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.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

New Study Validates Positive Family Impact of Kids’ Turn Services

This is where every community should be heading. Where are our Provincial and Federal Government Agencies who have millions upon millions to dole out for single gender issues but not for families. This program is family focussed, particularly on the children, and can serve as a wake up call to recalcitrant parents. I am so pleased to see this as a positive step in an otherwise negative act called divorce. The Video is a little over 6 minutes long and worth a look. The link to the Kid's Turn website and Facebook page is below. I was made aware of a Calgary based service offering a comprehensive list of counselling Services that should be in every city and when related to DV and marriage breakdown should be part of the tax supported inititiatives currently offered by all levels of government for a single gender only.MJM Calgary Counselling Centre

Sometimes, in our fast-paced lives, we need a little help to work out life’s problems. Counselling can help you learn how to deal with your problems in a productive manner, and develop the skills to manage a stressful and changing environment. Calgary Counselling Centre provides individual, couple, family, and group counselling for:
  • Depression
  • Stress
  • Eating Disorders
  • Separation and Loss
  • Parent-Child Conflict
  • Domestic Abuse Prevention
  • Sexual Abuse
  • Anxiety/Panic Attacks
  • Sexuality/Intimacy
  • Anger Problems
  • Health Issues
  • Personal Growth
  • Self-Esteem
  • Pastoral Counselling

No referral is necessary to initiate counselling services. Receiving the help you need is quick and easy:
  • Fill out our online Intake Form.
  • Or you can download the printable Intake Form(PDF) and fax it to us: 265-8886.
  • Or phone Intake at (403) 691-5991.
  • One of our volunteers will conduct a 10 minute interview to assess your needs.

Based on Intake information, you will be assigned an appropriate counsellor the next working day. You will be contacted by your counsellor within 48 hours to book an appointment. No counselling will be provided over the phone. If there is a crisis, callers are asked to contact the Distress Centre (266-1605), where an experienced and trained telephone counsellor will assist you. Volunteers conducting the interviews are trained intake workers, but they are not qualified counsellors. Counselling will begin in the first face to face session with a counsellor. There are no limits to the number of times a client can seek counselling, nor are there restrictions on frequency.

*Additional fees may be charged in relation to hypnosis therapy, the Driver Control Board program, and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing Treatment.

In order to register for a group program a client must first be enrolled in one-on-one counselling. The counsellor and the client then decide together if the client will benefit from participating in a group program. The counsellor that is assigned for one-on-one counselling will maintain your file throughout the group therapy process. Group programs are offered on a regular basis throughout the year.

Fees for the Centre’s programs (with the exception of the Marriage Preparation Program) are based on a sliding fee scale, according to the client’s annual gross family income. Your fee will be established during the initial telephone call with our Intake Office. However, fee charges can be discussed with your counsellor during the first session, if the established fee is not manageable.

Fees are payable each session by cash, Visa, Mastercard, or Interac. We no longer accept cheques for payment of counselling services. In order to provide efficient service, please inform our receptionist of any changes to your address or telephone number.

If you have medical insurance through work, or an educational institution, we will ask you for the following information:
  • Insurance provider
  • Coverage amount per calendar year
  • Credential requirements for the counsellor

Your human resources or payroll department will be able to assist you in finding necessary information. You will need to pay for your counselling on the day of your session. We will then provide you with a receipt that includes your counsellor’s stamp (professional identification) so you can be reimbursed through your insurance provider. Calgary Counselling Centre does not provide credit facilities.

Attending Kids’ Turn Workshops Results in a Significant Decrease in Parent Conflict and Parental Alienation and Significant Decrease in the Children’s Internalizing Behavior Problems

SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kids’ Turn (KT,) a San Francisco-based non-profit organization today announced results of a landmark study by Dr. Jeffrey Cookson, Department of Psychology at San Francisco State University.

In the study, conducted over four years, Dr. Cookson validated the impact of the Kids’ Turn curricula (The Kids’ Turn Way), which includes a six-week course for children and parents focused on reducing the negative impact of parental separation. Attending the Kids’ Turn workshop resulted in a significant decrease in parent conflict and parental alienation and a significant decrease in the children’s internalizing behavior problems.

Dr. Cookson evaluated behaviors of a sample of parents and children before and after attending Kids’ Turn workshops. According to the study, “Overall, our results indicate that the Kids’ Turn program has demonstrated the ability to improve the lives of parents and their children after a divorce. For parents, there is a decrease in parental conflicts and improvement in parent functioning (i.e., lower anxiety and depression). For children, there is lower anxiety and overall improvement in mental health. That we found change behaviors following participation in a community based program suggests that families will benefit from participation in the Kids’ Turn multiple session group. Given that divorce is one of the most difficult times that both parents and their children face and that the Kids’ Turn program has demonstrated the ability to help these families recover from the devastation, we are hopeful that further attention will be paid to offering these services in multiple communities.”

In making the announcement, Claire Barnes, Kids’ Turn executive director said, “The study unequivocally validates the work we are doing to increase hope and optimism of children of families going through parental separation. The negative impact that parental separation has on individual children and society has reached epidemic proportions. Children often find themselves caught in the middle of parental disputes. The tangential relationships between parental separation and childhood difficulties (e.g., obesity, developmental, academic, social, psychological problems, etc.) are well proven. Kids’ Turn takes children out of the middle of parental struggles and puts them at the center of family healing and resolution through a curriculum that teaches children a variety of coping skills and provides parents with appropriate parenting and conflict reduction skills.”

Kids’ Turn provides an opportunity for families facing parental separation to move forward with hope and optimism, reducing conflict and its negative effects. Children often find themselves in the middle of parental conflict. Employing the Kids’ Turn Way puts kids at the center of family healing and resolution and takes children out of the middle of parental struggles. Kids’ Turn is the only organization where the entire family participates in a comprehensive program that helps children develop essential coping skills and gives adults the critical parenting skills they need to support their children through family reconfiguration.

For further information on the study, including how to register for workshops in five Bay Area Counties, please go to http://www.kidsturn.org or write Kids’ Turn, 55 New Montgomery, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-3431. Also, see Kids’ Turn on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=42343701357&ref=ts.

Contacts

Kids’ Turn Claire Barnes, 415-777-9977 kidsturn@earthlink.net

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Working mums raise the most unhealthy children

 41pc mostly drank sweetened drinks

41pc mostly drank sweetened drinks

Tuesday September 29 2009

Mothers who work raise unhealthier children than those who stay at home, researchers said yesterday, writes Jane Kirby.

Children whose mothers are employed are more likely to be driven to school, watch TV, consume fizzy drinks and eat too few portions of fruits and vegetables, a study found.

The research, on more than 12,000 schoolchildren, was published in the British Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Mothers who worked full-time had the unhealthiest children, followed by those who worked part-time.

They typically worked 21 hours per week (with a range of 16 to 30 hours) and for 45 months (with a range of 25 to 55 months).

Overall, many children had habits that could lead to them becoming overweight.

For example, 37pc of children mostly ate crisps or sweets between meals and 41pc mostly drank sweetened drinks.

A total of 61pc watched television or used the computer for at least two hours a day.

But when the researchers took away factors that might influence the results, such as socio-economic background, they found a definite link between a mother working and the child's health.

The researchers, from the Institute of Child Health in London, said: "Programmes are needed to help support parents and create a health-promoting environment."

http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/working-mums-raise-the-most-unhealthy-children-1898910.html

Michael Coren: Feminism revisited

My letter to the editor with respect to the column: Editor - National Post Mr. Coren's column was very accurate. I had read Erin Pizzey's family history article in the Mail Online last Wednesday, 23/9/09 and was profoundly touched by her childhood tribulations. She is an extraordinary woman whose career and strength is inspiring to both men and women Mr. Coren's understanding of the systemic problems many men face is helpful and his commentary very accurate. The ecosystem that caters to female victimization has made eunuchs of many men, especially those of the political, legal and judicial classes. One dad spent 47 days in jail for throwing a sock at his wife while she was berating him. He, while throwing this harmful item said metaphorically "put a sock in it." Now to test the lethality of your sock, take it off and throw it at something, even your computer screen, with normal velocity. (Do not throw it if you have been jogging in the rain for 10K it will get the item wet). She called the police and got away with verbal abuse but he was arrested for assault. Where did our judgment go with mandatory arrest policies? This is just one of hundreds upon hundreds of stories, in many cases, based on false allegations, where husbands and dads are criminalized and vilified by the feminist mantra we are all abusers. Remember Tom' Cruises' so called sci-fi movie "Minority Report" about stopping a crime that hasn't yet occurred. With men we are already convicted in certain quarters, especially those mentioned above, well before anything happens. Its got to stop. Mike Murphy
Posted: September 29, 2009, 1:00 PM by NP Editor
Growing up in Britain in the 1970s it was impossible not to be awareof Erin Pizzey. She was the iconic face of feminism, as she appeared ontelevision seemingly every other night to expose what she saw as theoppression of women. She also founded of one of the first domesticviolence shelters in the world. They were known as battered women’shomes in those days but the nomenclature, as well as the politics, haschanged over the years. So, it seems, has Erin Pizzey. “I would go so far as to say,” she wrote last week, “that themovement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists andbatterers, was based on a lie that, if allowed to flourish, wouldresult in the complete destruction of family life ... Feminism, Irealized, was a lie. Women and men are both capable of extraordinarycruelty. Indeed, the only thing a child really needs — two biologicalparents under one roof — was being undermined by the very ideologywhich claimed to speak up for women’s rights.” Pizzey seems to have arrived views which run delightfully,diametrically against the very core of contemporary feminism. And it’sdifficult to know which claim will cause the most offence to thewomen’s movement. The battle of assumptions — that all women are merelya step away from abuse — was actually won some time ago. As early asthe 1980s we were told that 50% of all women had been abused by theirmale partners at some point, and to question the statistic implied thatthe critic had something to hide. The figures are largely inflated, heavily politicized and includewomen who during an argument with their husbands or lovers have beenshouted at. When, by the way, sociologists tried to research the ratesof lesbian abuse and indicated that they appeared to be extremely highthey were told that such work was redundant and the results far toosubjective to be reliable. What is beyond dispute is that women aresometimes abused, that they are seldom as physically strong as men andthat there was far greater acceptance of such base behaviour 40 yearsago than there is now. It’s a crime. But one that is treated with a particular aggressionand activism by police, lawyers and judges. The mere claim of domesticviolence invariably leads to a man being removed from his home, oftenaway from his children. He is presumed guilty until he can proveotherwise, and if the incident occurs during a break-up or divorce it’sunlikely his spouse is going to suddenly admit that it was a mutualargument and that she called the police out of spite. A very different scenario from that of a man who is, perhaps,repeatedly slapped, punched or emotionally abused by his wife. It’slikely that he will be too embarrassed to call for help and, even if hedoes, he will not be taken seriously. If the marriage ends he will belucky to see his children one day a week and perhaps every secondweekend. If, though, he misses his sometimes exorbitant supportpayments he will be called a deadbeat by allegedly responsiblepoliticians and probably treated like a career criminal. The other aspect of Pizzey’s new analysis of feminism will probablycause even more outrage, even though it seems axiomatic and harmless:“two biological parents under one roof.” This is a philosophical warcrime for the new moralists. If we were force-fed the notion that womenwere perennial victims, we were given intravenous doses of the ideathat single-parent families were equal to the traditional variety. It’sjust not true. No child needs a bad father or dysfunctional parents butthis should not be — but frequently is — considered the conventionalnorm to which any alternative is compared. The genuine choice is, with the exception of orthodox adoption,between two good natural parents and, yes, a broken home. Honestresearch constantly shows that we should aspire to both genders as rolemodels, male and female, to show different but equally valid forms oflove and care, the safety and certainty that there is a physical linkbetween parent and child and the stability, if at all possible, ofbeing raised in a permanent home with mum and dad rather than a daycare with someone else’s mum and dad. Erin Pizzey has discovered a great deal over the years. Some wouldargue that her conclusions were always obvious, if only we were willingto look. National Post Michael Coren is a TV host and author. His website is www.michaelcoren.com.
by White Rabbit Sep 29 2009 1:31 PM

Many feminists would have it that men are responsible for almost all domestic abuse. Such a fiction is propagated at the expense of the children.

by Mel from Calgary
Sep 29 2009 2:09 PM

"The genuine choice is, with the exception of orthodox adoption, between two good natural parents and, yes, a broken home."

There are only so many "orthodox adoption" parents out there and with "natural parents" being human we need plan "B" for when this doesn't happen.

I love Michael Coren clumsy use of code words.

by Sassylassie
Sep 29 2009 2:25 PM

Feminism is no longer a relevant cause, the political left cling to their lies and propaganda for government grants and to achieve special status in Academia. Personally I believe it was never about gender equality but gender supremacy by assigning victim status to all women.

Harper drastically cut funding to the mother of all feminist groups SOW and then in the next budget he returned funding to it's orginal levels. Sickening really, millions going to women to do studies on stupid subjects that have no relevance for real women.

by Anonymous66
Sep 29 2009 2:49 PM

In my opinion, Ms. Pizzey should have been challenged a lot more harshly about forgetting that "exception of adoption".

by Dirt farmer
Sep 29 2009 2:54 PM

The left likes to keep the lies going in order to destroy the family and lay the ground work to create the new "Soviet" man. It should be more important for society to work on and fix the dysfunctional characteristics of both men and women.

by rossbcan
Sep 29 2009 3:01 PM

“that the movement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists and batterers, was based on a lie..."

Yes, but the lie is far more pervasive and deadly than this narrow issue.

Easily refuted:

We live in an action precedes consequence reality. Nothing is REAL until an action occurs, spawning a consequence according to the laws of physical reality. This means, that all allegations of fixed "nature" implying "potential to X" to an individual or group is sheer speculation and slander, at a minimum.

This particular lie is a product of a provoked gender war between men and women, initiated by the legal "profession", aided by their partners in crime, the equally corrupt psychiatric and social "science" "professions". They feed and prosper from divorce court conflict, a protection racket by threatening the survival of BOTH spouses. The children are caught in the crossfire, abused collateral damage. When the litigants are impoverished, the legal "profession" loses all interest.

This in turn is a particular aspect of the general methodology of WAR (used most recently against Iraq, Iran now in the target sights):

1) Demonize target group (enemy) using false allegations, speculation regarding "potentialities" equated to reality by fake "experts"

2) Watch public response. When "idea" takes hold that enemy is a threat, get real and initiate aggression, with public "tolerance". Alternatively, aggress in a more subtle manner, evoking a defensive response from the enemy, which is spun as the enemy "initiating aggression"

3) Duke it out. Economic interests profit by feeding BOTH sides of the conflict and prepare to profit by rebuilding.

4) Once force has prevailed and enemy is incapable of organized defense, prey by stealing resources and enslaving the people. Demonize any dissidents as terrorists.

5) Provoke new enemy, start again at (1)

Our far wiser ancestors once stopped this madness and placed us on the path to civilization with the "rule of law" which is:

Sanction those who initiate aggression (and compensate victims) and OBEY:

http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLaw

How do I know this? Our corrupt divorce courts taught me. A fatal tactical error, to attack an enemy while ignorant of their capabilities. What you do not know WILL kill you.

by Rectificatif
Sep 29 2009 3:03 PM

Michael, this is an excellent and important article.

BUT: You should have referenced your quotes from Mrs Pizzey. Was this the source? www.celticsurf.net/.../pizzey.html

Stats now tell us that an entire generation of young men are being disenfranchised and disadvantaged in various ways. The fabric of society, men and women together, is undermined, as natural male roles and masculine postures are ridiculued and stigmatised. Example: Rona Hardware, which has run the most virulent anti-male TV advertising we've ever seen, over and over for the past 6 months. You know the one: the husband who builds a deck inside his living room to avoid talking to his wife.

Canadian men are eunuchs; if they weren't, they'd have closed down Rona inside a month by boycotting it. But no, anti-male theology is undisputed.

Mrs Pizzey helped found the true women's movement in the UK. I hope she can reclaim that movement and help it recover from the lesbian putsch.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/29/330834.aspx#comments#ixzz0SW60aJ71

by WhiteRabbit Sep 29 2009 1:31 PM

Many feminists would have it that men are responsible for almost all domestic abuse. Such a fiction is propagated at the expense of the children.

by Mel from Calgary
Sep 29 2009 2:09 PM

"The genuine choice is, with the exception of orthodox adoption, between two good natural parents and, yes, a broken home."

There are only so many "orthodox adoption" parents out there and with "natural parents" being human we need plan "B" for when this doesn't happen.

I love Michael Coren clumsy use of code words.

by Sassylassie
Sep 29 2009 2:25 PM

Feminism is no longer a relevant cause, the political left cling to their lies and propaganda for government grants and to achieve special status in Academia. Personally I believe it was never about gender equality but gender supremacy by assigning victim status to all women.

Harper drastically cut funding to the mother of all feminist groups SOW and then in the next budget he returned funding to it's orginal levels. Sickening really, millions going to women to do studies on stupid subjects that have no relevance for real women.

by Anonymous66
Sep 29 2009 2:49 PM

In my opinion, Ms. Pizzey should have been challenged a lot more harshly about forgetting that "exception of adoption".

by Dirt farmer
Sep 29 2009 2:54 PM

The left likes to keep the lies going in order to destroy the family and lay the ground work to create the new "Soviet" man. It should be more important for society to work on and fix the dysfunctional characteristics of both men and women.

by rossbcan
Sep 29 2009 3:01 PM

“that the movement, which proclaimed that all men are potential rapists and batterers, was based on a lie..."

Yes, but the lie is far more pervasive and deadly than this narrow issue.

Easily refuted:

We live in an action precedes consequence reality. Nothing is REAL until an action occurs, spawning a consequence according to the laws of physical reality. This means, that all allegations of fixed "nature" implying "potential to X" to an individual or group is sheer speculation and slander, at a minimum.

This particular lie is a product of a provoked gender war between men and women, initiated by the legal "profession", aided by their partners in crime, the equally corrupt psychiatric and social "science" "professions". They feed and prosper from divorce court conflict, a protection racket by threatening the survival of BOTH spouses. The children are caught in the crossfire, abused collateral damage. When the litigants are impoverished, the legal "profession" loses all interest.

This in turn is a particular aspect of the general methodology of WAR (used most recently against Iraq, Iran now in the target sights):

1) Demonize target group (enemy) using false allegations, speculation regarding "potentialities" equated to reality by fake "experts"

2) Watch public response. When "idea" takes hold that enemy is a threat, get real and initiate aggression, with public "tolerance". Alternatively, aggress in a more subtle manner, evoking a defensive response from the enemy, which is spun as the enemy "initiating aggression"

3) Duke it out. Economic interests profit by feeding BOTH sides of the conflict and prepare to profit by rebuilding.

4) Once force has prevailed and enemy is incapable of organized defense, prey by stealing resources and enslaving the people. Demonize any dissidents as terrorists.

5) Provoke new enemy, start again at (1)

Our far wiser ancestors once stopped this madness and placed us on the path to civilization with the "rule of law" which is:

Sanction those who initiate aggression (and compensate victims) and OBEY:

http://www.cli.gs/RuleOfLaw

How do I know this? Our corrupt divorce courts taught me. A fatal tactical error, to attack an enemy while ignorant of their capabilities. What you do not know WILL kill you.

by Rectificatif
Sep 29 2009 3:03 PM

Michael, this is an excellent and important article.

BUT: You should have referenced your quotes from Mrs Pizzey. Was this the source? www.celticsurf.net/.../pizzey.html

Stats now tell us that an entire generation of young men are being disenfranchised and disadvantaged in various ways. The fabric of society, men and women together, is undermined, as natural male roles and masculine postures are ridiculued and stigmatised. Example: Rona Hardware, which has run the most virulent anti-male TV advertising we've ever seen, over and over for the past 6 months. You know the one: the husband who builds a deck inside his living room to avoid talking to his wife.

Canadian men are eunuchs; if they weren't, they'd have closed down Rona inside a month by boycotting it. But no, anti-male theology is undisputed.

Mrs Pizzey helped found the true women's movement in the UK. I hope she can reclaim that movement and help it recover from the lesbian putsch.

by MikeMurphy
Sep 29 2009 5:10 PM

I am a researcher and activist dealing with the current flavour of 3rd wave feminism (call it Victim, Lifeboat, or Gender if you like, they are all the same). Mr. Coren has apparently seen the light and had an epiphany which I salute.

i will be launching a HRC against Deb Matthews, Chris Bentley, Premier McQuinty and the local DV shelter in the coming months based on gender discrimination as they offer no services for Battered men. This has changed in Australia, the UK and in California. Its time has come in Ontario and the rest of Canada.

My goal has been for several years to find an equivalent service for men that provides tax supported emergency and reasonable term housing, food, and counselling for an abused man and his children. There is none in Sault Ste. Marie today as I experienced in 2006 when I first called local agencies.

This is unfortunate as I could have used this counselling a very long time ago. Had it been available perhaps it could have saved my marriage and my children a great deal of grief. I will re-commence the completion of my Human Rights Complaint once the decision on my custody battle with the ex is known.

Keep in mind an equal or greater proportion of DV related to sexual assault, robbery, bodily harm, discharging a firearm with intent, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, criminal harassment, and uttering threats, occurs after separation/divorce, not during the marriage. Eight (8)% of major assault and 40% of common assault also occurs after separation. (Stats Canada, 2008 report on Family Violence in Canada).

But look at this chart from a Stats Can Social Survey in 2005 looking at the trends to 2004. (Go here to see chart - parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/.../deb-matthews-feminist-minister-for.html) It clearly shows the rates of spousal violence after separation, shown in blue, are higher by a wide margin.

The social surveys draw information from a much broader sample than police reports and so I would conclude these DV shelters may well be part of a bigger problem that causes a greater degree of conflict after separation. This is not rocket science and it will not be one source but can I point you in a direction. DV shelters, family court judges ( a 9-1 ratio in awarding physical custody to moms), marginalizing men and using them as revenue spigots. An ecosystem designed to feed the female appetite for victimization.

Feminists or their sympathizers working in agencies like the CAS who don't solve problems and purport to know the right "maternal" way to do things, feminist sympathizers at other agencies who receive tax dollars for supervised access and who ostensibly deal with the mental health of children but would rather spend money on lawyers to try and intimidate dads who seek information on their children.

Did I mention many lawyers who say they only have the best interest of children in mind but as soon as your money runs out they are gone. The best interest of the Lawyer and the revenue lining their pockets is all that matters to most of them. Did I also mention that 75% of divorces in Canada are initiated by women! Do you start to get a better image of the deck and how it is stacked.

Also in the report and in my letter to Matthews is the 2006 table 4.1, page 43, from the same Stats Can 2008 report on the most recent spousal homicide numbers for 2006.

Male deaths 22 up from 12 in 2005, 56 Female deaths down 6 from 2005 and the rate per million spouses of 2.6 for men and 6.3 for women.

Turn those numbers around because they are based on 1,000,000 spouses, and as Dr. Don Dutton, PhD, UBC points out, you get 999,997.4 women do not kill their partners and 999,993.7 men do not kill their female partners. Does this warrant $208,000,000.00 for women's issues and not a cent for men.

It is pretty clear what the value of the gender of men is to the Liberal Government of Ontario and they will not even fund prostate cancer tests for men unless he already has symptoms. Women, on the other hand, can get all kinds of tests done free of charge including breast xrays. The patriarchy and feminists in government obviously like "boobs."

As these data include common law spouses where a greater degree of DV and homicide occur. All data available clearly point to the safest place for men, women and children is in a marriage. Yet these shelters are doing exactly the opposite and counselling women to "empower" themselves into single motherhood with all its attendant negative social outcomes, especially for children.

A new paradigm for DV is needed that involves all parties who are affected by it in the family.

Matthews recently decided to maintain the current gender paradigm (ie men are abusers and women victims) and she did this by having some feminist ideologues at the University of Ontario Institutue of Technology write a report confirming this should be government policy. I have asked if this contract was soul sourced in order to determine if the terms of reference were stacked to get the result Matthews want before the report was written. You can read my letter to the Matthews here if you so choose and a tiny part of my research parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/.../deb-matthews-feminist-minister-for.html

I am told it has the bureaucrats in a tizzy with lots of electronic messaging going on within the "Sisterhood" including the above mentioned academics at UOIT. Many of these self same bureaucrats are "Sisterhood" ideologues as well.

by Denis Pakkala
Sep 29 2009 5:17 PM

Thank You Michael Coren for speaking the truth, rather than the politically correct feminist mythology that has slowly destroyed families and eroded the rights of men to being second class citizens.

The left and the right are scared of feminist backlash and have quietly played along with the feminist agenda of blaming men and helping women.

Excellent comments above. Canadian men are eunuchs, especially politicians.

by Rectificatif
Sep 29 2009 5:27 PM

Mike Murphy, God bless you.

by teatime25
Sep 29 2009 5:32 PM

Take Back the Night marches are a bunch of phoney-victim-BS too. Interesting note about lesbian abuse Mr. Coren. Of course the feminazi's protect their own and don't want those statistics to be known.

Bigger question: where are all the so-called feminists while women in Islamic countries suffer daily under the oppression of sharia law? That is true subjugation, not the loser-mentality they teach at women's studies courses at universities.

by Rhino Party Whip
Sep 29 2009 5:32 PM

Go Mike Murphy!

Monday, September 28, 2009

New Research on Alienated Children ~ Forensic Psychology - Family Court


Forensic Psychology - Family Court









(Daniel H. Swerdlow-Freed, Ph.D.is a Licensed Psychologist. Contact information is available at the end of this article.)

Several years ago, our newsletter featured an article on parental alienation, in which we summarized Richard Gardner's proposition that parental alienation syndrome, or PAS, was a diagnosable disorder with distinct features. Over the past several years, his opinions have received much criticism and led mental health professionals to formulate research-based explanations of the dynamics that cause children to reject contact with a parent. On the basis of their research, Drs. Joan Kelly and Janet Johnston recently published a new theory of the alienated child, which we believe advances understanding of this complicated issue. Since this topic is of interest to so many of our readers, we are providing a summary of their paper. **

Kelly and Johnston define an alienated child as "…one who expresses, freely and persistently, unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs (such as anger, hatred, rejection, and/or fear) toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child's actual experience with that parent." Their definition requires that the child's behavior toward and relationship with the alienated parent should be the primary focus, rather than the behavior of the alienating parent, as Gardner suggested. Furthermore, they note the importance of differentiating the alienated child from other children who resist contact with a parent for realistic or developmentally appropriate reasons.

This new formulation conceptualizes a child's relationship to each parent as falling along a continuum from positive to negative. At its most healthy end, a child enjoys a positive relationship with both parents and wants to spend approximately equal time with each of them. The next position is for children who have an affinity with one parent. These children feel closer to, and prefer to spend more time with one parent but desire substantial contact with the other parent.

Some children express a consistent preference for either their mother or father during the marriage, and have formed an alliance with that parent. Following separation or divorce, these children may desire limited contact with the non-preferred parent, although they do not completely rejecting this individual. Alliances often develop because of unhealthy dynamics that existed during the marriage, intense post-divorce conflict or children's moral assessment of their parent's behavior. Such alliances have the potential to become unhealthy, particularly if parental conflict continues at a high level. Two factors that distinguish allied from alienated children are that the former are willing to acknowledge positive feelings for the non-preferred parent, and they can articulate credible reasons for seeking reduced contact with that individual.

Children who have witnessed or been subjected to violence, abuse or neglect, are at increased risk to become estranged from the parent who perpetrated these acts, although their feelings about that parent may only be expressed after separation has occurred and a sense of safety has developed. A child may also become estranged from a parent who is extremely immature and self-centered, consistently unreliable or inadequate, or chronically angry, rigid or critical. While estranged children may present as if they are alienated, they differ from alienated children because their fear and anger have a basis in reality and their attitudes and behavior are in proportion to these experiences.

At the unhealthy end of the continuum is the alienated child, who completely rejects a parent without showing any guilt or ambivalence, and refuses all contact with that individual. Severe distortions and exaggerations often characterize the child's reports about the relationship with the rejected parent. Close scrutiny reveals that these youngsters are often responding to dynamics that occurred during the divorce process, to ill-advised parental behavior and to their own psychological vulnerabilities.

Using a systems framework, Kelly and Johnston identified a series of factors and child responses that are critical to accurate diagnosis and effective intervention. They determined that while risk factors vary from one case to another, they often contain the following components: a child who has become triangulated in the parental conflict, a spouse who experienced the decision to divorce as a profound humiliation, an ongoing pattern of intense conflict and litigation, and to the involvement of new partners, extended family or other professionals who purposely or unwittingly contribute to conflict.

If a child perceives that s/he has been abandoned by a parent, that child is vulnerable to become alienated. Feelings of abandonment may occur when a parent leaves the marital home, when a child is seriously confused about the reasons for the separation or divorce, or when a parent begins a new love relationship and devotes less attention to the child. In some cases, separation followed by long periods with no contact between the nonresidential parent and the child can exacerbate the child's sense of abandonment.

Children who were psychologically vulnerable prior to separation often lack the resiliency to cope with the pressures that accompany divorce. Some children find it easier to deal with anxiety and uncertainty by siding with one parent against the other, and thereby securing the preferred parent's loyalty. Children who do have good reality testing may become confused by events they witness or overhear, and are vulnerable to misinterpret or misunderstand their meaning, especially if they cannot discuss these situations with a caring adult who can help them make an independent evaluation of their experience.

Through our work with divorced children and parents, we know that no single factor produces an alienated child, and that these convoluted, difficult situations threaten the psychological well being of each family member. We believe, along with Kelly and Johnston, that a comprehensive assessment is needed to clarify the multiple factors that have led a child to reject a parent with whom s/he previously enjoyed a meaningful relationship. Only with the benefit of such an evaluation, can each pertinent factor be identified and accounted for, and an effective intervention strategy planned and implemented.

http://www.psychologyinfo.com/forensic/alienated-children.html

Spanking hurts — more than you think

There are a lot of proponents of spanking on the Star site making comments. I offer this to them. What is the relationship between child maltreatment through so called "corporal punishment" and Domestic Violence between partners? How is slapping your spouse any different that slapping your child? My comments on site are as follows:

Domestic Violence and hitting children...hmmm... is it related

I note with great interest many people on this thread are pro-spanking. I also wonder if you carry on with this pattern and hit your spouse thinking it will also bring your partner into line. This form of family violence is pretty much equal between genders and affects about 7 to 8% of the population - both male and female. For those who favour hitting your children - will you also indicate you also hit your spouse for the same reason. Are you just unable to provide a more positive way to teach children there are boundaries they ought not cross? There is no correlation between misbehaving children and whether they were spanked to deter inappropriate actions so if you are using that as an excuse let me disabuse you of that right now. Teaching violence to not misbehave is a pretty odd way to acquit yourself and perhaps if you do this frequently I'd suggest getting the help you need.

Submitted by Mike Murphy at 3:26 PM Monday, September 28 2009

MJM
A new study suggests corporal punishment can adversely affect a child's IQ. Do you think any amount of physical punishment is appropriate for children?
Yes
1763
57%
No
1095
35%
Not sure
184
6%
Sep 28, 2009 04:30 AM
Staff Reporter

Children who are spared a spanking grow up to have higher IQs than those who are physically disciplined, according to a study by one of North America's leading scholars on family violence.

Murray Straus examined the IQ scores of more than 1,500 children, divided in two groups – ages 2 to 4, and 5 to 9 – and compared them with IQ scores from four years later.

Straus found young children who had been slapped or spanked scored an average of five points lower on IQ tests than those who hadn't been hit. The discrepancy among the older age group was about 2.8 points.

"The bottom line is, kids need a lot of guidance and instruction. They just don't need to be hit," he said.

He presented his findings Friday at the International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma in San Diego, Calif.

"This shows that spanking kids slows their development of mental ability," Straus, a professor at the University of New Hampshire's family research laboratory, said yesterday.

Straus, who co-authored the study with California-based professor Mallie Paschall, said being hit is a traumatic experience, causing stress that could disrupt cognitive skills and impede learning.

So, rather than spanking a child who has done something wrong, it would be better to tell him that what he did was wrong, Straus said.

"Corporal punishment impacts everything: self-esteem, intelligence, both emotional and intellectual," said Peter Dudding, executive director of the Child Welfare League of Canada.

The study defined corporal punishment as hitting a child at least three times a week with the intention of discipline, not injury.

The practice is criticized by the United Nations and banned in 24 nations across the world, including Sweden, New Zealand and Spain.

In Canada, however, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling upheld section 43 of the Criminal Code, allowing parents and caregivers to use reasonable force when disciplining a child no younger than 2.

Shortly after the court's decision, a Liberal Senator proposed a bill to prohibit corporal punishment, which passed its third reading in the Senate in June 2008. But the bill never became law because Parliament dissolved. "If you're over the age of 18 and I lay a hand on you, that's assault," Dudding said.

"But if you're younger than 18 – that's justifiable by our Criminal Code."

He said the new study adds to the arsenal of international research showing corporal punishment can have harmful lasting effects.

Straus said the study, which will be published in the Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, shows evidence that younger children are more affected by being struck because "their brains are in a point of rapid development."

The study found a correlation between how often a child was hit and how slow his mental development was, even when Straus factored out other agents that could affect development, such as wealth and parents' level of education.

In his research, he also examined nearly 18,000 surveys from university students in 32 countries, including Canada.

He found, by and large, that in countries with high national-average IQs, spanking is not socially acceptable.

http://www.thestar.com/article/701916