I’m a Cowerd: 9 Year Old Speaks

  I was making supper for my kids, who were home after spending the week with their father, when my two little ones started to wrestle, and get a bit hyper. I told the kids to settle down, and then wash their hands so we could eat.

I didn’t think much of the event; the kids were just being typical kids… So I go back to cooking.
When my daughter says, “Mommy, look ____ has a bag on his head!”
At first, I am thinking my son is just playing, be an astronaut or something. So I did not immediately react.
My daughter is more insistent when she repeats, “Mommy, ____ has a bag on his head AND it says ‘Don’t look at me’!”
I turn around and my son is sitting at the table with a paper grocery bag over his head, with two holes cut out for the eyes. The bag is scribbled with black marker that says “Don’t look at me” and “I’m a cowerd”.

I asked my son why he had a bag on his head. My son grumbled. “Don’t look at me. I don’t want anyone to see me.”
I asked my son if he knew what a “cowerd” was. He said “no”. I then asked my son where he heard the word, and he told me “I don’t know. I just heard it.”
I then asked my son, “How come it says you are a ‘cowerd’ when you don’t even know what one is?”
My son told me, “I don’t know. I’m just a ‘cowerd’.” And “Don’t look at me”.
I took the bag off my son’s head, and told him that he is definitely not a “cowerd”, and told him some of the things I love about him.

My son went silent on the subject and did not want to talk about it. So I just put the bag away, and went on with the evening.

When I reported to my son’s counselor about this incident, she told me something to the effect of “Oh, we just have to work on ___ and let him know he is not a “cowerd”. He just has to learn to use nice words.”
I don’t think it’s normal for a 9 year old child to degrade himself, and call himself names.

Background:

The first time I remember my son being yelled at by his father was when he was 3 weeks old; his father became angry when he accidentally peed on the bed when I was changing him. My son was the primary target of his father’s physical aggression. My son made at least a dozen independent reports to various professionals of being mistreated by his father, all which went ignored. These allegations included being choked, called names and hit on the head. The guardian ad litem told me I couldn’t “prove” abuse, and blamed me for my child’s behaviors, saying that I have “Parental Alienation”.

My son has various emotional and behavioral problems. He has attacked both his sister and I (at different times) resulting in various injuries. I was in physical therapy after my son slammed me into a shelf, which collapsed and fell on top of me. My daughter has been in therapy to deal with my son’s behaviors, and clearly has been traumatized by this. My son has voiced that he “wants to die”, “wants to jump off a cliff” and “I don’t want to be here anymore”. My son also has nightmares, regressive behavior, anxiety, hyperactivity and depression. He was also diagnosed with sensory problems and speech problems. At one point, he was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He is slowly getting better.

It is a long, painful story…but Family Court refused to protect my son. The Guardian ad Litem refused to look into any allegations of abuse, and was determined to place both children with the father by using “Parental Alienation” against me. My ex has various problems that all went ignored, including a past history of violence, drug and alcohol abuse and criminal behavior. After my son was placed in his father’s home, his behaviors grew worse and he ran away 3 times. My son has literally had his spirit beaten by his father and the courts, he is not the boy he used to be. 

Evanlee Perth, 2009

 

 

 

 

“Two Homes”: A Children’s Book Review

Title: “Two Homes”
Author: Claire Masurel
Illustrator: Kady Macdonald Denton
Genre: Children’s, Family, Divorce
(This book is best suited for beginning readers, children ages 3-6)
Publisher: Candlewick Press: Cambridge, MA (2001).

Description: “Two Homes” is told through the narrative of a little boy with an adorable bowl haircut named Alex. Alex’s parents are divorced, and he spends time between “two homes” visiting both of his parents, who love him.

My Review:

“Two Homes” is a simple book with colorful illustrations; young children from divorced homes will find this book easy to understand, and easy to relate to Alex. Throughout the book, Alex shows the reader his life—his pet dog, his toys, his life and adventures with both parents.

I like how “Two Homes” does not attempt to explain the complications of divorce, nor does it take sides. This book gently opens a door, in which you can begin to talk to your child about your family situation.

On the flip side, “Two Homes” is so simple that it makes divorce look easy, and Alex seems to have only one emotion–happy. Masurel wrote “Two Homes” after talking with a child whose parents divorced, I am not sure if she is a parent herself or if she has experienced divorce. It would be much more realistic if “Two Homes” addressed, or at least showed, the different feelings associated with divorce, and some of the issues caused by the transition of going from one home to another. Then, once there is a resolution or acceptance, it would make sense that Alex feels more secure living between the homes of both parents. “Two Homes” does hint that Alex has some acceptance with his parent’s divorce—the message of the book is overall, upbeat.

“Two Homes” is best suited to a younger audience; it was an okay book. I would not recommend “Two Homes” for any situation involving domestic violence. However, it may help a parent struggling to cope with the transition of shared parenting, and give some insight into what the child may experience, and under a more stable, safe situation—and show the child can successfully adjust.

The most important message of this book, is that despite the divorce, the child is loved and well cared for by both parents. I agree that it is important to give positive, loving messages to your child every day.

Evanlee J. Perth

 

Seeking Stories: Mothers Who Lost Custody & Mental Illness

Are you a parent who suffers from a mental illness who lost custody of your children after trying to get help for yourself? Are you a parent with mental illness who thought that by getting help you were making a good decision for your family, only to loose custody of your children for seeking that help?

If so a reporter is willing to hear your story for consideration of an article about parents who lost custody of children after attempting to get help for their mental illness.

I spoke to a mother in a situation like this, she suffered from mental illness and felt that with some extra support, she would be a better parent to her children. The mother was concerned that without the help she may get sick, and wanted to prevent that from happening. She also went through a length custody battle with her ex-husband and felt she needed to “prove” to the courts that she is a good mother, so custody could not be contested.

Part of the woman’s troubles were related to past abuse from her husband, who tried to kill her. At one point, the ex-husband won custody of the children, who were neglected in his care and eventually abandoned. The mother was re-traumatized by the family court proceedings, and that her children were forced to live in a dangerous situation. Part of the reason the custody was given to the ex-husband was that he was claiming the woman was “crazy” and could not care for the children, but the court also ignored her allegations of abuse. The mother eventually regained custody of her children (who suffered behavioral and emotional problems due to being mistreated in the father’s home)because the ex-husband had abandoned them, and basically walked away. She didn’t want to risk loosing her children again, and thought that by seeking additional help, she could prove she was a fit mother and making progress. The mother was actively in counseling, and attending a support group—she wanted a case manager and some in-home family therapy The children were healthy, doing well in school and had a close relationship with their mother.

After going to the county for help, the woman lost all rights to her children and was declared “unfit” due to her mental illness. The children were separated and put in different foster homes. The woman could not afford a lawyer to appeal and was turned down by Legal Aid. She eventually suffered a nervous breakdown due to the stress and grief she went through from losing her children, and to this day is heartbroken—the loss of her children has not healed. The woman has went on to volunteer in her community, and finds strength in helping others.

Many people who have mental illness feel their concerns go unheard or are not taken seriously. This may be an opportunity for you to speak out, and advocate for your family. Though, ultimately, it is up to you decide what is best for your family.

This request was released by NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness on October 5, 2009:

Media Interview Request for Custody Relinquishment

A reporter with a major newspaper is working on a story about families who have had to relinquish custody of their children in order to access mental health care. She would like to speak with a family that is currently going through this process.
 
If you would like to share you story, please send a short description (250 words or less) of your experiences to Christine Armstrong via e-mail (mailto:christinea@nami.org) . Please include your name and phone number. NAMI will not release any personal information without your explicit consent. The reporter will ultimately decide which stories may be the best fit for this article.

NAMI Online: http://www.nami.org

My thoughts & prayers go out to you. ~ Evanlee J. Perth, 2009.

 

Court Rulings Against Parental Alienation Syndrome

(A compilation of court rulings that have contested the controversial Parental Alienation Syndrome)

The credibility of Dr Richard Gardner, originator of Alienation/Parental Alienation should be given serious consideration before his views are adopted in by this court, especially when determining the best interests of vulnerable children. Dr. Gardner has used Parental Alienation Syndrome “PAS” as a career opportunity while the lives of women and children are put at risk and families are torn apart.

Dr. Gardner worked as a paid court witness, earning up to $500 and hour to promote alienation in custody litigation. Parental Alienation is the theory in which one parent (almost exclusively used on mothers) brainwashes a child and attempts to destroy the relationship with the other parent through purposeful acts of denigration. Dr. Gardner believed a mother will go to these lengths because she is expressing sexual frustration–she is desiring her former partner but after he has refused her affections, she seeks revenge by using the children as a weapon against him. According to Gardner, a mother may even invent allegations of abuse in order to alienate the children from their father. PAS creates suspicion and an almost natural bias against any mother alleging domestic violence during divorce or custody proceedings, and in cases where PAS is used, child are almost never believed when they come forward with their own allegations of abuse.

Gardner’s cure for PAS is cutting off contact with the “alienator”–the mother–through forcible separations and other legal manipulations. A child may also endure “threat therapy” and other methods designed to force a relationship with the other parent upon them. When a mother is accused of PAS, it is virtually impossible to overcome the predjudice this creates against her–when she asserts concerns about her ex partner, or concerns for safety, it will inevitably be used as evidence that she is suffering from PAS.

Much of Gardner’s work on PAS was cut and pasted from an earlier theory, the “Sexual Abuse Legitimacy Scale” (SALS). After SALS was thrown out of a Florida court for lack of admissibility, Gardner went on to reinvent this theory under a new name: Parental Alienation.

During the last 25 years of his career Dr. Gardner had no hospital admitting privileges. Dr. Gardner died by suicide, over dosing on medication and stabbing himself in the chest and neck. When Dr. Gardner’s body was found a 7” butcher knife plunged into his chest, ripping into his heart. In all Dr. Gardner had four stab wounds in the chest and three in his neck. After Gardner’s death, controversy over the validity of PAS remains. Today, it is at best an undiagnostic, still undefined syndrome–and scientifically, remains a dangerous idea that when practised puts children at risk and prolongs the trauma of familial separation.

Many courts are battling the question of whether PAS meets the Frye test, whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community, or not. The Frye rule came from a 1923 Federal Court of Appeals (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014, D.C. Cir. 1923) decision, createing a standard in which scientific evidence can be used in courts, and considered admissible. That standard is based on whether the evidence is generally accepted by others in the field including judicial opinions, scientific or legal writings and other expert opinion (excluding the source who offered the contended evidence). Another aspect of the Frye ruling is whether the contended evidence can be tested.

1988: A Florida court refused to admit PAS because “no determination was made in the order or on the record as to general professional acceptance of the ‘parental alienation syndrome’ as a diagnostic tool“.

Further, the Court found that “when considering the theory of expert testimony…it is vitally important to avoid the confusion engendered by reference to syndromes…At the present time experts have not achieved consensus on the existence of a psychological syndrome…use of the word syndrome leads only to confusion, and to unwarranted and unworkable comparisons to battered child syndrome”.
In the Interest of T.M.W., 553 So. 2nd 260, 262 Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 1988)

1990: The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected an appellate court’s creation of the “Intentional interference with custody rights” noting that “children can be devastated by divorce” and further finds that “the law should not provide a means of escalating intrafamily warfare” but that other remedies exist when a parent or other relative interferes with custody arrangements, and that “creating a tort of this nature is the job of the legislature, not the court.”
(Larson v. Dunn, 460 N.W. 2nd 39, 45-46 Minn. 1990)

1992: Even with expert testimony by a psychologist who says that the situation in question was the” worst case of PAS he had ever seen,” a Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that there was “limited research data” to support, as “a successful cure” for children suffering from PAS, the removal of such children from their mother’s custody. The Court ruled that taking the children from their mother’s custody was risky, uncertain and may cause psychological damage. Further, the appellate court held that the lower court did not have to to accept the opinion of the father’s expert, Dr. Wellen, who contended that PAS is only cured when the father is granted custody. (Weiderholt v. Fischer, 485 N.W. 2nd 442, 444, Wis. Ct. App. 1992).

2000: In the County of Nassau County, NY, a Frye hearing was done and the Court found the defendant in the case had “not established general acceptance of Parental Alienation Syndrome within the professional community which would provide a foundation for its admission at trial”. The Court went onto to explain its ruling, based on that Dr. Gardner’s had failed to have PAS undergo a necessary peer review and went on to quote some of Gardner’s writings, including, “…We spin off the most fantastic explanations for human behavior and often come to believe our own delusions.”
(The People v. Fortin, 184 Misc.2d 10,14 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 2000)

2002: Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the Family division, (the top UK family court judge) remarks that “There is, of course, no doubt that some parents, particularly mothers, are responsible for alienating their children from their fathers without good reason and thereby creating this sometimes insoluble problem. That unhappy state of affairs, well known in family courts, is a long way from recognized syndrome requiring mental health professionals to play an expert role.“
(Re L, V, M, H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2002] 2 FLR 334 at 351)

2006: the American Bar Association’s Children’s Legal Rights Journal published an article that conducted a thorough study of the scientific, legal and policy issues involved in the scientific admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome when used in the courts, and found that there was evidence to support its use.

2006: The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges declares Parental Alienation as “junk science, and at least four states have passed legislation to stop its use in custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence because of difficulties in determining its cause and because it endangers children.

2007: A New York Court finds, “This court does not believe that there is a generally accepted diagnostic determination or syndrome known as ‘parental alienation syndrome’. Terminology such as inappropriate parental influence would be far more appropriate.” (NK v. MK, 851 N.Y.S.2d 71 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2007)

2008: Clinical psychologist William Wrigley is strongly reprimanded and disciplined by The Psychologists Board of Queensland (Australia) for acting unprofessional in giving evidence about PAS to the court. Dr. Wrigley’s testimony resulted in a mother losing custody of two children, the Board found that, Dr. Wrigley exercised “professional conduct that demonstrates incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care”. The Board found that Dr. Wrigley violated a code of ethics in that, “It was inappropriate for the registrant (Dr Wrigley) to either diagnose the children or state there was a likelihood the children could develop parental alienation syndrome, as it is not a recognised syndrome.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23495760-2702,00.html

When children are unexpectedly, and forcibly separated from a parent and by extension, from their community, family, friends and other sources of nurturing they endure trauma and often, the damage inflicted is lifelong. Some children are known to suffer from “maternal deprivation”—meaning the loss of a primary caregiver causes emotional distress and behavioral problems. Hence, the pretend symptoms of “alienation” can be explained by very real the stressors caused by ongoing custody litigation—not to mention being victims of alleged abuse.

_________________
This is a work in progress…I am open to add any links, rulings or further information you may have.

I have previous postings on the history of PAS, and other research as well. If you would like more info, just let me know.

Evanlee J. Perth, 2009

RESOURCES:

Parental Alienation Syndrome: Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 1, Part 2). By Jerome H. Poliacoff, Ph.D., P.A., Cynthia L. Greene, Esq., and Laura Smith, Esq:http://expertpages.com/news/parental_alienation_syndrome.htm

“Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know
Part 1 of 2″ By Erika Rivera Ragland & Hope Fields. American Prosecutors Research Institute, Update – Volume 16, Number 6, 2003:
http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html

“Update on Parental Alienation Syndrome” by Paul L. Feinstein, Esq.
http://www.divorcemag.com/IL/proforum/parental-alienation-syndrome.html

QUOTES:

“…Parental Alienation Syndrome shifts attention away from the dangerous behavior of the parent alleging the Parental Alienation
Syndrome. Secondly, a child’s reluctance or refusal to visit a
parent alleging Parental Alienation Syndrome may be better
explained by that non-custodial parent’s behavior, by the child’s developmental stage and the child’s reaction to divorce and parental
conflict than by the Parental Alienation Syndrome. I submit that in seventeen years representing thousands of children,those factors, and not the Parental Alienation Syndrome, most often describe a child’s relationship with the non-custodial parent, including their willingness or non-willingness to engage in visitation. I ask the social scientists, the psychologists and the judiciary to first consider these factors in assessing the problem in the non-custodial parent/child relationship.” –Junk Science v. Novel Scientific Evidence: Parental Alienation Syndrome, Getting It Wrong in Custody Cases” by Alayne Katz. Pace Law Review, Pace University, 2003.
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1522&context=lawrev

“In contested custody cases, children may indeed express fear of, be concerned about, have distaste for, or be angry at one of their parents. Unfortunately, an all too common practice in such cases is for evaluators to diagnose children who exhibit a very strong bond and alignment with one parent and, simultaneously, a strong rejection of the other parent, as suffering from “parental alienation syndrome” or “PAS”. Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept this testimony…The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s
behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to have “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent.” (p.26) “Navigating Custody & Visitations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide”. This document was developed under grant number SJI-03-N-103 from the State Justice Institute. Published by The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2006.
http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/sites/documents/0000/0081/NCFCJ_guidebook_final_2006.pdf

 

Letter to Oprah: Frustrated Motherhood-Childless Mother

Non-Custodial Mother? Mother who feels the Family Court system is unjust? Mother fighting to protect her children against abuse, only to encounter further obstacles in the system? Let your voice be heard!

Send me links, tips and information on how we can work together to advocate for our families.

I am posting one idea below, a friend sent me this link on writing a letter to Oprah. Apparently, Oprah is exploring the topic of “Frustrated Motherhood” for a future episode. The Mom decided to use the topic as an avenue to voice her experience about being frustrated after losing her children to a corrupt, unjust court system awarded custody to an alleged abuser. She is encouraging other mothers to also send in their stories (I have).

Let’s stand together on this! Also, feel free to post other ideas below.

Evanlee J. Perth

_____________________
I was about to write to Oprah about my frustrated motherhood…then I thought that we should all write to her under the same heading: Frustrated Motherhood-Childless Mother!

We should try to grab her attention, collectively. Perhaps we can get a word in edge-wise.

I’m going to write her now at:

https://www.oprah.com/plugform.jsp?plugId=2532631&referer=http://www.oprah.com/index

I hope you do the same.

“R”

P.S. please pass this on to any other mother that has lost custody.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied to a single garment of destiny. –Martin Luther King

 

You Call Me Crazy: Poetry of Abuse

Seeking a spiritual connection
Seeking a harassment order.

I want to hold you forever
I’m gonna hurt you.

I’m not sure I want things to slow down
I’m not going to tell you I’m already married.

You’re my inspiration
You’re a bitch.

A scheme to make a million dollars
A criminal past.

You have made me a better person
You are so unappreciative.

I will cherish our togetherness in spirit
I will take the kids from you,
By making up stories…how you are crazy

Your a great mom with much to offer,
Im fortunate, the children are fortunate…
You’re a piece of work,
Who would want you now?

You’re my past, present and future
You’re just a roommate.

I have cleaned up the broken glass
The books torn from the shelf,
and thrown at me
The dishes smashed on the floor,
(We will never have a matching set)
Wiped tears from trembling faces
With the last of my strength,
I will walk away from the mess
I will rise from the ruins
Of “our togetherness in spirit”
And keep my hands up,
To grasp at the sky
The wind moving between my fingers
A new sensation—free.

Evanlee J. Perth, ©2006

The lines from the beginning of this poem were taken from things my abuser said to me, and later the things he did.
I n this poem, I want to show the progression of abuse..the charm and manipulation, how easy it is to look away and make excuses and then the violence and breaking free…

 

Moms of Michigan: Support for Noncustodial Mothers

What is “Moms of Michigan”? A website for non-custodial mothers, stepmothers and grandmothers to connect to resources, education, support (including an online support group) and political action. An important focus of “Moms of Michigan” is maintaining a strong, loving bond between mother and child in the midst of separation.

“Moms of Michigan” also addresses injustices within the family court system by offering education, information on how the system works, and networking opportunities with others fighting for justice in the courts. “Moms of Michigan” has formed a grassroots action team to advocate for noncustodial parents and address problems in the courts.

“As parents we enter into the court system believing that we will have justice and that we are all equal, but find out that the system rewards horrible outcomes. During this time we quickly learn that the system fails us and our children. While you visit this site you will gain information on the various laws and how the system operates. We will also encourage alternatives.” — Moms of Michigan

Visit “Moms of Michigan” Online:
http://www.momsofmichigan.org

 

Moms Give Up Children: News or Politics As Usual?

A response to on “Moms reveal why they gave up children”.  After witnessing incredible abuses of power extend into all levels of the legal system, whose members play prominent roles in society, I have often wondered why?? This article answers a little…for some it is the power and control, the social status, the financial incentives. For others, as this article suggests, they see the break up of families as necessary because a woman who has divorced (or worse, had children out of wedlock!) has failed to perform her duties as a wife and mother. She is flawed. She resents her role as a mother, feels stifled, and is bored with her husband. She could have had a career. Exciting sexual experiences. Explored something greater… In order to discover her authentic self, and reclaim her purpose in life, the mother must relinquish custody of her children. The father, who is the victim in this tale, has dutifully stayed at home with the children, and put up with a rebellious wife.  He maintains a job. Is financially secure. Is looked upon with newfound respect. He is better suited to being a parent, even being a mother. He must have sole custody. This dangerous ideology has infiltrated all levels of society. Even women adopt it, perhaps because they feel that they are asserting or gaining some kind of special privelegs. Used in the Courts this type of thinking contributes the forcible separation of children from mothers, creates bias that corrupts justice (and bias that may be connected to race, economic status or accusations domestic violence) and leads the further destruction of families.

 Also, earlier this year MSNBC reported an incident of domestic violence, where a man beat his girlfriend as she was driving a car down the highway, their small child sleeping in the back of the car, with evident sarcasm. The man screamed at his girlfriend and ripped off a rear view mirror and used it to shatter the windshield. He also punched his girlfriend in the face with such force that he knocked her glasses off. At the time the man was eating and so he had a sandwich in his hand; as strange as it sounds, it is likely that the sandwich lessened the impact when he hit her. MSNBC reported the event, highlighting that the man beat his girlfriend with a sandwich, and then added a punch line, “Police haven’t said what type of sandwich was involved.”” and joked that it may have been a “club sandwhich”.  This attack was severe, and could have resulted in fatalities. Domestic violence is nothing to laugh about. Considering MSNBC’s previous reporting on this incident, again it seems MSNBC has taken to one-sided reporting while overlooking crucial issues.  Indeed, “Moms reveal” does not portray any stories of women who fought for custody of children, or who share custody with ex-husbands/partners.

I was at work today went I went online and “Moms Reveal” popped up on my browser, the words “people are gradually coming to understand that sometimes the best thing a mother can do for her child is let go of them…”  immediately caught my eye. Every instinct I had screamed “No!”

 The “Moms reveal” article highlights a feature from Marie Claire magazine which includes personal stories and statistics about the rising number of women who relinquish custody of children after divorce. The advice given to the estimated 2 million non-custodial mothers is that fathers are able to fill the role as mother—society needs to be “less judgmental” of men. Between the lines, the article suggests that a child will not notice the difference that they have less contact with their mother—suggesting there is nothing distinguishable between the roles of a mother and a father, and their influence in a child’s life. Clinical psychologist Judith Sills is prominently quoted in “Moms Reveal”. She states,  “The fact is, some good moms can protect their children best by recognizing someone else is the better parent.” In essence, a mother is replaceable—inconsequential as moving a child from training wheels to a bicycle.

 More than once in “Moms reveal” is the mother is referred to as “the primary caregiver” , at the same time it portrays motherhood as robbing a woman of her youth, and placing her in a kind of domestic prison. In each personal story featured, the mothers felt stifled, robbed of their careers, overwhelmed by their children—and after the divorce they went on to lead happier lives without their children. This is the only perspective of non-custodial mothers offered in “Moms Reveal”.  Any grief or emotion felt by these women due to divorce, and losing their children, was explained as coming from society, who looked down on mothers who did not fill their traditional roles. Joanna Coles, editor-in-chief of Marie Claire explains, “But I think it was very important to lift the taboo on it and to say these are real stories that happen to real people, and the children are just fine.” “Moms Reveals” implies that if social taboos were removed, then more mothers would move to give up children after divorce, and could go on to live happy lives.

 Nothing in “Moms Reveal” even remotely suggests the best possible outcome after divorce—that the mother and the father are able to amicably co-parent and share custody. In case of abuse, this may not be possible…but to be fair, I have to mention this possibility. For those families who are able to accomplish this, I applaud your efforts. I wish the same could be for my children.  

 I was most appalled by “Moms Reveal” because love, loyalty, and family were portrayed in a negative light.  The special bond between a mother and child was dismissed entirely. In the book “Getting Naked Again”, Sills suggests that divorce is a kind of freedom for women, who are then reborn and can freely explore their sexuality and prowess.  Sills again condemns the role of caregiver and wife in “Getting Naked Again”, “All of us who are single — whether widowed or divorced, dumped or thankfully detached, or just newly resurfaced after the distractions of motherhood, career, or both — stand at the same anxious precipice. Must I, will I get back into the game of courtship?”

 The role of family is under attack with hostile interpretations, and the message that “There is a better alternative”. Don’t be fooled, “Moms reveal” has more to do with politics than parenting.

The stories not offered in “Moms Reveal” include the many women who are forced or coerced into relinquishing custody of children. Some typical scenarios may include:

* A mother cannot afford legal bills, or is unable to access affordable legal help so she is forced into making compromises or giving up custody. Such mothers are likely to enter into agreements or can be manipulated because they do not know their rights and options.

Alternately, if a mother is able to access legal help and she feels her attorney is not representing her best interests, she is likely to conceed to his demands simply because there is no other help available.

* A mother fleeing domestic violence is threatened by her abuser that he will take the children, and she will never see them again. Or he will make up stories that she is crazy and she will loose all rights to her children. Or is threatened physical harm if she continue to go against him. Threats and intimidation can be used to force a mother to make choices she otherwise would not consent to.

* A mother is physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted after lengthy custody proceedings, that can extend into years. Such proceedings can include various testing, parenting or divorce classes, lengthy interviews by court personnel, various court appearances not to mention other stressors such as a complete loss of privacy, unpredictable visitation schedules with children, inability to work due to the demands of proceedings, verbal assault and accusations from the other party and financial hardship (even bankruptcy) caused by ongoing litigation. All these factors (and more) can drive a mother into making choices she otherwise would not consent to, because some time with the children is better than no time at all. Or, she simply cannot endure the ongoing litigation, and its effects on her children.

* Injustice, bias and a system overloaded with cases can make a mother feel powerless. Her rights may be denied. She may be intimidated by the court personnel, and even forced into negotiating with her abuser. She feels the system has failed her, and has no other options than to go along with what her heart tells her is wrong.

For many women, it is agonizing to loose children after divorce–theydo not “relinquish” custody, they are forced to give up children. They are often assaulted first at the hands of abusers then by an onslaught of false accusations, unreasonable expectations and by predjudice that suggests if a woman fails at marriage then she is unfit to be a mother. For “Moms Reveal” to exclude these stories, shows incredible insensitivity.

My protest is to say that I am a mother. I love my children. And I find it enjoyable to be at home—and a privilege (that I can no longer afford due to the break up of my family) to be a caregiver. I never wanted to reliquish custody; my rights were denied in court and my children were forcibly taken from me. I can relate to “Moms Reveal” because after I lost my children, I was told by some people (not many) things like, “It must be nice for you to have a break from your children”. Or, “Now you will have more time to yourself.” Or, “You shouldn’t center your whole life around your children.” These types of views are real, and they become more powerful than truth, than the laws designed to protect us–families are irreplably harmed.

I grieve for my children everyday. And I will continue to fight for them, and continue to rebuild my family as best as I can.

Evanlee Perth, 2009.

Article: “Moms reveal why they gave up their children”

Reported By: Mike Celizic, MSNBC News

Link: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/07/29/3087161-moms-reveal-why-they-gave-up-their-children

 

(reported on 11/18/2008) “Cops: Man uses sandwich to assault girlfriend
Authorities aren’t saying if the weapon he wielded was a club sandwich” . The article was listed on the front page of MSNBC under “Weird News”. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27793459/from/ET/

 

Maryland: Guardian ad Litems Held Accountable

It seems like common sense that a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) is held legally accountable for their actions, especially those that harm or endanger the child they are supposed to be representing. Sadly, this is rarely the case.

In my case, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) has not only been biased but blatantly ignored the safety of my children. The GAL refused to gather information (police reports, doctor reports,  home visits, etc) , refused to question witnesses, ignored statements by the children and has come up with “evidence” based on her own ignorant conclusions. In a stunning case of logic, my GAL has declared that since my abusive ex-husband has a “house, a job, and a car” that he is no threat to me! My GAL’s reports are often late, have inaccuracies in them and at times she has simply failed to gather needed information (and went to court without it, even testifying before a judge). That this is the person supposed to represent my children’s best interests is simply unacceptable.

I can share so many horror stories about my Guardian ad Litem…  I have reverted to survival tactics I used with my abusive ex-husband now with the GAL. I keep silent. I avoid eye contact. I try to go unnoticed. I put a positive spin on even the worst situation. And I cry unheard tears.

The Guardian ad Litem seems to have unlimited power and expertise.

In my case, the GAL has gone way beyond her position…she seems to always have the answer (must be psychic!) even if she has not gathered any information or is not knowledgeable about a subject. My GAL has advocated for my abusive ex husband by offering him legal advise, granting him priveleges I am denied, and making excuses for his bad behavior (or telling me that my children are lying or exagerating when their reports about their father are unfavorable to her cause).

The word of the Guardian ad Litem is taken as truth in court. Their actions and conclusions are rarely, if ever questioned or assessed for accuracy.  In case when parents have been stripped of their legal rights, or forced to share legal rights with an abuser, it is nearly impossible to get a second opinion. A second opinion will usually be viewed with scorn and skepticism. Dr. Gardner, the inventor of Parental Alienation Syndrome, has boldy delcared that mothers manipulate psychologists and other professionals to support them–and such people should not be believed. It is nearly impossible to request a new GAL, and there may be repercussions for doing so. Parents are forced into silence because in speaking out they face retribution or worse, losing custody of their children.

Here we can anonymously speak out…tell our stories…in hopes someone will listen, and join us in fighting for change in the family court system, and in fighting for better lives for our children.

I encourage you, leave your story in the comments section below. Or if you have a link or resource to help fight against family court injustice, leave it below. We can’t give up–our children’s lives are at risk.

Evanlee, 2009.

 This was forwarded to me…

 

GAL/Minor’s counsel does not have immunity for actions that cause child harm

January 18, 2006

Maryland Court of Appeals Fox v. Wills

http://www.unitedforjustice. com/Mdcourtappeals.htm

 

In a precedent setting opinion, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that counsel appointed on behalf of a minor is not an arm of the court.  He or she has a duty to the child and does not have immunity from tort liability for actions that cause harm to the child.

The attorney, Vincent Wills, was appointed by the court to represent a young girl, K., as a guardian ad litem (GAL) during her parents’ divorce. Following judgment in the divorce case, Elizabeth Ritter, the child’s mother, filed a suit on her daughter’s behalf charging Wills with legal malpractice. It was alleged that Wills abdicated his responsibilities as counsel for the child, that he did not act in accordance with K.’s best interests, and that he was in fact an advocate for the child’s father who was suspected of sexually abusing Katherine. The complaint further alleged that Wills ignored the trial court’s orders in that he failed to ensure that the child’s father was supervised during visitation, that he failed to ensure that Katherine was placed in a car seat when transported during visitations, that he failed to address the issue of the father’s inappropriate touching of Katherine, and that he failed to address the numerous reports of the father’s inappropriate exhibitions of anger in front of Katherine. The complaint also alleged that Wills deliberately prevented evidence of child sexual abuse from coming before the court by suppressing and distorting the report of a psychological expert appointed by the court to evaluate the claims of abuse. The report had advised against unsupervised visitation between the child and her father. Wills filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that, because of his position as counsel for the child under Maryland Family Law Article § 1-202, he was functioning on behalf of and for the benefit of the court and was thus entitled to “absolute quasi-judicial immunity.” Alternatively, Wills argued that, even if he were not entitled to “absolute quasi-judicial immunity,” he was entitled to “qualified immunity,” and that the allegations of the complaint were insufficient to show the malice needed to overcome qualified immunity. The Circuit Court granted the motion to dismiss, stating “that there is clearly privilege here or immunity, whether it is qualified or quasi-judicial. ” The plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals also affirmed. The Maryland Supreme Court reversed holding that an attorney appointed to represent a child in a divorce case is “is not by statute or rule rendered any more ‘an arm of the court’ than other Maryland attorneys.”

 

Jersey Protestors Rally Against Family Court Injustice

A rally of more than 50 people gathered in Newwark to protect bias, abuse and injustice in the family court system. The protestors argued that there is a crisis in family court that perpetuates abuse, and puts children in harm’s way by denying mothers of their legal rights and awarding custody to violent, abusive fathers

Source: New Jersey Real Time News, http://www.nj.com/

Paul Brubacker/The Star Ledger

Web Address: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/newark_protesters_rally_agains.html#post

Date: April 27, 2009

A rally of more than 50 people gathered in front of the Wilentz Justice Complex on Washington Street (Newark) to protect bias, abuse and injustice in the family court system. The protestors argued that there is a crisis in family court that perpetuates abuse, and puts children in harm’s way by denying mothers of their legal rights and awarding custody to violent, abusive fathers. The protestors further argued that the custody decisions are based on bias, and often ignore or dismiss entirely allegations of abuse.

  Evan Stark, a professor at Rutgers University’s School of Public Affairs and Administration comments that, “In the last 30 years, every institution in this society has changed its views toward domestic violence…Only in the family court do the obsolete beliefs that were discredited everywhere else in society still prevail.”

Supporters of the family court system contend the system is fair, and that judges do their best to make fair rulings, often involving tough decisions, when parents cannot agree on who will raise the children.

Personally, I believe the truth is evident within the court proceedings themselves. The treatment of both parties by family court staff, the way the evidence is handled, and the logic behind the court’s conclusions speak volumes about what is really happening.

Take Action! Leave a comment about your experiences with famiy court, or your concerns for your children, at the bottom of this article

FACT (Families Against Court Travesties): “The parent with the most money, power, and influence is somehow able to convince judges that only their side need be heard in order to make a decision…To make matters worse, throughout the country, women are losing custody of their children to men with histories of child abuse and domestic violence. These men know how to manipulate the judicial system.”

NOW developed FACTS, a Court Watch system with volunteers who observe courtroom proceedings, review the behavior of the judges and attorneys, and plan actions to address this crisis.  Visit online to see how you can help: http://www.factscourtwatch.org/

 

“In family court, the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, which means that one person’s story is more likely to be true than the other person’s story…Unfortunately many of the people involved in family law and court — judges, lawyers, court clerks, mediators and others — have no appropriate training in violence against women, so they do not always recognize it or know the best way to respond. The law and processes also do not reflect the realities and needs of women from marginalized communities as well.”,  Family Law Overview by Pamela Cross LLB.  Springtide Resources Legal Fact Sheet: http://www.springtideresources.org/resources/show.cfm?id=218