|
Post by watchdog on Dec 27, 2007 6:23:33 GMT -5
Lets see my/their definition of not copoerating from examples of my dance with the cas. Refusal to sign medical consents. (if any Dr. has/had concerns by law I would be reported, so you don't need medical disclosure but letter from Dr. in court Refusing to stop telling my child I loved them in care without court order saying I must refrain from using that statement. (That really burned them) Refusing to discuss anything with cas pyschologist. (I felt there was little point and had taken child to Dr. that had better creditianals and who's report was complete opposite. Ie there doctor said child borderline retarded, my Dr said child high IQ and no mental disorders. Refusing to buy more clothes for child while in care bc 1 didn't need them, 2 you have em, you support them (I know it sounds like a real crappy attitude but it was 2 mos not 2 years. Refusal to give food recipes (no special diet required for heavens sake ask kids what they like to eat its called having a conversation. Refusal to sign any documents without lawyer present and still questioning it. Refusal to shut up when told by 22 year old worker and making statements like YOU should respect your elders.
Not following the I am not allowed any outside support rule and always having a witness with me at all times when on cas property including friends waiting in parking lot, also refering to my witness as witness and using no personal names. (kept them guessing who's who. Researching my legal avenues myself and not listening to lawyer and refusing to follow his advice and ordering him to do what I say. (I won that day, Judge dropped case. Had I listened to lawyer I would have had indefinite supervision order. Hmmm what would they threaten me with. Things like we will have the judge order you to stop telling child you love them. My answer, ok until then _____ I love you! We will force you into mental institution. Reply you can't 1 must be a threat to themselves or others. I am neither a threat to myself or you nor have I threatened you nor am I harmful to myself. I am strongly opinionated that is not the same. (cop they brought agreed with me, he could not take me and I had witness he would have been on the bad side by geting himself investigated for proffessional misconduct. Not worth it for his careeer folder. Not allowing them to bait me to lose my temper ( they scored full points for trying my last nerve but its a game. I would have 5 or more trying. Witness helpful for moral support.Taking pictures of child with questionable bruises from care. They never threatened me with not seeing child as I requested visitation from Judge myself as they told me no. I asked Judge at first apperance after apprehension he ordered to visits a week. Enjoying telling them to court order something if they wanted it, they tried it with me I enjoye telling them order it, reverse pyschology. Refusal to pass pleasentries, how I am is irrelevant as you will write down your own answer anyway.Refusing to tell them I am taping this conversation oops! They bog you down in nonsense its up to you wether you rise to it or not.
I did not use profanity with them, I did not raise my voice, most times I did not even pay attention to them, they would make statement I would answer put in it the court papers.In this manner they could get little communication with me so it made it a bit more difficult to lie and to prove the lie. They did offer to drop matter from court for long time supervision order, I refused with saying you started this in court and this is where we will finish it.
|
|
|
Post by l on Mar 21, 2008 21:02:23 GMT -5
for the first court do you have to be served to go to the court if so how much time before
|
|
|
Post by watchdog on Mar 22, 2008 2:24:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure I'll check into it. I do believe at anytime before the court date you could be served. If it's last minute go to the judge and tell them you haven't had time to prepare your defence.
Dean knows all the legal tricks and I'm sure he will be able to clarify it better.
|
|
|
Post by LL on Mar 22, 2008 7:49:32 GMT -5
They took my Children on a 5 Day Protective Care Notice with no reason on the application! There is a Court Tuesdays that I found out the CAS were holding and they are or have not served Me ,yet they have had plenty of time to prepare around 2 weeks now? They are trying to pull a fast one by Making offers to me at the office and trying to pretend there is No Court? How much info should I bring to Court to counter thier lies ? I have everything including recording all conversations between Social Workers and I, pictures,doctor and medical notes papers etc ! My Lawyer said this is a Tactic they pull so you miss the 1st Court and end up with a long Delay(3-6 months) in getting the Family back together before the next court date and you end up agreeing to thier visitation hours and other things instead of something mandated by the Judge right away if they do suceed in Placing them into Thier Care! My baby is only 5 months and I was Breastfeeding right up until this point ,, My baby wasnt growing as not enough fat in my Milk! He had a Gastro and was severe Vomiting and Dehydration almost 3 weeks Prior and Yet the Doctor sent Him home in this Underweight and Dehydrated Condition and prescribed not even Pedialyte yet they only come 3 weeks after thier Mistake after He had gained 4 Pounds with me and has lost and gained weight now in thier custody? They would have missed Specialist appointments that were made and they knew of, I had to remind the Social Workers of and my children go to!!!!! 3 days without changing clothes and are dirty behind the ears and are being constatly fed Alpha Ghetti for lunch (things they are using against me for the other children as they were all put through doctors right away and could find NOTHING WRONG with Them! They removed all my Children and My lawyer said that a recent ruling by a Judge that the Children that are fine and since they were not the initial cause of the investigation should be returned right away and That they are Purposely trying To make Me miss this 1st Early Court to get them all trapped into the System which they would probably get stuck in for the next 3-9 months before returning home if at all? They have said anything and everything to infuriate and excite or alarm me to get me angry and upset,, these are the most cruelest heartless people on the face of the planet!
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Mar 22, 2008 8:43:17 GMT -5
Morning LL First let me say there are hundreds of people behind you we all see and know the games that the CAS play. I swear they have a hand book that its given to all 50 plus agencies in Ontario. now you say your Lawyer knows what they are doing so get him and your evidance into court if they dont file there is no court date have your lawyer file get your court date. every minute the kids are gone is the face and endure negitive comments about you and this is call Parental Alienation
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Mar 22, 2008 8:44:29 GMT -5
Any attempt at alienating the children from the parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Mar 22, 2008 8:47:27 GMT -5
Criteria I involves the active blocking of access or contact between the child and the absent parent. The rationale used to justify it may well take many different forms. One of the most common is that of protection. It may be argued that the absent parent's parental judgment is inferior and, therefore, the child is much worse off from the visit. In extreme cases, this will take the form of allegations of child abuse, quite often sexual abuse. This will be addressed in more detail in Criteria II, but suffice it to say that often this is heard as a reason for visitation to be suspended or even terminated. On a more subtle and common level, an argument heard for the blocking of visitation is that seeing the absent parent is "unsettling" to the child, and that they need time "to adjust." The message here is that the absent parent is treated less like a key family member and more like an annoying acquaintance that the child must see at times. Over time, this pattern can have a seriously erosive effect on the child's relationship with the absent parent. An even more subtle expression of this is that the visitation is "inconvenient," thereby relegating it to the status of an errand or chore. Again the result is the erosion of the relationship between the child and the absent or "target" parent. One phenomenon often seen in this context is that any deviation from the schedule is used as a reason to cancel visitation entirely.
The common thread to all of these tactics is that one parent is superior and the other is not and, therefore, should be peripheral to the child's life. The alienating parent in these circumstances is acting inappropriately as a gatekeeper for the child to see the absent parent. When this occurs for periods of substantial time, the child is given the unspoken but clear message that one parent is senior to the other. Younger children are more vulnerable to this message and tend to take it uncritically; however, one can always detect elements of it echoed even into the teenage years. The important concept here is that each parent is given the responsibility to promote a positive relationship with the other parent. When this principle is violated in the context of blocking access on a consistent basis, one can assume that Criteria I has been, unmistakably identified.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Mar 22, 2008 8:48:23 GMT -5
The second criteria is related to false or unfounded accusations of abuse against the absent parent. The most strident expression of this is the false accusation of sexual abuse.(4) It has been well studied that the incident of false allegations of sexual abuse account for over half of those reported, when the parents are divorcing or are in conflict over some post dissolution issue.(5) This is especially the situation with small children who are more vulnerable to the manipulations implied by such false allegations. When the record shows that even one report of such abuse is ruled as unfounded, the interviewer is well advised to look for other expressions of false accusations.
Other examples of this might be found in allegations of physical abuse that investigators later rule as being unfounded. Interestingly our experience has been that there are fewer false allegations of physical abuse than of other forms of abuse, presumably because physical abuse leaves visible evidence. It is, of course, much easier to falsely accuse someone of something that leaves no physical sign and has no third party witnesses.
A much more common expression of this pattern would be that of what would be termed emotional abuse. When false allegations of emotional abuse are leveled, one often finds that what is present is actually differing parental judgment that is being framed as "abusive" by the absent parent. For example, one parent may let a child stay up later at night than the other parent would, and this scheduling might be termed as being "abusive" or "detrimental" to the child. Or one parent might introduce a new "significant other" to the child before the other parent believes that they should and this might also be called "abusive" to the child. Alternatively one parent might enroll a child in an activity with which the other parent disagrees and this activity is, in actuality, a difference of parental opinion that is now described as being abusive in nature. These examples, as trivial as they seem individually, may be suggestive of a theme of treating parental difference in inappropriately subjective judgmental terms. If this theme is present, all manner of things can be described in ways that convey the message of abuse, either directly or indirectly. When this phenomenon occurs in literally thousands of different ways and times, each of which seems insignificant on its own, the emotional atmosphere that it creates carries a clearly alienating effect on the child.
Obviously, this type of acrimony is very common in dissolution actions but such conflict should not necessarily be mistaken or be taken as illustrative of the PAS syndrome; however, the criteria is clearly present and identifiable when the parent is eager to hurl abuse allegations, rather than being cautious, careful. and even reluctant to do so. This latter stance is more in keeping with the parent's responsibility to encourage and affirmatively support a relationship with the other parent. The responsible parent will only allege abuse after he or she has tried and failed to rationalize why the issue at hand is not abusive. Simply put, the responsible parent will give the other parent the benefit of the doubt when such allegations arise. He or she will, if anything, err on the side of denial, whereas the alienating parent will not miss an opportunity to accuse the other parent. When this theme is present in a clear and consistent way, this criteria for PAS is met.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Mar 22, 2008 9:06:27 GMT -5
this very important to watch for and put forward in a court!!!!!
The third of the criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is probably the least described or identified, but critically is one of the most important. It has to do with the existence of a positive relationship between the minor children and the now absent or nonresidential parents, prior to the separation; and a substantial deterioration, of it since then. Such a recognized decline does not occur on its own. It is, therefore, one of the most important indicators of the presence of alienation as well. as a full measure of its relative "success." By way of example, if a father had a good and involved relationship with the children prior to the separation, and a very distant one since, then one can only assume without explicit proof to the contrary that something caused it to change. If this parents are clearly trying to maintain a positive relationship with the children through observance of visitation and other activities and the children do not want to see them or have them involved in their lives, then one can only speculate that an alienation process may have been in operation. Children do not naturally lose interest in and become distant from their parents simply by virtue of the absence of those parents, Also, healthy and established parental relationships do not erode naturally of their own accord. They must be attacked. Therefore, any dramatic change in this area is virtually always an indicator of an alienation process that has had some success in the past. Most notably, if a careful evaluation of the pre-separation parental relationship is not made, its omission creates an impression that the troubled or even alienated status that exists since is more or lees an accurate summary of what existed previously. Note that nothing could be further from the truth! An alienated or even partially or intermittently alienated relationship with the parent and the children after the separation is more accurately a distortion of the real parental relationship in question. Its follow-through is often overlooked in the hysterical atmosphere that is often present in these cases. A careful practitioner well knows that a close examination is warranted and that it must be conducted with the utmost detail and scrutiny.
If this piece of the puzzle is left out, the consequences can be quite devastating for the survival of this relationship. Also, without this component, the court can be easily swayed into premature closure or fooled into thinking that the turmoil of the separation environment is representative of the true parent-child relationship. Once this ruling is made by the court, it is an exacting challenge to correct its perception.
In a separate but related issue, a word should be said about the use of experts. First, it must be understood that all mental health professionals are not aware of nor know how to treat the PAS phenomenon. In fact, when a mental health professional unfamiliar with PAS is called upon to make a recommendation about custody, access, or related issues, he or she potentially can do more harm than good. For example, if the psychologist fails to investigate the pre-separation relationship of the parents and the children, he or she may very easily mistake the current acrimony in that relationship to be representative of it, and recommend that the children should have less visitation with that parent, obviously supporting the undiagnosed PAS that is still in progress. If that expert also fails to evaluate critically the abuse claims or the agenda of the claimant, they may be taken at face value and again potentially support the undiagnosed PAS. If that professional is not also sensitive to the subtleties of access and contact blocking as its motivator, he or she may potentially support it, thereby contributing to the PAS process. When these things occur, the mental health professional expert has actually become part of the PAS, albeit unwittingly. Alarmingly, this happens often. Suffice it to say, if PAS is suspected, the attorney should closely and carefully evaluate the mental health professional's investigation and conclusion. Failure to do so can cause irreparable harm to the case, and, ultimately to the children.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Mar 22, 2008 9:28:37 GMT -5
The fourth criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is admittedly more psychological than the first three. It refers to an obvious fear reaction on the part of the children, of displeasing or disagreeing with the CAS or foster-parent in regard to the absent or potential target the Birth parents. Simply put, an alienating foster parent operates by the adage, "My way or the highway." If the children disobey this directive, especially in expressing positive approval of the absent parents, the consequences can be very serious. It is not uncommon for a foster-parent or a CAS worker to reject the child(ren), often telling him or her that they should go live with the birth parents. When this does occur one often sees that this threat is not carried out, yet it operates more as a message of constant warning. The child, in effect, is put into a position of being the CAS or foster parent's "agent'' and is continually being put through various loyalty tests. The important issue here is that the CAS or foster parent thus forces the child to choose . This, of course, is in direct opposition to a child's emotional well being. In order to fully appreciate this scenario, one must realize that the PAS process operates in a "fear based" environment. It is the installation of fear by the CAS or Foster Parent to the minor children that is the fuel by which this pattern is driven; this fear taps into what psychoanalysis tell us is the most basic emotion inherent in human nature--the fear of abandonment. Children under these conditions live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal. When the child does dare to defy the CAS or Foster Parent, they quickly learn that there is a serious price to pay. Consequently, children who live such lives develop an acute sense of vigilance over displeasing the CAS or foster parent. The sensitized observer can see this in visitation plans that suddenly change for no apparent reason. For example, when the appointed time approaches, the child suddenly changes his or her tune and begins to loudly protest a visit that was not previously complained about. It is in these instances that a court, once suspecting PAS must enforce in strict terms the visitation schedule which otherwise would not have occurred or would have been ignored.
The CAS can most often be found posturing bewilderment regarding the sudden change in their child's feelings about the visit. In fact, the CAS often will appear to be the one supporting visitation. This scenario is a very common one in PAS families. It is standard because it encapsulates and exposes, if only for an instant, the fear-based core of the alienation process. Another way to express this concept would be that whenever the child is given any significant choice in the visitation, he or she is put in the position to act out a loyalty to the CAS or Foster parent's wishes by refusing to have the visitation at all with the absent parents. Failure to do so opens the door for that child's being abandoned by the parents with whom the child lives the vast majority of the time. Children, under these circumstances, will simply not opt on their own far a free choice. The court must thus act expeditiously to protect them and employ a host of specific and available remedies.(6) As a consequence of the foregoing, these children learn to manipulate. Children often play one parent against the other in an effort to gain some advantage. In the case of PAS, the same dynamic operates at more desperate level. No longer manipulating to gain advantage, these children learn to manipulate just to survive. They become expert beyond their years at reading the emotional environment, telling partial truths, and then telling out-and-out lies. One must, however, remember that these are survival strategies that they were forced to learn in order to keep peace at home and avoid emotional attack by the residential parent. Given this understanding, it is perhaps easier to see why children, in an effort to cope with this situation, often find it easier if they begin to internalize the cas or foster parent's perceptions of the absent parent and begin to echo these feelings. This is one of the most compelling and dramatic effects of PAS, that is, hearing a child vilifying the absent parent and joining the CAS or Foster parent in such attacks. If one is not sensitive to the "fear-based" core at the heart of this, it is difficult not to take the child's protests at face value. This, of course, is compounded when the expert is also not sensitive to this powerful fear component, and believes that the child is voicing his or her own inner feelings in endorsing the "no visitation" plan.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Robinson on Mar 22, 2008 9:39:34 GMT -5
All the criteria listed above can be found independent of each other in highly contested dissolutions, but remember that the appearance of some of them does not always constitute PAS. When all four are clearly present, however, add the possibility of real abuse has been reasonably ruled out, the parental alienation process is operative. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is succeeding in that the children are being successfully alienated from the birth parents. The best predictor of successful alienation is directly related to the success of the CAS at keeping the children from the birth parents. When there are substantial periods in which they do not see the parents, the children are more likely to be poisoned by the process. Another variable that predicts success is the child's age. Younger children generally are more vulnerable than older ones. Also, another variable is the depth and degree of involvement of the birth parent-child relationship. The longer and more involved that relationship, the less vulnerable will be the children to successful alienation. The final predictor is the parental tenacity of the birth parent. A targeted parent often gives up and walks away, thus greatly increasing the chances of successful alienation.
The question remains: What if all four criteria are present, but the children are not successfully alienated? Should this failure at alienation be seen as nullifying the attempt at alienation? The answer to that should be a resounding "No!" It should be, but often it is not. It is very common to read a psychological evaluation or a GAL's report that identified PAS but then notes that since it was not successful, it should not be taken very seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any attempt at alienating the children from the parents should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of child protection, which is to promote and encourage a positive and loving relationship with the birth parent, and the concept of shared parental responsibility.
It is my feeling that when attempted PAS has been identified, successful or not, it must be dealt with swiftly by the court. If it is not, it will contaminate and quietly control all other parenting issues and then lead only to unhappiness, frustration, and, lastly, parental estrangement.
|
|
|
Post by LL on Mar 22, 2008 15:43:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the background info! I will be reading up on this!! What I really wanted was some insight on what My Actions should or could be on that 1st Court which The CAS is trying to seem that it is not really being held and WHY?
I want the Children to be distastefull to them in Court and the best way to crawl up under thier skin in a kind and gentle way and make myself as much of an annoyance as possible!?
|
|
|
Post by LL on Mar 22, 2008 15:53:14 GMT -5
Morning LL First let me say there are hundreds of people behind you we all see and know the games that the CAS play. I swear they have a hand book that its given to all 50 plus agencies in Ontario. now you say your Lawyer knows what they are doing so get him and your evidance into court if they dont file there is no court date have your lawyer file get your court date. every minute the kids are gone is the face and endure negitive comments about you and this is call Parental Alienation Children are supposed to be returned on the 5th day of the order or they are supposed to serve me which they are trying to say dosent exist but the court is tuesday morning according to the court clerk? Also one of my childrens names is miss spelled?
|
|
|
Post by LL on May 24, 2008 11:38:07 GMT -5
3 home 2 to go! constant battle!
|
|