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.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Formula to Ensure Custody and Create Chaos in the Man’s Life

Please note. Most literature indicates females alienate their children against a target father in greater frequency rather than vice versa but further studies are needed to confirm this. No matter which parent conducts alienation it is criminal psychological abuse and this parent should lose custody immediately. The Ontario courts are starting to do this very thing.
An important element in the getting and keeping of custody is parental alienation (PA) programming of the children. This is circulated in women's circles as an “underground” formula to ensure custody and "screw", in most cases, the father. First you turn the children against him (her). This is done by using denigrating remarks such has he doesn't care about you, he is old, he is dirty, he is smelly, he has yellow teeth, he has bad breath, he is messy, he is bald, he disciplines you, (setting limits not physical punishment by the way) therefore he is mean, he is fat or chubby, he is ugly et al…. Dr. Richard Warshak, in his book “Divorce Poison” calls this brainwashing and bashing. This causes the children to think of their father (mother) in a totally different light making it easier for the children to lie, cheat, steal, and spit vitriol taken from the mouth of the hostile & aggressive parent (HAP) back at the target.
What lessons does this teach a child? Once the children are turned against the parent who in their right mind would give custody back to such an alleged "abuser", certainly not the courts who are duped on a far too frequent basis by these tactics. The only conclusion the clinical investigator or a custody assessor, if one is involved, could come to under the circumstances is to make a recommendation based on the circumstances found. Once the HAP has the children brainwashed (PA) they believe her every word when it comes to the target. The longer the time frame this goes on the better for the HAP. It is absolutely urgent for the target to not be passive about this. Start to take action especially ensure you show up regularly for visits and get counselling or the intervention of a CAS special non-protective program . Many have them. Above all be calm and rationale and do not - under any circumstances - retaliate by badmouthing your ex in front of your kids. If you do it will likely drive a further wedge - remember they are programmed to hate you - and you will be joining the process of creating dysfunctional children.
This leads to phase 2 of the formula. It would be too traumatic to give custody to the target after such a long time with the HAP, after all she is the mother and if the children are female what man could be risked raising females & the courts are duped again. Time is your enemy. Act quickly to get intervention. The next pillar of the formula involves taking advantage of the courts liberal bias toward perceived "abused" victims who, coincidentally, are almost always female. Who ever heard of a male victim in family court? Who has ever heard of "battered husband syndrome?" You have now! It does exist and is as real as the 6 times higher suicide rate for dads compared to females within two years of separation. This particular one is very commonly used as a tactic by Divorce Industry lawyers who will say their client is being victimized, harassed, intimidated and this is affecting the children. They may say the father needs anger management courses even though it might well be the mother who spits the vitriol and attacks the father. I can speak with some degree of personal experience on this one in terms of being emotionally, physically and financially abused. The courts then penalize the father in the mistaken belief it is in the best interest of the children, when in fact, it is only in the best interest of the alienator. Some judges suffer from what I describe as the"little woman syndrome" after hearing such statements made by a female.The judge concludes in a very sexist manner the "little woman" is incapable of handling the stress of divorce and "must" because they are unable to handle it involve the children. In this manner the judge is an enabler of both sexism and child abuse. The father is then penalized further. Sexism and the concomitant condescending behaviour toward females is inappropriate. Participants in this process must be treated equally. If the HAP parent cannot handle the stress they can at least keep the children out of it and if they can't they do not deserve physical custody.
The final knife is financial and the alienator appeals to the courts sympathies as she is an "abused" victim and cannot work because of the trauma suffered and, therefore, have the courts eviscerate the man (father) financially as well as the emotional carnage when the affections of their children have been stolen by narcissistic and sometimes mentally ill partners. As a result millions of parents in many jurisdictions caught in this charade think of the family courts as highly biased, unfair, and disrespect the court system and the divorce industry participants who make an estimated 6 billion $ a year in Canada and create broken homes, broken lives,drops in families standard of living, and massive reductions in children's financial legacies. The collateral damage based on these judges decisions should be studied longitudinally to reflect the disproportionate suicide rate, drug addictions (alcohol principally), depression and financial devastation of the fathers/husbands.
The 3 prongs of this formula are working like a charm for a great many HAP’s most of whom use it to get men. It is misandry and destructive. Every time a parent bad mouths their partner in front of a child of the marriage it also hurts the child who may identify strongly with the target or at least sees they are genetically connected in some fashion. This decreases their self esteem and can lead to higher rates of suicide, drug use, pregnancy, truancy and involvement in criminal activities. Children ought not to have such pressure placed on them. There is no denying there are legitimate complaints of abuse but keep in mind the Statistics Canada numbers that show females assault their male partners in greater proportion than one would think from the police "reported" instances. There is a big difference between those reported and those that actually occur. Statistics Canada reports 6 battered women for every 5 battered men in Canada. In the USA the numbers are closer to 50-50. It is also true females are more likely to abuse and kill their children as opposed to men by a significant margin. Men tend to not report assaults by their female partners for a variety of reasons not the least of which is pride. I have been attacked several times, once with a long wooden rake handle. My ex and I have some rudimentary martial arts training and on one swing of the handle toward me I reflexively dodged it and then stepped forward to prevent the next blow by putting her off balance at the end of the swing. She fell down and got bruised. She blamed me for being abusive. A man can't win even in self defense. Lets get rid of this nightmare and create the presumption of equality and shared parenting when a family decides divorce is their only solution. Yes lawyers will lose some business but hell they know better than anyone how to manipulate the system to their advantage. Have you ever seen how many of them are also politicians? They'll come out looking OK. They always do. This essay is an original copyrighted work 2008 by Michael J. Murphy and is proudly and unabashedly pro-dads rights.

2 comments:

amanwhocares said...

First your readers should know that many 'child' advocacy groups even repudiate the existence of Parental Alienation(PA). Some even go farther to say (Attorney Alene Levy of Haynes and Boone, Llp in the Houston Chronicle of 2May07 when going to work for Justice for Children www.jfc.org ) that child sexual abusing men use PA in order to get custody in custody fights. Justice for Children along with Stop Family Violence, Courageous Kids, and others claim the high road but fail miserably in their confused and demented zeal. I am one of such of their victims. My own daughter now 22 still cannot speak to me after being indoctrinated by severe level PA.

The other part of my share is to beware of Joe Biden as he brought the Violence Against Women Act, a law which caused the proliferation of such insanity. Hopefully thaey may soon see that fathers do not need a kick in the pants but a hand up.

Michael J. Murphy said...

Yes there are many out there who try and prove PAS does not really exist and repudiate Richard Gardner as some kind of pervert.

PA is less problematic and a little easier to deal with because we are not talking about a mental health problem but the observable results of brainwashing/bashing. It is still difficult to prove but with an independent unbiased assessor involved it can be unearthed.

What nobody knows more than us is the absolutely crushing heart break and grieving we go through. Let one judge or politico walk in our shoes for a month, let alone years,and then changes would occur more quickly.

It is little solace but those of us who care are trying to change the system. Go here to see what we are attempting locally in our community and nationally. http://f4j-soo.blogspot.com. I wish you well - our day will come.