I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Chapter 77 ~ A follow-up letter to the Executive Director of the Algoma Children's Aid Society

Editors note: CPW where found stands for Child Protection Worker. I have removed reference to actual names for the workers at either their request or at the request of supervisors. Their job is hazardous, challenging and they can face physical danger. They work assisting with the most precious resource on the face of the planet ~ our children. I do not want to jeopardize them even though I disagree with their assessments. This isn't about revenge it is about helping my children and as adults we will have to agree to disagree on some of the points I make in my letter.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Jim Baraniuk Executive Director Children’s Aid Society 191 Northern Avenue East, Sault Ste Marie, ON P6B 4H8 via fax 949-4747

Dear Mr. Baraniuk:

Re: Peigi and Delia

I have attached recent correspondence with your CPW which pretty much sums up my concerns with respect to her investigation of my complaints including reports I received from a neighbour of my ex wife, the latter of which has temporary interim custody of the two children. Four children were reported to be harassing this woman after 9:30 pm on a school night but it appears that it is not a protective issue. Does the CAS condone this lack of supervision and behaviour of a 9 year old at this hour of a school night or is it non-protective because the complainant came to me and did not also complain to your office? I was able to corroborate the story was true after a discussion with the Mother of one of the children present in addition to the complainant. This mother apologized to the lady for her daughter’s behaviour. No such thing occurred by my ex. My children admitted to me they were present. Your employee does not appear to have made any effort to determine the truth including asking the children if it occurred. I am somewhat confused over this apparent lack of prudent sleuthing. I’m a little mystified also because in the same letter your employee has accused me of a great number of actions I did not do, despite the fact she had no corroboration they were true? Are we dealing with two sets of rules here - one for non-custodial fathers and one for custodial mothers who are convicted criminals, proven liars, officially proven to be dishonest, have mental health issues and have abused their spouse and children physically, emotionally and in my case financially as well through her criminal behaviour?

To further the slander a letter, dated October 15, 2007, the same date as the one given to me and sent by your agency to the respondent mother is now in circulation to be used against me in various venues including the upcoming divorce trial. As this letter contains untruths written by your employee it will undoubtedly complicate matters for your agency at both the above trial and a civil action I will be commencing against the mother. I will require from you an explanation as to why there are inconstancies in your investigative processes whereby I am accused of certain actions without corroboration yet what I view as a serious breach of proper parental supervision is glossed over.

I think you know that if a lie is repeated often enough people will believe it to be the truth. My ex will make good use of your letter, as it is from a child protection agency and, therefore must be true – but it isn’t. She has been telling lies, denigrating me and more recently as one example of a deceitful untruth told Peigi that daddy thought they were “mental” for wanting to get counselling with a psychologist. These actions are called Parental Alienation (PA) which your agency cannot deal with according to the same letter but are the root cause of the untrue stories my daughters might tell anyone who asks questions and particularly why Peigi hates her father. She has taken it upon herself to be her mother’s protector and in doing that has lied, stolen, acted as spy, inventoried her father’s medicine cabinet for the mother, hit me, verbally abused me repeatedly among other behaviours that ought not to be present in a 12 year old child. Your worker, who does not understand the mechanisms at play with PA, has blamed me for it. The mother does not think these are alienating activities. In fact when I mentioned the “mental” statement your CPW raised her arms in the air and in obvious frustration told me it was not something she wanted to hear or could do anything about. The subject and methods of Parental Alienation appears to hit a raw nerve with her. Her body language reminded me of the person who moved their arms to their ears so as to “hear no evil”.

I will quickly walk you through the discrepancies as outlined in my letter to your CPW.

I do not have nor have I told my children I have people watching them in their neighbourhood or school. It is preposterous to think a school would act as spies for me. I have a court order to obtain educational information and to visit the school because my ex would not readily share information or school pictures. The mother may have said this to the children, which would be normal for her but part of the PA pattern of abuse. Your worker appears to be blaming me for increased stress levels as I care about my children’s conduct. As I mentioned to your CPW, I am divorcing my wife not my children and will never stop being concerned about her mental health issues and how she deals with the children’s behaviour. I am the world’s leading expert on her capabilities and on my children having raised them from infancy.

She indicates Peigi feels sick, scared and upset at visiting me. Peigi is not afraid of me. She is a very assertive child and shows absolutely no fear. Any fear she would discuss with your CPW would be a direct result of manipulation by the mother. She clearly gets upset at having to visit with me and that is directly relating to the brainwashing over many years by the mother. I find it interesting that your CPW has no problem putting these thoughts in writing in an effort to blame me but is unable to connect the dots properly to the mother’s ongoing manipulations. It is a very unprofessional conclusion.

Access with my children is, of necessity, court ordered. The mother has a history of denying access and Justice Whalen, in the spring, asked me if I wished the police clause added to my access order to ensure compliance. That means the police could go in and force the children to visit with me. I declined it, at the time. Who wants that kind of situation? It would be traumatic but I will seek that clause at a future court session and if the mother declines to act responsibly it may well be used. Court ordered access is not worth the paper it is written on if it can’t be enforced and causes the Family Court System to fall into disrepute. I love my children and will ensure the mother understands I will take the necessary steps to keep having access. She only needs to act responsibly to lessen any stress levels that occur. Your CPW's comments are not only unprofessional they are highly biased only seeing one side of an issue

The comments she makes about the children’s behaviour when with me being my responsibility are a gross oversimplification of a complex problem. I cannot apply appropriate discipline to a child in a 3 hour visit. In fact Peigi continuously insults me so she can convince me to take her home earlier as she does not want to visit with me at all. That is one of the reasons I contacted your agency to see if you had resources to assist. I do not need a lecture from a worker on how to parent or what my responsibilities are when my children are with me. The mother has repeatedly set the children up, particularly Peigi, to have a negative visit with me. It is clearly evident in the Supervised access reports from 2006 and all it takes is a simple comment by the mother such as – I think the children are “mental” as described earlier or I called Peigi a “liar”, or I am “spying” on them and the list goes on. On the weekend I can actually behave like a parent and have time to discuss matters with them and withdraw privileges when appropriate. As the mother does not apply discipline they view me as “mean” “abusive” and a “bully.”

I find it interesting respecting the comments about the email exchange with Peigi. My daughter is so pre-disposed and alienated from me by the mother that even when I pay the mother a compliment she takes umbrage with me. I probably should not have mentioned I did not want to get divorced - the mother does and it shows me as imperfect. Keep in mind that PA is so imbued with Peigi that even a compliment to the mother triggers a negative response. The mother has told the child “I hate her” so many times it is Peigi’s truth and any compliment I give is turned around and thought of as a negative. Why is that so hard to see by your worker? It is not rocket science and you don’t need a PhD in psychology to figure it out. In fact I do not hate the mother. I do dislike her but more than anything I hate her behaviour and since learning of her mental health disorders I have concluded she probably not only cannot help herself but doesn’t understand what her actions are doing. That is why I would still enter counselling with her but I will not “roll over” and be her “patsy” again. Those days are long gone.

Now we come to the crunch and that is your entering me into a database. I sought you out voluntarily and I need an explanation for this course of action. I have never once in my life abused my children in any manner. If you enter my name into a database alleging abuse you will face civil action without question. I am bringing a civil suit against the mother for all of the reasons described in these letters and much, much more can be found at my blog at http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com. This blog is the precursor to my book on this tragic progression from the day the marriage breakdown started until the divorce is finalized. It may well be the only one like it in the world that is charting the decline of a marriage and family from the first day it started and I expect once my media plan is put into high gear it will become heavily visited.

I do not want to be your adversary. I want to work with your agency to help my children and keep them from both physical and psychological harm. I want them to understand that belittling another human being and harassing a small child at their next door neighbour’s is inappropriate whether your CPW disagrees or not. I want them to understand that certain other children their own age are inappropriate play mates. I do not think they should be out with a boy who smokes at the age of 12, who can supply them with cigarettes, whose parents are allegedly drug addicts, who blows up frogs on neighbours swings and whose parents don’t give a damn about him harassing and belittling a neighbour and her small daughter after 9:30 pm on a school night. Your agency has been unwittingly been made to look like you are enabling Parental Alienation given the remarks of your employee who is appearing to support the mother. PA in the view of thousands of people is clearly and unmistakably child abuse whether you can recognize it as such or not. A copy of her lawyers recent correspondence is included to show the mother is already distributing the letter from your office on October 15, 2007.

I am suggesting to you as the CEO of your local agency and a member of the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies to bring the matter forward at future meetings and coordinate the getting of training for the staff of children’s aid offices throughout the province. This malady is getting more and more attention and through advocates like me, who are willing to go public, and some who are actually performing acts of civil disobedience due to the imbalance in the Divorce Industry/Family Court System/Social Services/Child Protection Agencies that favours females. The whole matter of PA is slowly moving from the back burner to mainstream acceptance as a serious issue of child abuse. I will help to take it to the front burner locally. People of celebrity, like Alec Baldwin, will have a much greater impact when his book is published, perhaps later this year.

On a positive note my meeting with your Family Preservation Worker on Wednesday was excellent. The work she does is incredibly challenging but it is exactly what is needed in my situation of great animosity and lack of communication with my ex.

I will end by stating something that is very obvious and you need to ask and answer the question in your own mind. Why would a respected local businessman go public with a sensitive and serious matter like this that has the potential to blow up in his face and ruin what is left of his life, reputation, and business - the latter of which was stripped financially by the ex before she left. No - not for revenge but to ensure my children are appropriately cared for given I will have to deal with Ms. “B” for the rest of my life – long after a divorce is finalized and it is her mental health combined with its impacts on the children and its linear progression into the future that is my major concern. The time to deal with it is now and that will give hope my wonderful daughters can adjust before the turmoil of their teen years helps destroy them emotionally.

Yours truly

Michael J. Murphy

No comments: