BANGOR, Maine — Fathers and father figures are most often the perpetrators of severe physical abuse of children, including cases that result in death, according to law enforcement and child abuse authorities in Maine.
On Feb. 23, Damien Christopher Lynn became the first Maine child to die this year as the result of severe abuse. He is the 12th child under age 18 to die as the result of homicide in the state since 2005.
According to authorities, Damien Lynn suffered injuries including brain trauma, a broken arm and broken ribs.
The man police have accused of killing the boy, Edgard Anziani, was the boyfriend of Damien’s mother. He lived on and off with the mother and child for four months before the homicide, according to court records. Anziani, who is from Lawrence, Mass., was arrested by federal authorities Monday in Bladensburg, Md. He waived extradition and is expected to appear in a Bangor court next week.
Statistics maintained by the Maine Department of Public Safety show that 12 children have died as the result of homicide or manslaughter over the past five years. The numbers show that the youngest, the most vulnerable, are most at risk. Eight victims were under age 3, and most of the children died at the hands of a parent, stepparent or the partner of a parent, according to Stephen McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Department of Public Safety. Click here to see a list of Maine homicide victims under age 18 from 2005 to present.
“We average about 24 homicides over the course of a year, and in a typical year, we usually have at least a couple that are children,” McCausland said.
The exception was in 2008, McCausland said, when five children were murdered in Maine.
“The vast majority are children who died at the hands of a young man, usually the father or the mother’s boyfriend,” he said.
Dr. Lawrence Ricci of Portland, the state’s only child abuse pediatrician and an expert often consulted by law enforcement officials and others for his 22 years of experience in the field, agrees.
“That’s certainly the case in Maine, and it’s certainly the case nationally,” Ricci said Friday in a telephone interview.
In Maine and in the United States, the perpetrators of serious physical child abuse or homicide are most likely fathers, next are nonbiological father figures such as stepfathers or mothers’ boyfriends, and then sitters, Ricci said.
Mothers are the fourth-most-likely perpetrators and “well down on the list,” he said.
The dozen children who died as the result of severe physical abuse “are just the tip of the iceberg,” Ricci said Friday. Ten times as many Maine children end up in the hospital because of severe physical abuse, and 10 times more are injured but never taken to the hospital, he said.
Common risk factors for child abuse include parents who have been victims themselves; parents who have been in the child welfare system, such as foster care; parental drug and alcohol abuse; criminal history and prior child protective history, Ricci said.
Maternal depression and socioeconomic stressors also are factors, he said.
“Those are some of the big ones,” he said, adding that poverty plays a large role in the problem.
“My colleagues around the country and I have seen almost a doubling in the last two years of significant abuse of babies, we think because of the economic downturn, both because of the economic stress it puts on families directly and because of the loss of available support services,” Ricci said.
“When you can’t provide the basic support services for families, the babies suffer,” he said, adding that the state has had difficulty providing those services.
To that end, Ricci and other child advocates in Maine are hoping that the recently launched “Period of Purple Crying” program, which now operates largely through donations and volunteers, will have an impact.
The educational campaign seeks to teach new parents that prolonged, intense crying often is normal and that parents and caregivers need to give themselves a break when the stress that results from the crying threatens to overwhelm their self-control.
A similar program introduced in upstate New York a few years ago brought about a 50 percent reduction in the number of serious injuries from shaken baby syndrome, Ricci said.
Though the “Period of Purple Crying” program has been available at hospitals in many parts of Maine for more than a year, Ricci said it is still too early to say how effective it has been.
One service that Ricci said he would like to see one day in Maine is long-term home visitation that would specifically target high-risk families. Ideally, the service would be provided until the child reaches school age before development problems from abuse and neglect have a chance to set in.
“Once they do, they are almost impossible to reverse,” he said.
Though it likely wouldn’t have saved Damien Lynn, state law requires a long list of professionals to report suspicions of child abuse and neglect or when a suspicious child death occurs.
The list includes law enforcement officials, clergy, municipal and state officials, school staff and bus drivers and bus attendants, medical and emergency medical professionals, social service workers, mental health providers, child care workers, summer camp personnel, domestic violence counselors, sexual assault counselors, film and photographic print processors, court-appointed guardians or advocates and any other person who is responsible for the care or custody of a child.
Those who are legally required to report suspicions of abuse also must make a reasonable attempt to take color photographs of any areas of trauma that are visible on a child, the law states.
To report child abuse or neglect, call the Maine Child and Family Services hot line, which is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The toll-free number is 800-452-1999, and the TTY line for the deaf and hard of hearing is 800-963-9490.
Since 1985, the claim of parent alienation syndrome (PAS) has represented the extreme collusion of male entitlement, the mental health profession, and family courts. PAS is a pseudoscientific theory used to prevent battered women from protecting their children from exposure to violent and abusive fathers. It asserts that children who resist parents’ visits are not legitimately seeking protection from their fathers but have been “alienated” from their fathers by their mothers. This article examines the impact of PAS on families, its admissibility in courts, and the role of social workers and other mental health practitioners in custody cases through the lens of a social worker, a social justice activist, and a mother who is involved in a PAS custody case.
To view the entire article, “Criminal Rewards: The Impact of Parental Alienation Syndrome on Families” by Andrae L. Brown, please click here. It is very good…it should be required reading for all family court judges.
An extensive report (over 500 pages) prepared for the US Department of Justice, written by Mary Ann Dutton, Lisa Goodman, and R. James Schmidt. Download the entire reporthere. Here is the beginning of the Executive Summary:
For decades now, battered women’s advocates have placed the notion of coercive control squarely at the center of their analysis of intimate partner violence (IPV). Indeed, they have defined IPV as a “pattern of coercive control” (Pence and Paymar, 1993) in which the batterer asserts his power over the victim through the use of threats, as well as actual violence. Violence is simply a tool, within this framework, that the perpetrator uses to gain greater power in the relationship in order to deter or trigger specific behaviors, win arguments, or demonstrate dominance (Dobash and Dobash, 1992). Other tools might include isolation, intimidation, threats, withholding of necessary resources such as money or transportation, and abuse of the children, other relatives, or even pets. Explaining the Duluth Model, a widely used batterer treatment program, Pence (1993), one of its founders, wrote that the program “assumes battering is not an individual pathology or mental illness but rather just one part of a system of abusive and violent behaviors to control the victim for the purposes of the abuser” (p. 30). And, in an eloquent description of “battered women’s” responses, Stark (1995) wrote:
Physical violence may not be the most significant factor about most battering relationships. In all probability, the clinical profile revealed by battered women reflects the fact that they have been subjected to an ongoing strategy of intimidation, isolation, and control that extends to all areas of a woman’s life, including sexuality; material necessities; relations with family, children, and friends; and work. Sporadic, even severe violence makes this strategy of control effective. But the unique profile of “the battered woman” arises as much from the deprivation of liberty implied by coercion and control as it does from violence-induced trauma (p. 987).
Yet, despite this common assumption, borne out every day in the horrific stories told by battered women throughout the country, surprisingly little work has been done to conceptualize and measure the key construct of coercive control. In the absence of a clear conceptualization, measures of coercion, usually embedded within broader measures of psychological abuse, are neither comprehensive nor internally consistent. Researchers have variously included behaviors ranging from verbal put-downs to intimidation to kidnapping under the rubric of coercion. For a number of reasons, detailed below, the need for a tighter conceptualization and operationalization of this notion has gained new urgency in recent years.
Hey, Luiz Simmons, John Edwards called….he wants his hair back!
The dialog is continuing on the shameful treatment of Amy Castillo during testimony with the Maryland House Judiciary Committee, in particular by batterer-lover Delegate Luiz Simmons. Maybe it has been a while since Delegate Simmons has been laid, because he seems pretty preoccupied by it. He appears to relate sex to some kind of marital duties apparently, with him introducing a bill this session being haled by some as a bizarre “no sex = divorce” law. We do know he loves to protect batterers:
Citizens of Maryland, do you really want a pig like this representing you? Do you want to have your daughter and grandchildren murdered because she couldn’t get a protective order against an abusive husband? Call your delegate now, today, and express your outrage at what happened in the House Judiciary Committee, and let them know you won’t stand for pigs on the Judiciary Committee, or in the legislature at all. Call House Judiciary Chair Joseph F. Vallario, Jr.,(410) 841-3488, (301) 858-3488, and tell him you won’t stand for people stinking up the committee.
Md. General Assembly owes victims of domestic violence better protection
Thursday, March 4, 2010
MARYLAND once again has the chance to do what every other state in the country does in affording protections to victims of domestic abuse. A proposal that would relax the rigid standards for obtaining protective orders is being debated in the General Assembly. Unfortunately, its prospects are not good. We hope, though, that lawmakers wake up to the reality that their refusal to put in place common-sense safeguards endangers lives and makes Maryland a national disgrace.
The House and Senate are considering bills that would change the standard of proof needed to grant a final protective order. The bills, H.B. 700 by Del. C. Sue Hecht (D-Frederick) and S.B. 823 by Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Montgomery), would replace the current standard of “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of the evidence.” Maryland is the only state that uses this higher standard when victims — and generally they are women — seek orders to protect themselves from their alleged abusers. In all other civil matters, Maryland courts require only a preponderance of evidence.
Contrary to the fears of some opponents, this would not open up the floodgates to capricious decisions based on false charges. Judges would still be able to judge the credibility of any claim, but they would have more discretion in reaching a decision. Instead of being bound by there being no doubt about a petitioner being in danger, the court would be able to use the more reasonable standard of there being a good chance of danger.
We can’t help but wonder what the outcome might have been had this standard been available to the judge who denied the request for a protective order from Amy Castillo. Ms. Castillo’s three children were drowned by a father whose threats about killing the children were deemed insufficient for a protective order. Ms. Castillo evoked her tragedy last month as she testified for easier access to protective orders before the House Judiciary Committee, a body notoriously hostile to this and other reforms sought by advocates for victims of domestic violence.
The committee has scuttled similar bills in previous years, and judging by the reception it gave Ms. Castillo, chances don’t seem much improved this year. What else to make of the argument that no problem exists because only (their emphasis) 14 percent of protective orders are denied because the standard of proof isn’t met? That’s not much of a consolation for Ms. Castillo or the others who make up that 14 percent. As Ms. Castillo told the committee: “When you’re in fear of your life and for your children, and you make that move to step out and do something about it, and then you go to get a protective order, and you don’t get it, it’s just really devastating. . . . It’s like a discouragement to make a change in your life that needs to be made.”
If you haven’t yet completed the Lovefraud survey about your experience with a sociopath, do it now. The survey will close the evening of Wednesday, March 3, 2010.
Lovefraud will submit the results to the American Psychiatric Association. The association is preparing the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5), which mental health professionals use to diagnose mental conditions. It includes a new definition of sociopaths/psychopaths.
Our survey asks you to rate how well the definition matches what you experienced in your involvement with a disordered person. We are seeking input from both men and women.
Hundreds of Lovefraud readers have responded. If you have already completed the survey, thank you. If you haven’t, please do it right away.
We will analyze the results and submit them to the American Psychiatric Association. We’ll also report them to you.
A bill is in the Maryland Legislature now, HB 700 (Del Hecht, et al.), which seeks to alter the standard of proof for issuing a final protective order from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence. If a judge finds from the preponderance of the evidence that the alleged abuse has occurred, the judge may grant a final protective order for relief from abuse to any eligible person. It was first read to the Judiciary Committee on February 24th, and they had a hearing on it the 25th.
Amy Castillo testified at this hearing, as she tried to get a protective order in 2007, but was denied. Her husband Mark Castillo had their three children on visitation after when he murdered all three in a Maryland hotel, drowning them in the bathtub. At the protective order hearing, her husband’s lawyer questioned her (from the transcripts):
Douglas Cohn–Defense Attorney, Mark’s Attorney: “He threatened to kill your children and you, and you made love to him that night.”
Amy Castillo: “Yes, because I’m scared of him. If I act scared or upset or emotional, he really reacts to that, and I didn’t want him to know I was trying to get a protective order.”
With this, the judge denied the protective order. Judge Joseph Dugan ruled “There is not clear and convincing evidence that the alleged acts of abuse occurred.” This left Mark Castillo the opportunity to murder the children.
Fast forward to the hearing on February 25th, where witnesses testified to the committee about this travesty. Delegate Luiz Simmons took it upon himself during the hearing to further question Amy Castillo’s credibility because she had engaged in sex with Mark after being threatened. Apparently Del. Simmons does not realize that abusive men often center their lives around their genitals and the need to have them serviced. One can go on any of the many men’s rights forums and read them denigrating women, especially if they aren’t being serviced. This is one from “Men Going Their Own Way“:
“I was driving back from a meeting this morning, thinking about my wife, and I really wanted to go home, and simply beat the living shit out of her. I have been supporting everyone for years, working my ass off, and my wife has not done one single fucking thing to make my life easier, to encourage me, or to help me with anything that’s bugging me. She’s on the PTA, the board of her preschool, she teaches art at the elementary school, is involved in a book club, and on and on and on. Her calendar is ridiculous. But I am some kind of fucking afterthought. I’m the engine that powers this entire thing, and I haven’t gotten laid in months. She takes care of the children during the week, fine. But we have a housecleaner, because actually cleaning the fucking house is beneath her. We take shirts to the dry cleaner, because she couldn’t possibly iron them. Clean laundry is in piles in the garage, because she can’t be expected to fold it. On weekends, I’m apparently her assistant. I can’t wait for Sunday night to come, when I can get out and head back to the office. And every day there’s some new example of truly shitty behavior — a bad attitude for any human. For example, last night she was at her fucking PTA meeting, which ran from 7 until 11. I went to bed, and had just turned the light out when she shows up at the front door, and starts ringing the fucking doorbell. She didn’t have her keys. She then informed me that she never does. I pointed out that having keys to your own house might be a smart thing to do. And she acts like that’s some kind of major insult, and then launches into a description of what happened at this meeting. I stopped her, and said something like “You know, I was in bed and almost asleep, and you got me up.” It didn’t even occur to her that a) I would actually mind being jerked out of bed by the doorbell; b) I wasn’t interested in a blow-by-blow at that moment. Finally, after years of this, the truth is starting to sink in, and I’m devolving into this serious, angry person to be around. All the normal, considerate stuff I used to do I don’t. I don’t talk to her unless I have to, and not any longer than necessary. She catches me looking at her sometimes, and the expression she sees on my face frightens her, I think. Somewhere along in here, she’s going to ask me if something’s wrong, and I’m going to start screaming at her. I’ve tried marriage counseling. I’ve tried listening, and giving, and being nice. Now, I’m going to try fear and intimidation.”
Del. Luiz Simmons, Montgomery County
Do you think Amy Castillo saw that certain expression on Mark’s face (besides just outright being told he would kill her and the kids)? Do you think she had to have sex for her and her kid’s safety? You betcha. Nobody likes having sex with an abusive asshole. It’s like a submissive gesture to try and calm the savage beast. You don’t think she had to fake it (think Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally)? Many women have to given in to having sex to avoid being treated worse. But this pig thinks it makes her less credible. Del. Luiz Simmons and his John Edward’s haircut need to come out of the fog and look at all the children being murdered by fathers who are not happy with child support, not happy with shared parenting, or just want to punish their ex-wives by taking the children permanently from them (by murdering them). Over and over again, many of these horrific deaths of children can be traced back to a judge who wouldn’t issue a protective order.
Delegate Simmons demonstrated his love and wish to protect batterers in the last session. This is from Maryland Politics Watch:
This bill most likely won’t make it out of the committee, thanks to Delegate Simmons. If you are from Maryland, how many more women and children are you willing to see murdered? If you are from Maryland, you need to know who your employees are, the people you pay to speak for you, who are doing this to the children of Maryland, who questioned Amy Castillo’s credibility, and decide if you want them to work for you any more when you go vote in the next election. Here are the Judicial Committee members….do they work for you?
I was passed the link to this article yesterday, and it makes me sick for these kids…
The House That AIDS Built
Liam Scheff
This article deals with pharmaceutical abuse in a children’s home in NYC. This piece was investigated and written in summer through winter of 2003 and published in January 2004, with occaisional updates. The story broke wide in early 2004, with coverage in the New York Post and the New York Press. It served as the basis of investigation for the BBC film “Guinea Pig Kids,” and has prompted further investigation by the Associated Press – as well as a pointed attack by the New York Times. The investigation is ongoing.
In New York’s Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC). This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who’ve been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services. These children are black, Hispanic and poor. Many of their mothers had a history of drug abuse and have died. Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies – GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.
The drugs being given to the children are toxic – they’re known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.
In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind. They both died shortly after. Another 14-year old died recently. An 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck.
This isn’t science fiction. This is AIDS research. The children at ICC were born to mothers who tested HIV positive, or who themselves tested positive. However, neither parents nor children were told a crucial fact — HIV tests are extremely inaccurate.(1,2) The HIV test cross-reacts with nearly seventy commonly-occurring conditions, giving false positive results. These conditions include common colds, herpes, hepatitis, tuberculosis, drug abuse, inoculations and most troublingly, current and prior pregnancy.(3,4,5) This is a double inaccuracy, because the factors that cause false positives in pregnant mothers can be passed to their children – who are given the same false diagnosis.
Most of us have never heard this before. It’s undoubtedly the biggest secret in medicine. However, it’s well known among HIV researchers that HIV tests are extremely inaccurate – but the researchers don’t tell the doctors, and they certainly don’t tell the children at ICC, who serve as test animals for the next generation of AIDS drugs. ICC is run by Columbia University’s Presbyterian Hospital in affiliation with Catholic Home Charities through the Archdiocese of New York. Read more ›
(DALLAS, Ore.) – In America there are many victims of childhood molestation and abuse, rape and domestic violence! But guess what: There are relatively few batterers and perpetrators.
In their efforts to seek safety, justice and vindication, victims often become further victimized by our judicial system. Why? The batterers and abusers are “innocent” and protected by family, friends, co-workers and church members. Often family and friends turn against the victim in order to protect the abuser and their own reputations[1].
Victims suffer not only from the abuse they experienced but also from the threat of meaninglessness and powerlessness that comes with it. People who experience the trauma of violence at the hand of someone they know, (i.e, a partner, parent, relative, therapist, teacher, pastor, or priest) – struggle to make meaning, usually in a context of isolation, if not moral condemnation and victim blaming.
Meanwhile, as the years pass, many victims become progressively more mentally, physically and emotionally sick because the victim has been rejected and betrayed all over again by those close to them who refuse to deal with the truth and by those who find denial an easy alternative. The burden placed on the victim’s shoulders becomes unbearable. Finally, family and friends who “knew the truth” dismiss the crimes of molestation, rape and violence because “it happened a long time ago.” Read more ›
This is from a 20/20 segment, when Diane Sawyer was involved with the show. It is very good. (Warning: Trigger Alert. Is not suitable for children to watch).
RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) whined and whined about this student newspaper article from McGill University (Canada)….they did make a couple changes, but RADAR still is not happy. Overall I thought it was an accurate, thoughtful piece of journalism. RADAR is the organization that basically claims that all women and children lie about abuse.
The McGill Tribune, 12/1/2009
OFF THE BOARD: The fight for men’s rights
by Carolyn Gregoire
Discrimination against men has, understandably perhaps, never occupied a prominent position on the feminist agenda. Recently, however, the rise of the men’s rights movement has led men’s rights groups and feminists alike to call issues specific to male identity into question. A recent article on Slate’s women-oriented webzine DoubleX entitled “Men’s Rights Groups are Becoming Frighteningly Effective” has spurred contentious debate extending beyond the feminist blogosphere as to whether feminism should encompass issues of men’s rights.
The article was triggered by the actions of men’s activist group RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) who gathered in Washington this October to lobby against issues such as false allegations of rape and domestic violence, unrecognized domestic violence against men, and child custody rights for divorced fathers.
Many women, and not only those who identify as feminists, are outraged by the measures these groups have taken. Rather than addressing the negative impact that patriarchy and gender stereotypes have on men and calling for change, RADAR chooses instead to undermine the prevalence of rape and domestic violence against women. Relying on hyperbolic claims and sensationalism – suggesting, for instance, that domestic violence laws represent “the largest regression in civil rights since the Jim Crow era” – RADAR succeeded in blocking the passage expansion of several domestic violence bills, such as the Violence Against Women act. [*Correction appended] It is also worth noting that many of the movement’s leaders are themselves accused batterers.
Though issues of men’s rights and injustice towards men deserve attention, the anti-feminist approach employed by RADAR and many other men’s rights groups in battling these issues is counterproductive and alarmingly reactionary. RADAR’s attempt to take funding away from “discriminatory” women’s-only shelters, rather than fighting for resources for male victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment, epitomizes this ineffectual methodology.
While it’s true that all human rights are men’s rights and that history is essentially a men’s rights movement, discrimination against men should be a feminist concern because male and female rights are inextricably intertwined. Though a patriarchal society operates for male benefit, societal standards of masculinity are also harmful to men in real ways which deserve to be acknowledged. Rigid definitions of masculinity which narrowly cast men into aggressive, machismo, bread-winning roles are damaging to men, and further, they are damaging to men in ways that are also damaging to women. Following this line of reasoning, many feminists fight for fathers’ rights as a means of countering the socially sanctioned notion that nurturer or caregiver must be a female-occupied role. A central objective of the feminist movement is debunking gender stereotypes, even when they apply only to men.
Male victims of sexual harassment, domestic violence, and rape deserve to be recognized and taken seriously, mothers should not be unjustly favoured over fathers in child custody proceedings, and individuals of both genders do not deserve to be systemically limited and harmed by rigid social definitions of masculinity. Feminist concerns and men’s rights are not mutually exclusive, and should meet on the common ground of seeking gender equality – the irony of it all is that we’re both fighting the same battle. As feminist Gloria Anzaldua suggests, “Men, even more than women, are fettered to gender roles … We need a new masculinity and the new man needs a movement.”
Correction: The article’s original version claimed that RADAR had blocked the passage of several domestic violence bills, including the Violence Against Women act. In fact, RADAR helped block the expansion of these bills. Also, the Tribune apologizes for previously claiming that many of RADAR’s leaders were accused batterers.
From The Kansas Watchdog: A Wichita, Kansas mom who was in an abusive relationship had her children removed from her home by the State of Kansas. Reintegration was started, but later stopped for no apparent reason. This mom lost her parental rights but is trying to get them back. Even her parents were denied custody of the children. This mom appeared at the Joint Committee on Children’s Issue at the Kansas Capitol on Nov 30, 2009.
Now she has a warrant out for her arrest for trying to see her children:
Warrant Details
ARNOLD , CECELLIA L
Race: B Sex: F Age: 24
Height: 506 Weight: 150
Hair: BLK Eyes: BRO
Warrant Id: 92696
Court Case No.: 2009CR003679
Type: ARREST WARRANT Charge: INTERFERENCE W/PARENTAL CUSTODY; OTHER THAN JOINT CUSTODY Felony/Misdemeanor: F
Bond: $10,000.00
While visiting a school with a relative, Arnold had a chance encounter with one of her own children. Before that, Arnold had no idea what school her children attended since they were in foster care and she lived in another state.
She said she was happy to see her child and took 30 minutes to be a mom during that chance encounter.
Arnold said she tried intentionally the next day to see her child again but she was not allowed to. She said it is her understanding there are now two warrants out because of the chance visit with her child. The Sedgwick County Sheriff issued an arrest warrant for her, Arnold said.
Please go to the Kansas Watchdog website to comment about this. Ms. Arnold had a chance encounter with one of her own children. Before that, Arnold had no idea what school her children attended since they were in foster care and she lived in another state. She said she was happy to see her child and took 30 minutes to be a mom during that chance encounter. Arnold said she tried intentionally the next day to see her child again but she was not allowed to. She said it is her understanding there are now two warrants out because of the chance visit with her child. The Sedgwick County Sheriff issued an arrest warrant for her, Arnold said”>Kansas Watchdog website and leave your comment on this.
This paper should be mandatory reading for all family court judges…here is a synopsis:
As courts and legislatures continue their enthusiastic ventures into family law reform, they make frequent use of theories and research from the social sciences. This essay focuses on developments in child custody law stemming from Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a theory propounded in 1985 that became widely used (sometimes in a form called Parental Alienation) despite its lack of scientific foundations. The discussion highlights theoretical and practical problems with PAS, provides a similar discussion of more recent proposals concerning Alienated Children (AC), and concludes with recommendations for lawyers and judges who must evaluate these and similar developments.
To read the entire paper, “Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children – getting it wrong in child custody cases” by Carol Bruch, please click here.
