needs would have to take a back seat.
Well that isn't gonna happen!
So when we were growing up we were actually being conditioned to serve the evil bastards that raised us. (yeah, yeah I know~ your parent isn't an evil bastard.)
YES they were- and dealing with that fact is the only way to stop being abused as an adult! PERIOD!!
Ya see, this is how it works. As a child of one of these abusers (emotional or physical) we believed "that was normal" Normal doesn't necessarily equate to healthy- PERIOD!
Here's where my favorite quote comes in "How would you know you were limited if you couldn't see past your limitations" ~ me.
Answer~ You wouldn't! PERIOD!
So here we are, busted, broken and alienated.. and all we can think is- why are 'they' doing this to us. Why won't 'they' stop! Why, why, why- all I want is peace. I just want to raise my kids without the drama.. blah blah blah blah WAKE UP!
As long as we need to keep the peace.. cuz that is what we learned to do to stay alive as children. KEEP THE MOTHER-FUKIN-PEACE.. avoid the next beating, avoid the wrath of emotional terror abusers can reign on an innocent child... Don't rock the abusers boat, hope they appreciate our passivity.. more blah blah bullshit!
Then we (the abused) become the persecutors! We yell, scream, storm out..' blah blah.. we use one of a dozen or more defenses.. what-the-fuck-ever we learned to do as children to 'get away' from our original abusers..
But guess what? We didn't walk away.. we didn't put a stop to the abuse. No, we were conditioned as abused children to be the peace makers, the laid back.. the don't rock the boat- ABUSED! Or we learned to lash out! Show them just how pissed of they got us. Teach them a lesson. Yeah, OK!
The only lesson we taught them was that we would 'allow' them to do this to us OVER AND OVER AGAIN!
How so?
WE FUCKIN STAY! PERIOD!
So, in short (short my ass- well, it is what it is.. this story can't be taught in short anything) But, anywho.. our learned behavior, invites abusers to abuse. Part of the abusers make up is -- entitlement! They were conditioned by one of us.. a parent that put up with our spouses abuse! It was then that the future abuser learned to feel entitled, like the abuser they were raised by. They decided as children to not get abused.. to instead ABUSE!
Parent Alienation is nothing short of an abuser feeling 'entitled' to hurt the other, using any means possible.. what better way to hurt your partner than to get whomever it is on YOUR side? To tell your lies to.. to sell your delusions to.. to align with? Whom better to destroy your partner with, than your children?
There is no-one better! The children are the perfect tool to abuse with.
So believing that parent alienation is not an abusers tool.. a way of life for the 'entitled' is in fact lying to yourself. Or in the case of those women's groups.. it is to keep your/their head in the sand and do whatever it is, to take the heat off you/them- THE ABUSER! (depending on who's reading this)
Bottom line? Women abuse just as much, if not more than men. The difference is often (not always) between emotional and physical abuse. But, remember.. abuse is abuse.. PERIOD! Abusers have no boundaries! Abusers (parents that will and do alienate) play victim- that's their M.O! Poor me!!
Then the world- including their own children (the future alienated children who suffer from Parent Alienation Syndrome- aka Stockholm Syndrome) feel so bad.. they do whatever it takes to make mommy or daddy feel better.
EVEN IF- it means turning on their other parent (the Alienated). These poor kids (and or weak minded adults) are brainwashed (for lack of a better and or much longer explanation)!
Viola! There you have it.. someone that use to love another- now believes it's their opinion to hate the one they originally loved! They have no idea they were brainwashed..
With these facts in mind..
(1) Abusers play victim to manipulate..
(2) An abusers make up, is to feel entitled..
(3) Abusers keep their victim[s] under their control..
(4) Abusers are relentless in getting the world to see their side..
(5) The abused is feed lie after lie..
(6) The lies contradict what the abused knows..
(7) The abused becomes stressed out listening to the abuser day in and day out.. bad mouth the future alienated parent (lover-neighbor-sister-stranger- whomever is the target)..
(8) Those conflicting messages overwhelm the future brainwashed..
(9) Those lies include telling the future alienated how lucky they are that the abuser is there to 'protect' the abused from the perceived enemy!
(10) Instead of the abused having a breakdown by their own minds conflicting messages/beliefs.. they must align with the abuser.. it becomes survival!
So, is it possible for only men to act like this?
HELL-MOTHER-FUCKIN--- NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
With our culture of wanting to 'protect' the abused woman..
Of needing to 'protect' the victim..
How easy would it be for an abuser who feels entitled, to use our 'learned protectiveness' to abuse?
How easy? Ask those women's groups!
Ok, ok, ok.. hold on- don't get your panties in an uproar!
I'm NOT saying that abused women abuse! No, I'm not even hinting at that!!
I know abused women.. are abused period!
But what I AM saying is.. that unless you know the M.O.(profile) of an abuser and the M.O. (profile) of 'the abused' along with knowing the politics of those women's groups.. and then you factor in the millions of dollars given by our federal government in funding.. to 'save the abused!' You are willing to believe the lie!
What lie?
Pfttttttttttt they lie that parent alienation is an abusers excuse to abuse!
Truth is parent alienation aka Stockholm Syndrome is VERY REAL! And used BY abusers to align the innocent/or in some cases the stupid public WITH the abuser aka the alienator!
Then they cry abuse play the victim, to hide the truth.. that THEY are the abuser not the abused!
And they 'professionals' that disagree with this very real truth.. must somehow be involved with the politics of it all! Follow the money!
This is MY OPINION, after years of research..I KNOW the truth. Don't be an asshole and just blindly believe me! Stop being abused! Learn the real truth for yourself!!
Please see the links below for earlier posts which explain the psychological science of how this happens.
It's a cycle! The abuse cycle.. and it will go on for generations to come.. until someone says NO, ENOUGH- PERIOD!
Personality Disorder Glosary - Alienated
A post for someone very special, a dear friend of mine
By George.. I think I've got it! PA/PAS
The Long History of PAS
Parent Alienation Leaves bruises deep inside
Domestic violence: Male entitlement mentality a factor
Stop the Gender Wars
My Personal Debate over Maternal Alienation and Parent Alienation
Refresh - Go to homepage
Friday, October 1, 2010
Breaking News- Man shot 3 sons, 2 killed
When I saw thsi on CNN as a blib on the bottom of the screen, I got a knot in my stomach and thought 'OMG I pray this had nothing to do with child custody'- then looked it up.
This is all I can find so far- Man shot 3 sons, 2 killed
However, when I pulled up the title- 'Man Shot 3 sons, 2 killed' I also came up with this story (below)!
I want to know- when the hell are these fucktards gona get it? Unless the laws and the INCENTIVES from the Government (Title IV Federal Funding- to "protect" victims) change insofar as Child Custody, Child Support, Domestic Violence and Child Abuse go.. these kinds of stories will continue to make head lines!
Wake up people- these incentives and laws DO EFFECT YOU AND YOURS!
Battle over kids ends with their deaths in north Harris Houston & Texas News Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Refresh - Go to homepage
This is all I can find so far- Man shot 3 sons, 2 killed
However, when I pulled up the title- 'Man Shot 3 sons, 2 killed' I also came up with this story (below)!
I want to know- when the hell are these fucktards gona get it? Unless the laws and the INCENTIVES from the Government (Title IV Federal Funding- to "protect" victims) change insofar as Child Custody, Child Support, Domestic Violence and Child Abuse go.. these kinds of stories will continue to make head lines!
Wake up people- these incentives and laws DO EFFECT YOU AND YOURS!
Battle over kids ends with their deaths in north Harris Houston & Texas News Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Refresh - Go to homepage
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
