> On Oct 12, 11:26 am, "Sean"
blah.com.au> wrote:>>> To take away children from mothers for telling the truth and give them
>>> to abusive fathers, is an atrocity.
>>
>> Got one example?
>
> Check the family court record. There'll be plenty of examples where
> PAS was used to take children away when children or mothers reported
> violence.
>
"reported violence" that's the rub isn't it? People do lie, and exagerate in
court. Obviously, if the Court didn't "believe" them and there was
sufficient evidence to support the father and his defence used the notion of
PAS, which is deemed in itself to be an "abuse of the children", then it may
be best to accept that the Court got it right. There is a legal notion of
"appeal" so it's not like storm troopers were removing the children by edict
without any reasonable opportunity for a defense in a Court of Law.
Of course Courts can and do make mistakes. This happens on both sides of the
fence, the courts can only do the best they can with what they got. I am
happy to agree that injustices occur in the justice system.
That's why things like PAS were brought into play, because there was
systemised injustice in the Courts against fathers just ebcause there was a
"belief" that children were always better with the mother. That is clearly
not true in all cases, and the Courts are now reflecting that change.
Then there is a natural caution of not letting PAS to become just like it
was before ... that the mere mention of that syndrome is deemed as true
without real investigation by qualified officials of the Court.
>>Like you actually know the mother was absolutely undeniably
>> telling the truth and the children and the father weren't?
>
>> It is also an atrocity, for disturbed & unstable, emotional and physical
>> abusive mothers who lie, who coach their children to hate and be distant
>> from their non-custodial fathers refusing to see them or who in their
>> confusion mis-represent to court officals what there father does or
>> doesn't
>> do.
>
> Fathers do that just as much. I've known many examples of fathers
> manipulating children against their mothers, and doing so in extremely
> damaging, deceptive, manipulating and destructive ways.
>
Yes, of course. That's PAS is non-genderised, and applies to not only
parents, but also relatives like grand-parents who take sides when the
"evidence" doesn't support such blind support.
So the issue is a fair and well resourced judicial system, and not whether
PAS is real or not. It's real, no matter what label one puts on it. You just
basically verified that fathers do it. Well so do women, and that's why PAS
is accepted as being a reality in conflict divorce proceedings, where the
process is supposed to work to "protect" the children as much as possible
when adults act like callous immature idiots. Such is life, it ain't
perfect.
> But this is not what Parental Alienation Syndrome is about nor how it
> is used in the courts. PAS is used to claim that children reporting
> abuse by their fathers are being manipulated to do so by their
> mothers, even though the vast bulk of children's accusations of abuse
> against their fathers (98%% according to Freda Briggs) have been found
> to be true.
>
That is only ONE aspect of PAS. And for it to fly there needs to be beyond
reasonable doubt that it is occuring for the Court to order that as part of
their judgement as to where the children reside, or when they can see the
non-custodial parent. It isn't "gender based" either ... it's about the best
interests of the children.
Just because the father says his kids are subjected to PAS, doesn;t mean he
is believed, he has to "prove it" to the satisfaction of the Family Law
Court Judge. They are trained to sort this out, and they usually know when
they are being snowed or someone is on balance, probably lying.
Obviously they do make mistakes at times.
> Which means that the status quo gives children to abusers and denies
> access to mothers who have the courage to tell the truth and the
> decency to try to protect their children from domestic violence.
>
You've no evidence to say that happens. There is clear evidence that the
opposite is true before fathers began to get a "fairer" hearing in the court
system. Fathers couldn;t even get australian legal aid a while ago, when
women always could. There was entrenched bias towards women in the court
system, and entrenched discrimination of non-custodial fathers and signle
fathers in society here. That was real, even if you believe sometimes the
courts get it wrong.
What courts get wrong needs to be sorted out on an individual basis in the
courts. Your posts here make no difference except to promote your own
beliefs about how bad it is. My opinion is that it was more unjust before,
and children suffered abuse from mothers and legalised alienation from their
fathers on a systemic basis. The courts would agree they got it wrong then,
as much as they would agree sometimkes they get it wrong now.
> Parental Alienation Syndrome is, according to legitimate scientists,
> "unscientific garbage" and "cancer on the court system" and a reason
> for horrendous injustices and human rights violations, as well as the
> greater injustice of prosecuting people for telling the truth.
>
And other legitimate scientists say the opposite. Scientists often say other
scientists aren't scientific. Sooner or later someone has to decide, and the
Court system is not scientific ... it is decisions based upon the evidence
presented. That's all they can do.
> Parental alienation is real, and committed by both men and women. PAS
> is a destructive racket.
>
> Two different issues that must not be confused with one another.
>
I think yuo'r ethe one confusing the issues here. One does not get PAS
without parental alienation existing in reality. It has to be proven Ilya.
By all means disagree with a particular judgement because you think you know
more that the sitting judge, but that doesn't mean what you say here will
fly, imho.
>> So the issue here is one of INDIVIDUAL cases that manifest differently,
>> where either a mother or a father may or may not be abusive to children,
>> where PAS affects are intentional by either or both parents [ and
>> relatives ] but is generally a result of some mental and emotional
>> instability of the INDIVIDUAL ina very stressful time, who may just be
>> nasty and vengeful, or may even be somewhat temporarily deluded in their
>> cognition and genuinely fear that the other parent is at fault. Sometimes
>> this condition is actually based upon a real "projection" of the
>> individuals
>> own behaviour and negative and abusive attitude onto the other parent.
>> Either way the harm and pressure is placed upon the child who does suffer
>> in
>> some way usually, but the only answer is for reasonable people in the
>> system, and for relatives and friends to support parents under duress and
>> extreme stress where conflict in marriage breakdown occurs.
>
> See above.
>
>>> Not only in itself and what it
>>> means for the children, but more for what it means for the country
>>> itself.
>>
>>> If people aren't allowed to tell the truth, then the society that
>>> develops is one of venality, deceit and corruption. A darkness that
>>> permeates it to its deepest layers and makes the place rotten to the
>>> core. Every part of the country gets tainted by this corruption; every
>>> person becomes a deceiver and lives the life of a deceiver. The people
>>> spy on each other, cheat each other, and screw each other over as way
>>> of life. The rot of deception destroys the essential, the creative,
>>> the productive, in people, and they are reduced to fighting for pieces
>>> of ever more diminishing pie.
>>
>> And the outcome of that is often as per known statistics in Australia,
>> and
>> endless anecdotal evidence of which I have personal connection to, the
>> SUICIDE of severely marginalised fathers, struggling with the forced
>> manipulation of a lack of access to their children, and the unjust
>> application and at times onerous imposition of child support requirements
>> during a time of extreme distress brought on by bitter, mentally
>> disturbed,
>> or vengeful mothers against the father with the powerful, misguided, and
>> blind support of the legal system. [ which is improving albeit slowly ]
>
> "Women: Can't live them, can't live without them."
>
> Logical conclusion: Can't live.
>
Presumptious...
> Marginalized, isolated, beaten-down wives are subject to horrendous
> ongoing violence and live in hell. Yet they choose to continue living
> and taking care of children, while irresponsible men opt for suicide.
>
Simplistic and irrational imho.
> That makes them more responsible people, and better parents, than
> either their abusers or men like you've described.
>
You're entitled to your opinions.
>>> It happened in Soviet Union, where people were not allowed to tell the
>>> truth without being killed or going to labor camp.
>>
>>> It happened in Nigeria before they got decent leadership.
>>
>>> It is happening in Burma and in Iran.
>>
>>> And I both love Australia enough, and care enough about the future of
>>> my daughter, to let this take place here.
>>
>> I think your rhetoric here is "historonic/hysterical" and quite biased
>> and
>> perhaps unbalanced and emotionally dramatic with no due cause or
>> relevance
>> to the reality of situation faced by some parties to marriage breakdown
>> conflict where children are involved.
>
> Sorry. What I'm writing about PAS is based on solid statistics and is
> firmly grounded in reality.
>
Then sow me the statistics, show me the research you are quoting here and
let me read it all so i can make my own judgements about whether it is fair
or biased or just someone trying to make a name for himself.
You said before it is not "science" ... if that is so, then show me the
science that says it isn't.
> I have a dramatic style, because I am a passionate person with strong
> convictions. I also like to bring issues into such focus that they be
> undeniable, especially to those who would rather pretend they do not
> exist and silence those against whom atrocities are committed in order
> that pretense of things being fine not be disturbed.
>
> Substance of my message is based in solid facts. You could have
> accused me of being histrionic if it wasn't. But it is.
>
> My writing style is my business, and I believe this is precisely the
> style that is necessary for the issue and audience at hand.
>
That's your opinion, and your style. You are welcome to it.
Now, got any to substanciate all your claims that it is supported by science
and legal studies or whatever. I really don;t believe you right now, and
that is my right and how I do business.
But, I;m as good as anyone in pushuing emotional buttons for effect. It's
actually very easy. True dialogue and discussion of facts is a lot damn
harder. :-)
>>Most people actually handle these
>> matters pretty well, so what we have here is really matters on the
>> extreme
>> edge of the bell curve. [ often fueled by pre-existing personality issues
>> or
>> related alchohol/drug abuse of those individuals ]
>>
>> If [ and i mean IF ] you carry on like this in front of, or directly to,
>> your daughter about these issues, and magnify the drama and the bias you
>> appear to me to hold about these matters on the NGs, then *maybe* that
>> could
>> be seen by a health professional as mental and/or emotional abuse of a
>> child.
>
> My daughter is two months old. Needless to say, she knows nothing
> about it.
>
> She is also being treated wonderfully both by my wife and by myself
> and is the happiest baby I've ever seen.
>
> It's very sneaky for you to insinuate such a thing.
>
No, I didn't insinuate anything, I spoke clearly and emphasised [ and i mean
IF ] quite openly. It was aheads up IF required. I have seen Parental
alientation from many many sides, I know it's not gender based, but that
women do it more effectively and with intent than most men. That's my
opinion based on my expereince of study and first hand in your face life of
these things for many years. I think I am pretty even keeled on the matter,
and yet I too feel strongly about it. Grown ups [ including myself at
times ] can be very childish when under extreme duress and grief.
With clear heads, it can all work out in the wash. people aren't "bad" all
the time, even if sometimes they behave badly. That's life too.
