http://www.news. com.au/heraldsun /story/0, 21985,22494154- 25717,00. html
Herald Sun (Melbourne)
Females face the front line
By Andrew Bolt
The latest police Gazette has great news for women - unless they're women in urgent need of police with muscle, Andrew Bolt writes.
Or, as constables Sharna and Nicole found last Sunday, they're police who need that muscle themselves.
The Gazette notes that squad five of this year's recruits has been sworn in as constables, so congratulations to Sylvia, Simone, Skye and the rest.
In fact, nine of these 16 new constables are women, which should thrill those people in heavy knits who believe in gender equality in all things -- from policing to childbirth.
Such heavy recruiting of women is now typical under Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon, who wants our force to be more feminised and "anti-authoritarian ". So 14 of the 21 new constables of squad four, and 11 of the 18 of squad three, were women too -- which means only a third of all new officers since July have been men.
What a triumph for Nixon. It shows what you can do when you try hard to promote people with the right gender, rather than the right qualifications.
And, no, I'm not being too harsh. You see, one of those qualifications now being overlooked to help the ladies is the one requiring new police meet fairly stern physical standards.
The old tests that demanded recruits drag weighted tyres at speed, or scale 2m walls, have been relaxed or scrapped since the Labor Government came to power and started to preach gender politics.
How well that change worked. Soon the Auditor-General could note: "Since 1999, the proportion of female applicants who successfully completed the (fitness) test is 80 per cent, compared with approximately 30 per cent in the 1990s before the changes were made."
This seems to be only good news to Nixon, who prefers police to back off rather than biff, even when confronting the rampaging lawless, and who now has officers in Frankston writing letters to repeat offenders asking them, pretty please, to stop.
But Nixon's feminisation of the force has not just given us police who seem unwilling to stand up to a rabble -- as we saw at last year's G20 riots -- but police who seem physically unable to.
Frustrated male officers have told me of having to work on patrol with women who couldn't be counted on in a confrontation with hoons, needing as much police protection as the public.
Now, I read the incident fact sheet that poor constables Sharna and Nicole filed on Sunday to explain how Sharna came to scratch her hands.
"(We) responded to YCT (Youths Causing Trouble alert), on arrival observed approx 30 males walking Nth in Clarendon St throwing flares after leaving a soccer match at the Bob Jane Stadium", the women wrote.
"Members att(empted) to s/t (speak to) one particular male who was in possession of a flare.
"As members have attempted to s/t male, other males in group have pushed members away and closed ranks around suspect. Members were repeatedly pushed away from suspect.
"During scuffle member has dropped set of car keys belonging to police va. . . During scuffle u/k (unknown) person has stolen keys . . .
"While members have backed off awaiting for assistance, males have decamped . . . Keys not recovered." And so a police van was put out of action.
Of course, confronting 30 youths gone giddy over the soccer is a bit of an ask even for two male officers, so I'm reluctant to criticise these women.
Yet, I wonder if the louts who pushed them around would have dared do the same to a couple of six-foot male officers with that authoritarian attitude Nixon has vowed to destroy.
That said, no real harm done . . . this time. But one day this lack of frontline muscle might be fatal.
I say that after NSW police last month issued this press statement: "Senior police have praised members of the public who came to the assistance of two female officers . . .
"The constables . . . attended a car dealership . . . after receiving reports of a man causing problems . . .
"The policewomen were speaking with the man when his behaviour turned aggressive and violent. The officers attempted to subdue the man with capsicum spray . . . He then allegedly assaulted both officers before unsuccessfully attempting to remove one of the constables' firearms from her holster. The man . . . then allegedly pushed the other officer into a parked vehicle, causing her to hit her head. As a result, she dropped her baton, which was picked up by the offender.
"He was allegedly about to strike the officer with the baton when he was restrained by up to 10 passers-by . . ."
God know what the man, apparently schizophrenic, might have done had he got hold of that gun.
Again, a caveat: male officers can also find it very hard to restrain a struggling man, and some have come off the worst when trying to.
Yet, I suspect the public won't often have to rescue two male officers as the public had to rescue these two women.
I also suspect few women could have saved themselves the way acting Sergeant Shane Gray did last year. Again I quote, this time from a report on an inquest which closed this week:
"A policeman was in fear of his life when he shot dead a man he pulled over for stealing petrol in remote Western Australia . . .
"(A witness) told the inquest today the officer did not know (William John) Watkins was on the run for the rape and double homicide of sisters Colleen Irwin 32, and Laura Irwin, 21, whose bodies were found in Melbourne on January 28, 2006 . . . Watkins . . . attacked the unsuspecting officer,repeatedly bashing and kicking him, breaking his nose . . . Fearing for his life, Sgt Gray shot Watkins . . ."
Would a Sgt Tanya have survived or stopped this double killer?
It's true police aren't often called upon to use their strength. But it's reckless to pretend officers on patrol don't need to be able to handle themselves physically, especially now street violence is getting luridly worse.
Even the very women who gain most from the feminising of the force worry that perhaps the standards have been dropped too much, after all.
This time I'll quote the minutes of a police women's support group, which met in Echuca and discussed an earlier article in which I raised these concerns: "(T)here was general agreement that training requirements at the (police) academy had been dropped not just for women but for both sexes. The feeling of members is that the standard of recruits has been dropped for both sexes."
Of course, these 16 women insisted this was not to be "seen as a female gender issue" -- although the standards were dropped precisely to get more women into the force.
Well, job done. But even feminists on the force are now uneasy about the results, and someone -- maybe them, maybe you -- may soon get hurt.
---
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Is it not anti -social for the NZ Govt to discriminate against fatherhood ??
These early intervention social justice agencies are the same ones described as being that tainted with radical feminist ideology's they're unavailable to deliver a fair and balanced service. It is sad the fate of our children are in the hands of the unscrupulous whose masquerade as caring individuals . In reality, people like the Children's Commissioner and the Minister in charge of the most dysfunctional department in kiwiland CYFS are just two faced closest lesbian communists. These women don't care about children as they are just selfish , bitter and twisted hateful feminazi drop kicks, who should be kept well away from all children .
It is sad that New Zealand is a social experiment that has gone horribly wrong and only the massive injection of new blood into our political infrastructure will alleviate the problem because this government does not recognize equality of the sexes . The government is guilty of unlawful gender discrimination and the Minister of Courts has not acted on a United Nations directive addressing the issue ?
The Labour Government are Nazi criminals and many of them should be in prison for abuse of power while in positions of authority .
What a disgraceful mess and I am ashamed to be the Father of four New Zealand born children who all will be advised to leave this country asap. I am not having bumbling bureaucratic idiots stuffing up my gran children . The scum of the earth judicial system has already ruined the childhoods of my four children and killed my mother .
New Zealand the land of long black lies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4218792a11.html
Anti-social behaviour plan could target three -year -olds.
By ARWEN HANN - The Press | Saturday, 29 September 2007
Plans to screen and treat children as young as three are part of new Government plans to cut anti-social behaviour.
The six-year multi-agency plan has been developed by the ministries of education, health and social development and is designed to increase the number of children getting help for severe anti-social behaviour and conduct disorder.
It is estimated that up to 5 per cent of primary and intermediate pupils have problems with conduct or display severe anti-social behaviour.
The report said it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of intervention services.
However, it said "key challenges" had been identified, including "inadequate and inconsistent mechanisms for identifying and determining eligibility for services for young people" and "gaps in the availability of specialist services".
The plan proposes developing systematic screening for three to seven-year-olds within the education sector.
Treatment plans would include parenting classes and education for teachers on how to deal with disruptive children, as well as a "behaviour change programme" for the child.
A referral for mental health treatment could be included.
The foreword, signed by Education Minister Steve Maharey, Health Minister Pete Hodgson and Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson, said behaviour problems were the "single most important predictor of later chronic anti-social behaviour problems, including poor mental health, academic underachievement, early school-leaving, teenage parenthood, delinquency, unemployment and substance abuse".
Canterbury University College of Education senior lecturer John Church, who contributed to the report, said early intervention was more likely to succeed.
"The critical element is parental involvement and the thing about working with young kids is most parents want the best for their kids," he said. "When their children are three or four, most parents will come on board. By age 12 or 13, the parents usually want out because they have been worn down."
It was also more cost-effective. "It is possible to have a little parenting training, which is a good influence on the children for about $4000 per case at the age of five to six," he said.
Church said that by the age of four it was possible to distinguish between children who were a little badly behaved and those with severe problems.
He said he would also like to see teachers given more training to identify children with severe behavioural problems.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie said the Government needed to back up its words with actions. `There are plenty of organisations out there who are working with these people and know them and what they are looking for."
He said he had similar concerns about the plan to those he had had about Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro's plan to screen all families for signs of abuse. "We need to be targeting that percentage of high-risk families we know about rather than trying to criminalise all families."
The New Zealand Educational Institute said it supported inter-agency plans because the onus for dealing with anti-social behaviour should not fall just on teachers.
It is sad that New Zealand is a social experiment that has gone horribly wrong and only the massive injection of new blood into our political infrastructure will alleviate the problem because this government does not recognize equality of the sexes . The government is guilty of unlawful gender discrimination and the Minister of Courts has not acted on a United Nations directive addressing the issue ?
The Labour Government are Nazi criminals and many of them should be in prison for abuse of power while in positions of authority .
What a disgraceful mess and I am ashamed to be the Father of four New Zealand born children who all will be advised to leave this country asap. I am not having bumbling bureaucratic idiots stuffing up my gran children . The scum of the earth judicial system has already ruined the childhoods of my four children and killed my mother .
New Zealand the land of long black lies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4218792a11.html
Anti-social behaviour plan could target three -year -olds.
By ARWEN HANN - The Press | Saturday, 29 September 2007
Plans to screen and treat children as young as three are part of new Government plans to cut anti-social behaviour.
The six-year multi-agency plan has been developed by the ministries of education, health and social development and is designed to increase the number of children getting help for severe anti-social behaviour and conduct disorder.
It is estimated that up to 5 per cent of primary and intermediate pupils have problems with conduct or display severe anti-social behaviour.
The report said it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of intervention services.
However, it said "key challenges" had been identified, including "inadequate and inconsistent mechanisms for identifying and determining eligibility for services for young people" and "gaps in the availability of specialist services".
The plan proposes developing systematic screening for three to seven-year-olds within the education sector.
Treatment plans would include parenting classes and education for teachers on how to deal with disruptive children, as well as a "behaviour change programme" for the child.
A referral for mental health treatment could be included.
The foreword, signed by Education Minister Steve Maharey, Health Minister Pete Hodgson and Associate Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson, said behaviour problems were the "single most important predictor of later chronic anti-social behaviour problems, including poor mental health, academic underachievement, early school-leaving, teenage parenthood, delinquency, unemployment and substance abuse".
Canterbury University College of Education senior lecturer John Church, who contributed to the report, said early intervention was more likely to succeed.
"The critical element is parental involvement and the thing about working with young kids is most parents want the best for their kids," he said. "When their children are three or four, most parents will come on board. By age 12 or 13, the parents usually want out because they have been worn down."
It was also more cost-effective. "It is possible to have a little parenting training, which is a good influence on the children for about $4000 per case at the age of five to six," he said.
Church said that by the age of four it was possible to distinguish between children who were a little badly behaved and those with severe problems.
He said he would also like to see teachers given more training to identify children with severe behavioural problems.
Family First director Bob McCoskrie said the Government needed to back up its words with actions. `There are plenty of organisations out there who are working with these people and know them and what they are looking for."
He said he had similar concerns about the plan to those he had had about Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro's plan to screen all families for signs of abuse. "We need to be targeting that percentage of high-risk families we know about rather than trying to criminalise all families."
The New Zealand Educational Institute said it supported inter-agency plans because the onus for dealing with anti-social behaviour should not fall just on teachers.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Simple creatures - Men Are Just Happier People :-)
Men Are Just Happier People. What do you expect from such simple
creatures?
Your last name stays put.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans take care of themselves.
Chocolate is just another snack.
You can never be pregnant.
You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal.
You can tell your children all about the birds, bees and that money ain't grow on trees.
You can become a philosopher if your marriage fails.
You can climb Mount Everest if you want too.
Your house can feel like a motel and you feel like a on call - get here now taxi service - for your teenage daughters.
You can pay all the Ministry of Justice speeding fines and penalty add on's after the kids take the car for a quick spin without your knowledge.
You can boot the cat everytime you see your criminal prime minister on your stolen TV set .
You never have to drive to another petrol station restroom because this one is just too icky.
You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
Same work, more pay.
Wrinkles add character.
Wedding dress-$5000. Tux rental-$100.
People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them.
The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected.
New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
One mood all the time.
You can walk down the street with a big bunch of flowers and all the women wish .
Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You know stuff about tanks and rocket propelled grenade launchers.
You can watch the movie Saving Private Ryan 1 million times .
A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
You can open all your own jars.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.
Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
You almost never have strap problems in public.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
Everything on your face stays its original colour ( unless you are wacko Michael Jackson ).
You can become the leader of a country with the help of a few soldiers.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
You can be like comedian Michael Barrymore and put dead fags in your swimming pool.
You can be like Stalin and say "we have deposed the czars of the earth and we shall now dethrone the Lord of heaven."
You can be like Alice Cooper and be the nicest guy in the world playing the worse guy in the world.
You can be a liar and still be US president , just ask Bill Clinton .
You can play with toys all your life and you have no need for a dildo.
You can dress up as a viking and go and yell obscenities at the referee at a rugby stadium while sculling copious amounts of speights nectar.
You can say sexism sucks , when a women loses her job it is tragic , but if a man loses his job then he is a failure.
Your belly usually hides your big hips.
One wallet and one pair of shoes -- one colour for all seasons.
You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
You can "do" your nails with a pocket knife.
You can become a fighter pilot in any other country than NZ because the beast Hell Klark doesn't like them .
You can be told by Air New Zealand cabin crew not to sit next to children.
You can reply to the judge at the court house when he asks your occupation "nun".
You can let your ears get hairy without a worry .
You can shit faced at a pub without a hassle .
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a moustache.
You can get ready for a important function in 5 minutes .
You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.
You can put an air brushed fraudulent tax payer funded Smellon Klark pledge card on your trusty dart board ,then you can go down to the local watering hole and hyperbole your mates and boast that it has 9 trillion direct hits as evidence.
You can get shoot a 20 litre paint bucket at 1600 meters after running a Marathon in the nude.
You can be a jackass who pays for his women to have three pets in her life ,a mink in her closet , a jaguar in her garage and a tiger in her bed .
You can hang yourself when the bastards from IRD throw you into the child support extortion feminazi machine .
You can get to sleep at night by counting the amount of bullets you would like to fire into a corrupt feminist cult regime presently destroying a country that you feel very passionate about .
You can become a women if you want just like George and Jacky did .
You can name your pet monkey Tuku, and get a job as judge or the Human Rights Review Tribunal where you can pay homicidal maniacs huge amounts of taxpayer funds for hurt feelings.
You can get police bail after you bludgeon your twin sons on the head with a hammer.
You can shot by police if you lose the plot with a golf club or hammer - do be vigilant those who are golfers and carpenters .
You can blame the dismal downfall of the integrity and moral stature of New Zealand on demented women affected badly by misandry .
No wonder men are happier.
creatures?
Your last name stays put.
The garage is all yours.
Wedding plans take care of themselves.
Chocolate is just another snack.
You can never be pregnant.
You can wear a white T-shirt to a water park.
Car mechanics tell you the truth.
The world is your urinal.
You can tell your children all about the birds, bees and that money ain't grow on trees.
You can become a philosopher if your marriage fails.
You can climb Mount Everest if you want too.
Your house can feel like a motel and you feel like a on call - get here now taxi service - for your teenage daughters.
You can pay all the Ministry of Justice speeding fines and penalty add on's after the kids take the car for a quick spin without your knowledge.
You can boot the cat everytime you see your criminal prime minister on your stolen TV set .
You never have to drive to another petrol station restroom because this one is just too icky.
You don't have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
Same work, more pay.
Wrinkles add character.
Wedding dress-$5000. Tux rental-$100.
People never stare at your chest when you're talking to them.
The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected.
New shoes don't cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
One mood all the time.
You can walk down the street with a big bunch of flowers and all the women wish .
Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
You know stuff about tanks and rocket propelled grenade launchers.
You can watch the movie Saving Private Ryan 1 million times .
A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
You can open all your own jars.
You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.
Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
You almost never have strap problems in public.
You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
Everything on your face stays its original colour ( unless you are wacko Michael Jackson ).
You can become the leader of a country with the help of a few soldiers.
The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
You only have to shave your face and neck.
You can be like comedian Michael Barrymore and put dead fags in your swimming pool.
You can be like Stalin and say "we have deposed the czars of the earth and we shall now dethrone the Lord of heaven."
You can be like Alice Cooper and be the nicest guy in the world playing the worse guy in the world.
You can be a liar and still be US president , just ask Bill Clinton .
You can play with toys all your life and you have no need for a dildo.
You can dress up as a viking and go and yell obscenities at the referee at a rugby stadium while sculling copious amounts of speights nectar.
You can say sexism sucks , when a women loses her job it is tragic , but if a man loses his job then he is a failure.
Your belly usually hides your big hips.
One wallet and one pair of shoes -- one colour for all seasons.
You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
You can "do" your nails with a pocket knife.
You can become a fighter pilot in any other country than NZ because the beast Hell Klark doesn't like them .
You can be told by Air New Zealand cabin crew not to sit next to children.
You can reply to the judge at the court house when he asks your occupation "nun".
You can let your ears get hairy without a worry .
You can shit faced at a pub without a hassle .
You have freedom of choice concerning growing a moustache.
You can get ready for a important function in 5 minutes .
You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.
You can put an air brushed fraudulent tax payer funded Smellon Klark pledge card on your trusty dart board ,then you can go down to the local watering hole and hyperbole your mates and boast that it has 9 trillion direct hits as evidence.
You can get shoot a 20 litre paint bucket at 1600 meters after running a Marathon in the nude.
You can be a jackass who pays for his women to have three pets in her life ,a mink in her closet , a jaguar in her garage and a tiger in her bed .
You can hang yourself when the bastards from IRD throw you into the child support extortion feminazi machine .
You can get to sleep at night by counting the amount of bullets you would like to fire into a corrupt feminist cult regime presently destroying a country that you feel very passionate about .
You can become a women if you want just like George and Jacky did .
You can name your pet monkey Tuku, and get a job as judge or the Human Rights Review Tribunal where you can pay homicidal maniacs huge amounts of taxpayer funds for hurt feelings.
You can get police bail after you bludgeon your twin sons on the head with a hammer.
You can shot by police if you lose the plot with a golf club or hammer - do be vigilant those who are golfers and carpenters .
You can blame the dismal downfall of the integrity and moral stature of New Zealand on demented women affected badly by misandry .
No wonder men are happier.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Police move body of gunned down man ??
In the Christchurch Press today, front page is a witness , a father with his 3 children appear in a heart wrenching photo under the headline Friends see shot man die .
One of the kids ,the 5 -year old lad, asked a police officer attending the disturbing incident ;
" Why did you shoot my friend?"
The comment is a sad indictment for police culture ;
"Us cops don't get paid enough to go home in a box."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4216083a10.html
Thursday, 27 September 2007
Police move body of gunned down man
LATEST: Police have removed the body of a man gunned down by police last night in front of friends and have revealed he took 25 minutes to die.
At an early morning press conference, police said the 37-year-old man, whose identity has not been released, was shot by an officer following a domestic incident.
The man was shot about 8.36pm on Stanmore Road and died shortly after 9pm, police district commander Sandra Manderson said.
The man's family in the North Island have been informed of his death.
Police were called to the incident at a house off Avonside Drive, Linwood, at 8.26pm.
A man was reported to be smashing a flat where he lived with a hammer.
The man left the house and walked to nearby Stanmore Road.
Police found the man attacking a vehicle on Stanmore Road, still armed with a hammer.
Manderson said the two officers were called to the incident, one of them armed.
Officers gave the man a verbal warning but the man continued to make threats against them.
SERIOUS THREAT
Manderson said the police officer who shot the man felt his life was "under serious threat". Manderson said the man was threatening serious harm to the police officer.
"Obviously they were serious threats ... serious enough for a shooting to take place. Obviously very serious," she said.
Police were trying to confirm if other weapons were involved.
"At this stage I'm only aware of the hammer ... but we're doing inquiries. There's a possibility other weapons were involved," she said.
Manderson said she was unaware if the officer who shot the man had attempted to use pepper spray on him first.
Asked if a taser might have been a better option had one been available, she said: "I can't comment, because I wasn't there. Of course it would be much preferable if the person wasn't dead."
POLICE BACK DECISION
The Police Association today backed the officer involved in the shooting.
President Greg O'Connor said the officer would be offered the association's support.
"This is the situation every police officer dreads.
"It's a possibility police face every time they go on shift. Even so, nobody goes to work expecting to be placed in a position where they are forced to shoot somebody," Mr O'Connor said.
He said it was inevitable that "armchair critics" would speculate and make judgments about what could or should have been done.
"But the officer involved was the person who was there, facing the situation, who had the training, and who was faced with the responsibility of actually making a decision," he said.
"It's a hell of a decision to have to make. I know that officer will be feeling absolutely shattered by that experience."
EMAILS INVESTIGATED
An email circulated by a Christchurch police officer calling for police to shoot offenders armed with knives had no connection to last night's shooting, Manderson said.
Police are investigating the original source of the email, which included graphic pictures in a bid to get police officers to wear their stab-resistant vests and the words: "If you've got a knife, then you should die ... period."
"It's certainly unfortunate (the shooting) happened, but it's got no relationship to the email whatsoever," Manderson said.
INQUIRY LAUNCHED
The officer involved in the incident is still being interviewed by police and has not been stood down.
Manderson said a homicide inquiry and a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) inquiry had begun into the incident.
"The homicide inquiry will be run parallel to the Police Complaints Authority inquiry using separate teams of staff," she said.
The PCA staff were due in Christchurch this morning.
EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT
Last night, a neighbour, who did not want to be identified, said four shots were fired.
"We heard sounds like the dull thud of a panel being hit and then a car alarm going off. "There were more thuds and then the four shots," he said.
When he looked out the window there was a body in the road.
"I could see him lying in the road and then they put a sheet over him later. I heard the guy across the road saying Steve had been shot."
The neighbour, who had experience with firearms, said the shots sounded like a light-calibre pistol.
Three ambulances attended the scene but a spokesman said nobody was taken to hospital.
Another neighbour said the police told all the residents to go inside because the area was now a crime scene.
Manderson said she had asked for the police kaumatua, the Rev Maurice Gray, to ensure the cultural process of tapu lifting would be carried out correctly when the scene examination was complete.
Last night's victim was the 21st killed by police since 1941.
The last to die before this incident was Haidar Ebbadi Mahdi, 37, shot by a police officer at his home in Auckland in August 2004.
Mahdi was killed as he held his wife in a choke hold with a knife at her throat.
The policeman who fired the shot had already been stabbed by Mahdi.
Police were later cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting.
Ends.
One of the kids ,the 5 -year old lad, asked a police officer attending the disturbing incident ;
" Why did you shoot my friend?"
The comment is a sad indictment for police culture ;
"Us cops don't get paid enough to go home in a box."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4216083a10.html
Thursday, 27 September 2007
Police move body of gunned down man
LATEST: Police have removed the body of a man gunned down by police last night in front of friends and have revealed he took 25 minutes to die.
At an early morning press conference, police said the 37-year-old man, whose identity has not been released, was shot by an officer following a domestic incident.
The man was shot about 8.36pm on Stanmore Road and died shortly after 9pm, police district commander Sandra Manderson said.
The man's family in the North Island have been informed of his death.
Police were called to the incident at a house off Avonside Drive, Linwood, at 8.26pm.
A man was reported to be smashing a flat where he lived with a hammer.
The man left the house and walked to nearby Stanmore Road.
Police found the man attacking a vehicle on Stanmore Road, still armed with a hammer.
Manderson said the two officers were called to the incident, one of them armed.
Officers gave the man a verbal warning but the man continued to make threats against them.
SERIOUS THREAT
Manderson said the police officer who shot the man felt his life was "under serious threat". Manderson said the man was threatening serious harm to the police officer.
"Obviously they were serious threats ... serious enough for a shooting to take place. Obviously very serious," she said.
Police were trying to confirm if other weapons were involved.
"At this stage I'm only aware of the hammer ... but we're doing inquiries. There's a possibility other weapons were involved," she said.
Manderson said she was unaware if the officer who shot the man had attempted to use pepper spray on him first.
Asked if a taser might have been a better option had one been available, she said: "I can't comment, because I wasn't there. Of course it would be much preferable if the person wasn't dead."
POLICE BACK DECISION
The Police Association today backed the officer involved in the shooting.
President Greg O'Connor said the officer would be offered the association's support.
"This is the situation every police officer dreads.
"It's a possibility police face every time they go on shift. Even so, nobody goes to work expecting to be placed in a position where they are forced to shoot somebody," Mr O'Connor said.
He said it was inevitable that "armchair critics" would speculate and make judgments about what could or should have been done.
"But the officer involved was the person who was there, facing the situation, who had the training, and who was faced with the responsibility of actually making a decision," he said.
"It's a hell of a decision to have to make. I know that officer will be feeling absolutely shattered by that experience."
EMAILS INVESTIGATED
An email circulated by a Christchurch police officer calling for police to shoot offenders armed with knives had no connection to last night's shooting, Manderson said.
Police are investigating the original source of the email, which included graphic pictures in a bid to get police officers to wear their stab-resistant vests and the words: "If you've got a knife, then you should die ... period."
"It's certainly unfortunate (the shooting) happened, but it's got no relationship to the email whatsoever," Manderson said.
INQUIRY LAUNCHED
The officer involved in the incident is still being interviewed by police and has not been stood down.
Manderson said a homicide inquiry and a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) inquiry had begun into the incident.
"The homicide inquiry will be run parallel to the Police Complaints Authority inquiry using separate teams of staff," she said.
The PCA staff were due in Christchurch this morning.
EYE-WITNESS ACCOUNT
Last night, a neighbour, who did not want to be identified, said four shots were fired.
"We heard sounds like the dull thud of a panel being hit and then a car alarm going off. "There were more thuds and then the four shots," he said.
When he looked out the window there was a body in the road.
"I could see him lying in the road and then they put a sheet over him later. I heard the guy across the road saying Steve had been shot."
The neighbour, who had experience with firearms, said the shots sounded like a light-calibre pistol.
Three ambulances attended the scene but a spokesman said nobody was taken to hospital.
Another neighbour said the police told all the residents to go inside because the area was now a crime scene.
Manderson said she had asked for the police kaumatua, the Rev Maurice Gray, to ensure the cultural process of tapu lifting would be carried out correctly when the scene examination was complete.
Last night's victim was the 21st killed by police since 1941.
The last to die before this incident was Haidar Ebbadi Mahdi, 37, shot by a police officer at his home in Auckland in August 2004.
Mahdi was killed as he held his wife in a choke hold with a knife at her throat.
The policeman who fired the shot had already been stabbed by Mahdi.
Police were later cleared of any wrongdoing in the shooting.
Ends.
Why Cops Shoot Guys With Knives !!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4213393a10.html
"Christchurch police are circulating a gory email that recommends officers shoot people armed with knives.
Under the heading "Why Cops Shoot Guys With Knives", the email contains stomach-churning photographs of a police officer with massive slashes to his back, chest and stomach.
The text of the email exhorts officers to shoot anyone with a weapon. "If you've got a knife, then you should die ... period."
The email has been forwarded to more than 30 officers and then to addresses that appear to be members of the public.
One man, disgusted by the content, forwarded the email to The Press, saying: "I got this terrible email today, which seems to be sourced from the police.
"It's disgusting that photographs of this nature are widely circulated and used in such an exploitative manner."
The Christchurch policeman from whom the email appears to originate wrote: "Have a look at these photos to remind ourselves why we have SRBAs (stab-resistant body armour) and should be wearing them."
The email continues: "To all the idiots out there who always say, 'Why did the cops have to shoot him? He only had a (insert your choice of weapons here, ie knife, bat, club, whatever). He didn't have to be shot'. To that, I respond, 'Tough crap ... shoot 'em'."
At least one of the officers forwarding the email was a senior sergeant.
Canterbury District Commander Superintendent Sandra Manderson said the officer who created the email had taken the images and the words from an American website.
The email was meant as a caution to officers to wear their body armour, she said.
"But he should have removed the words. They are totally inappropriate. He should have cut them out," she said.
Manderson said she was "not happy" that the email had been sent to members of the public, but it had not been sent outside the police force by a senior member.
National Party police spokesman Chester Borrows said the email was a product of "stupidity".
The images were "pretty gruesome" but "the guy who seems to have started it probably thought he was doing some good", he said.
"He was being a bit naive leaving all the red-neck, bigoted talk in there. The police don't have the public's confidence and it's slips like this that (make it worse)," Borrows said".
___________________________________
"Christchurch police are circulating a gory email that recommends officers shoot people armed with knives.
Under the heading "Why Cops Shoot Guys With Knives", the email contains stomach-churning photographs of a police officer with massive slashes to his back, chest and stomach.
The text of the email exhorts officers to shoot anyone with a weapon. "If you've got a knife, then you should die ... period."
The email has been forwarded to more than 30 officers and then to addresses that appear to be members of the public.
One man, disgusted by the content, forwarded the email to The Press, saying: "I got this terrible email today, which seems to be sourced from the police.
"It's disgusting that photographs of this nature are widely circulated and used in such an exploitative manner."
The Christchurch policeman from whom the email appears to originate wrote: "Have a look at these photos to remind ourselves why we have SRBAs (stab-resistant body armour) and should be wearing them."
The email continues: "To all the idiots out there who always say, 'Why did the cops have to shoot him? He only had a (insert your choice of weapons here, ie knife, bat, club, whatever). He didn't have to be shot'. To that, I respond, 'Tough crap ... shoot 'em'."
At least one of the officers forwarding the email was a senior sergeant.
Canterbury District Commander Superintendent Sandra Manderson said the officer who created the email had taken the images and the words from an American website.
The email was meant as a caution to officers to wear their body armour, she said.
"But he should have removed the words. They are totally inappropriate. He should have cut them out," she said.
Manderson said she was "not happy" that the email had been sent to members of the public, but it had not been sent outside the police force by a senior member.
National Party police spokesman Chester Borrows said the email was a product of "stupidity".
The images were "pretty gruesome" but "the guy who seems to have started it probably thought he was doing some good", he said.
"He was being a bit naive leaving all the red-neck, bigoted talk in there. The police don't have the public's confidence and it's slips like this that (make it worse)," Borrows said".
___________________________________
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Families Commission Poll - kiwi dads .
Your answers to poll number 13
Poll for fathers
As the 2nd of September celebrated Father’s Day, we thought it was timely to have a poll on The Couch to find out more about fathers and fathering in New Zealand.
There is a lot known about parenting and where people get information and support with their parenting, but there is very little information available specifically about fathering. This poll asks fathers and male caregivers about their experiences as a dad.
The results of this poll will feed into the Families Commission’s parenting project and also shared with other agencies and organisations with an interest in parenting.
We’d like to hear from as many dads as possible so pass this on to a dad you know and encourage them to sign up to the Couch to have their say.
This poll is especially for fathers and male caregivers.
1 - How did you and your family celebrate Father’s Day?
We had a family meal together
2 - In your role as a father, who has had the biggest influence on you (ie, who is your role model)?
My father
3 - When you first became a father, how much did you know about parenting?
A lot
4 - Do you have access to enough information and support to be the best father you can be?
Yes
5 - What is the most important aspect of your role as a father at the moment?
Carer, nurturer
6 - I consider the amount of time I spend with my children to be…
Unsatisfactory
7 - What’s the hardest thing about being a father?
Trying to convince the judicial system that I am a loving father of credibility.
8 - What’s the best thing about being a father? Please tell us here…
Being thanked and hugged by one of my four children for being a kind and considerate dad .
9 - How old are your children? Please tell us here
11 - 15 years - two girls
Older than 21 years - twin boys .
Poll for fathers
As the 2nd of September celebrated Father’s Day, we thought it was timely to have a poll on The Couch to find out more about fathers and fathering in New Zealand.
There is a lot known about parenting and where people get information and support with their parenting, but there is very little information available specifically about fathering. This poll asks fathers and male caregivers about their experiences as a dad.
The results of this poll will feed into the Families Commission’s parenting project and also shared with other agencies and organisations with an interest in parenting.
We’d like to hear from as many dads as possible so pass this on to a dad you know and encourage them to sign up to the Couch to have their say.
This poll is especially for fathers and male caregivers.
1 - How did you and your family celebrate Father’s Day?
We had a family meal together
2 - In your role as a father, who has had the biggest influence on you (ie, who is your role model)?
My father
3 - When you first became a father, how much did you know about parenting?
A lot
4 - Do you have access to enough information and support to be the best father you can be?
Yes
5 - What is the most important aspect of your role as a father at the moment?
Carer, nurturer
6 - I consider the amount of time I spend with my children to be…
Unsatisfactory
7 - What’s the hardest thing about being a father?
Trying to convince the judicial system that I am a loving father of credibility.
8 - What’s the best thing about being a father? Please tell us here…
Being thanked and hugged by one of my four children for being a kind and considerate dad .
9 - How old are your children? Please tell us here
11 - 15 years - two girls
Older than 21 years - twin boys .
Monday, September 24, 2007
When Ties to a Parent Are Cut by the Other
Talk about family ties getting cut. Then imagine my sever ties scenario . One day a happy role model dad, proud as ,living in a home with happy children. Next day, prison bound , sitting on a concrete floor in a police station, naked and being watched by a couple of note taking forensic females, who thought it was funny .
I can prove that a vengeful and vindictive family stole my children and poisoned their vulnerable minds. These irrational adults enjoyed the brainwashing, as they bombarded me with false allegations of sexual child abuse and domestic violence . It is a sad indictment that they are still rewarded for all the lies, for example , ACC lump sum payments and court protected. Not to forget that they are allowed to commit perjury at will , just ring the Ashburton Police girls !!
16 November 2005. Request by a Family Court Judge for an updated report pursuant to Section 133 Care Of children Act 2004 in this matter on the following grounds ;
“ Mr Burns believes that the children’s reluctance to have contact is because the children have been subjected to parental alienation and to past issues of alleged sexual abuse.”
Dr Michael Davidson had prepared two previous reports ( 2002 & 2004) that were nothing but criminal malicious lies.
In the third consultant clinical psychologist report prepared for the de –family court by Dr John Watson who writes;
“ Assess whether the children may have been subject to parental alienation and whether there are outside factors influencing the children.?
The indications I obtained from the children during the course of my individual assessments of them did not confirm that they have unreasonable negative views and feelings towards their father ……”
Watson is a two faced back stabber who was responsible for causing considerable stress to my family after he rung my upset mother even though I had an assurance from a judge that my mother would be kept out of "all future proceedings." He rung her, despite the court advising him not to have any further contact with her due to her deteriorating health . Mum died four days later after Watson's call! My family are extremely upset with this ratfink , slimeball Watson dirtbag!
Parental alienation and historical child abuse was going on when the slimy underhand Watson was writing his callous lies in 2005! The evidence is the anti –social behaviour from my eldest daughter who was acting out a troublesome attitude that got her in serious hot water with the authorities. She said, “ I was only being naughty to get back at mum who wouldn’t let me see my dad.”
I have complained to both the de family court and psychological board about the criminal negligence and professional malfeasance, however both have fobbed me off, as per usual. What else would I expect where natural justice is just an fleeting idea in the mind of a disturbed and insane prime minister .
PAS is real and a huge problem for many kiwi kids .
Anyway here is a good read from the States.
http://www.nytimes. com/2007/ 09/23/nyregion/ nyregionspecial2 /23Rparenting. html?em&ex=1190692800&en=a228a43930371845&ei=5087%0A
When Ties to a Parent Are Cut by the Other
By MICHAEL WINERIP
THIS is a nice moment in Joe Rabiega’s life. At 31, he has a good job as a research coordinator for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is happily married and feels blessed that his wife of five years, Tiffany, is pregnant with their first child.
His hope is to give that child a happier upbringing than the one he had. Mr. Rabiega’s parents divorced when he was 8, and though they were supposed to share custody, he said, his father, a truck driver with a drinking problem, did everything possible to turn him against his mother and eventually kept him from seeing her.
“He bullied my mother into giving up custody,” Mr. Rabiega said. When he was still allowed to visit his mother, he’d have to stay by the phone to take a call from his father at 4 every afternoon and 8 each evening. He said his father trained him to spy on his mother’s socializing and spending habits.
“His ability to manipulate her was so lopsided, it never got to the point where a court heard it,” he said in a phone interview. “His threats of violence made it clear she’d never get me.”
For several years, he said, until his late teens, he didn’t see his mother and believed everything his father said about her. “He took me to the police station and told them my mother abandoned me, even though it was completely not true,” Mr. Rabiega said. “He had the entire neighborhood convinced that my mother no longer wanted me.
“He had me convinced without him, I had nobody,” Mr. Rabiega said. “When he’d been drinking, he’d get out his gun and threaten to kill himself if I left him.”
It wasn’t until Mr. Rabiega was an adult that he began to see his mother in a different light, he said. “She was a seamstress in a garment factory who didn’t graduate from high school. She was weak, no one to guide her, no money, no education, no resources to fight for me.” At one point, he said, she attempted suicide.
Mr. Rabiega is one of 40 research subjects in a new book by Amy J. L. Baker, about parents who turn a child against the other parent, “Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Dr. Baker, the research director of the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection at the New York Foundling, does not identify the subjects by their real names, but Mr. Rabiega (called Jonah in the book) agreed to let his name be used for this column. “If this can help people, it’s worth it,” he said. “I really compare what I went through to people who are kidnapped and brainwashed.”
Most people would agree that one parent has the power to turn a child against the other parent; however, classifying the behavior as a mental health syndrome, as Dr. Baker does, has met with considerable criticism in the past. “It’s been a very controversial area,” said Dr. Baker, 48, who lives in Teaneck, N.J., and has a doctorate in psychology from Teachers College at Columbia.
Dr. Baker’s book is written in an academic style and sticks closely to the stories of the 40 adult subjects, ages 19 to 67, who describe being wrongfully manipulated by a parent. It is an attempt to take the sensationalism out of the subject. Accusations of such manipulation have been an issue during high-profile celebrity custody battles, like the ones involving Woody Allen and Mia Farrow and Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger.
There is none of that in Dr. Baker’s book, which includes a seven-page bibliography of scholarly research. Instead, she tells the stories of ordinary people like Mr. Rabiega, struggling into their adult years with the damage they describe from having been manipulated into hating a parent. While most research has focused on children, Dr. Baker looks at these children once they’ve become adults. A key question she set out to answer: Do any of these kids grow up and figure it out? “That I can answer yes,” she said. “I can’t say how prevalent it is, but I have found lots of people.”
Some of what she found undercut earlier research. When therapists first described the behavior in the 1980s, they talked about it as manipulation by mothers to punish fathers. This drew criticism from some women’s groups, who dismissed the syndrome as something concocted by lawyers for abusive fathers trying to improve their custody chances.
Dr. Baker said her research — both for the book and with several hundred subjects over the last five years — indicates a mother or father is equally likely to do the manipulating. It is “truly 50-50,” she said.
Other patterns emerged from her 40 subjects: 75 percent were the products of divorce, and 58 percent were divorced themselves; 70 percent suffered depression; 35 percent developed problems with drugs or alcohol. And perhaps the saddest: Half of the 28 who had children said they were estranged from their own children.
Dr. Baker believes the behavior is prevalent enough to qualify as a syndrome in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible of the American Psychiatric Association. While that’s not going to happen soon — the manual won’t be revised again until 2012 — she hopes her research might cause social workers and therapists who investigate custody cases to be more aware. “If you believe it’s possible for a child to be brainwashed by one parent, the job of a custody evaluator is a lot harder,” she said.
The challenges in such cases can be daunting. How do you know if the scorned parent is being unfairly victimized or if that parent is abusive and deserves to be scorned? “It’s a lot of investigating, and there’s no one definitive tool,” Dr. Baker said.
Some of that investigative muscle is missing from her own research. Dr. Baker did not interview parents for their version of events, nor did she cite independent sources like court records that could corroborate the stories. “I did what I could,” she said. “This is just one study. It’s a very new field and there’s little research. The point is to give voice to these people who have not been heard.”
It is also hard to get people to talk publicly about family dysfunction. Mr. Rabiega was willing to speak partly because both his parents are dead.
He said that when he was in his 20s, he again developed a relationship with his mother, but that his father’s “brainwashing” had been so strong, he couldn’t entirely overcome it. “It was hard for me to fully love my mom,” he said. “If she needed me to do something or needed money, I didn’t want to and I’d get angry. My father implanted a disgust and disdain in me for my mother that wouldn’t go away and tainted our relationship.”
Ten years of therapy helped, he said, as did his wife and finding religion. “It helped when I reconnected with my mom, she held nothing against me,” he said. “She reiterated it was my father’s fault, and I had no choice.”
“Unfortunately,” he said, “I realized a lot after my mother died.”
E-mail: parenting@nytimes.com
I can prove that a vengeful and vindictive family stole my children and poisoned their vulnerable minds. These irrational adults enjoyed the brainwashing, as they bombarded me with false allegations of sexual child abuse and domestic violence . It is a sad indictment that they are still rewarded for all the lies, for example , ACC lump sum payments and court protected. Not to forget that they are allowed to commit perjury at will , just ring the Ashburton Police girls !!
16 November 2005. Request by a Family Court Judge for an updated report pursuant to Section 133 Care Of children Act 2004 in this matter on the following grounds ;
“ Mr Burns believes that the children’s reluctance to have contact is because the children have been subjected to parental alienation and to past issues of alleged sexual abuse.”
Dr Michael Davidson had prepared two previous reports ( 2002 & 2004) that were nothing but criminal malicious lies.
In the third consultant clinical psychologist report prepared for the de –family court by Dr John Watson who writes;
“ Assess whether the children may have been subject to parental alienation and whether there are outside factors influencing the children.?
The indications I obtained from the children during the course of my individual assessments of them did not confirm that they have unreasonable negative views and feelings towards their father ……”
Watson is a two faced back stabber who was responsible for causing considerable stress to my family after he rung my upset mother even though I had an assurance from a judge that my mother would be kept out of "all future proceedings." He rung her, despite the court advising him not to have any further contact with her due to her deteriorating health . Mum died four days later after Watson's call! My family are extremely upset with this ratfink , slimeball Watson dirtbag!
Parental alienation and historical child abuse was going on when the slimy underhand Watson was writing his callous lies in 2005! The evidence is the anti –social behaviour from my eldest daughter who was acting out a troublesome attitude that got her in serious hot water with the authorities. She said, “ I was only being naughty to get back at mum who wouldn’t let me see my dad.”
I have complained to both the de family court and psychological board about the criminal negligence and professional malfeasance, however both have fobbed me off, as per usual. What else would I expect where natural justice is just an fleeting idea in the mind of a disturbed and insane prime minister .
PAS is real and a huge problem for many kiwi kids .
Anyway here is a good read from the States.
http://www.nytimes. com/2007/ 09/23/nyregion/ nyregionspecial2 /23Rparenting. html?em&ex=1190692800&en=a228a43930371845&ei=5087%0A
When Ties to a Parent Are Cut by the Other
By MICHAEL WINERIP
THIS is a nice moment in Joe Rabiega’s life. At 31, he has a good job as a research coordinator for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is happily married and feels blessed that his wife of five years, Tiffany, is pregnant with their first child.
His hope is to give that child a happier upbringing than the one he had. Mr. Rabiega’s parents divorced when he was 8, and though they were supposed to share custody, he said, his father, a truck driver with a drinking problem, did everything possible to turn him against his mother and eventually kept him from seeing her.
“He bullied my mother into giving up custody,” Mr. Rabiega said. When he was still allowed to visit his mother, he’d have to stay by the phone to take a call from his father at 4 every afternoon and 8 each evening. He said his father trained him to spy on his mother’s socializing and spending habits.
“His ability to manipulate her was so lopsided, it never got to the point where a court heard it,” he said in a phone interview. “His threats of violence made it clear she’d never get me.”
For several years, he said, until his late teens, he didn’t see his mother and believed everything his father said about her. “He took me to the police station and told them my mother abandoned me, even though it was completely not true,” Mr. Rabiega said. “He had the entire neighborhood convinced that my mother no longer wanted me.
“He had me convinced without him, I had nobody,” Mr. Rabiega said. “When he’d been drinking, he’d get out his gun and threaten to kill himself if I left him.”
It wasn’t until Mr. Rabiega was an adult that he began to see his mother in a different light, he said. “She was a seamstress in a garment factory who didn’t graduate from high school. She was weak, no one to guide her, no money, no education, no resources to fight for me.” At one point, he said, she attempted suicide.
Mr. Rabiega is one of 40 research subjects in a new book by Amy J. L. Baker, about parents who turn a child against the other parent, “Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome.” Dr. Baker, the research director of the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection at the New York Foundling, does not identify the subjects by their real names, but Mr. Rabiega (called Jonah in the book) agreed to let his name be used for this column. “If this can help people, it’s worth it,” he said. “I really compare what I went through to people who are kidnapped and brainwashed.”
Most people would agree that one parent has the power to turn a child against the other parent; however, classifying the behavior as a mental health syndrome, as Dr. Baker does, has met with considerable criticism in the past. “It’s been a very controversial area,” said Dr. Baker, 48, who lives in Teaneck, N.J., and has a doctorate in psychology from Teachers College at Columbia.
Dr. Baker’s book is written in an academic style and sticks closely to the stories of the 40 adult subjects, ages 19 to 67, who describe being wrongfully manipulated by a parent. It is an attempt to take the sensationalism out of the subject. Accusations of such manipulation have been an issue during high-profile celebrity custody battles, like the ones involving Woody Allen and Mia Farrow and Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger.
There is none of that in Dr. Baker’s book, which includes a seven-page bibliography of scholarly research. Instead, she tells the stories of ordinary people like Mr. Rabiega, struggling into their adult years with the damage they describe from having been manipulated into hating a parent. While most research has focused on children, Dr. Baker looks at these children once they’ve become adults. A key question she set out to answer: Do any of these kids grow up and figure it out? “That I can answer yes,” she said. “I can’t say how prevalent it is, but I have found lots of people.”
Some of what she found undercut earlier research. When therapists first described the behavior in the 1980s, they talked about it as manipulation by mothers to punish fathers. This drew criticism from some women’s groups, who dismissed the syndrome as something concocted by lawyers for abusive fathers trying to improve their custody chances.
Dr. Baker said her research — both for the book and with several hundred subjects over the last five years — indicates a mother or father is equally likely to do the manipulating. It is “truly 50-50,” she said.
Other patterns emerged from her 40 subjects: 75 percent were the products of divorce, and 58 percent were divorced themselves; 70 percent suffered depression; 35 percent developed problems with drugs or alcohol. And perhaps the saddest: Half of the 28 who had children said they were estranged from their own children.
Dr. Baker believes the behavior is prevalent enough to qualify as a syndrome in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible of the American Psychiatric Association. While that’s not going to happen soon — the manual won’t be revised again until 2012 — she hopes her research might cause social workers and therapists who investigate custody cases to be more aware. “If you believe it’s possible for a child to be brainwashed by one parent, the job of a custody evaluator is a lot harder,” she said.
The challenges in such cases can be daunting. How do you know if the scorned parent is being unfairly victimized or if that parent is abusive and deserves to be scorned? “It’s a lot of investigating, and there’s no one definitive tool,” Dr. Baker said.
Some of that investigative muscle is missing from her own research. Dr. Baker did not interview parents for their version of events, nor did she cite independent sources like court records that could corroborate the stories. “I did what I could,” she said. “This is just one study. It’s a very new field and there’s little research. The point is to give voice to these people who have not been heard.”
It is also hard to get people to talk publicly about family dysfunction. Mr. Rabiega was willing to speak partly because both his parents are dead.
He said that when he was in his 20s, he again developed a relationship with his mother, but that his father’s “brainwashing” had been so strong, he couldn’t entirely overcome it. “It was hard for me to fully love my mom,” he said. “If she needed me to do something or needed money, I didn’t want to and I’d get angry. My father implanted a disgust and disdain in me for my mother that wouldn’t go away and tainted our relationship.”
Ten years of therapy helped, he said, as did his wife and finding religion. “It helped when I reconnected with my mom, she held nothing against me,” he said. “She reiterated it was my father’s fault, and I had no choice.”
“Unfortunately,” he said, “I realized a lot after my mother died.”
E-mail: parenting@nytimes.com
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Transvestite in a spat .
Christchurch Press Letter to Editor
In a few words section September 18th
Is it little wonder that I am a disillusioned constituent and bewildered father of four children when it is deemed normal to have a tranny granny sitting behind a High Court bench at the same time a Law Commissioner proclaims that our law books are in state of chaos (Sept 13)?
Reply - letter titled; Just what I am
September 21st
Peter Burns seems to questioning how a tranny granny could end up sitting behind a High Court bench (Sept 18). He goes on to tell us he is a father of four and disillusioned. He then seems to try to link a law commissioner’s proclamation that our law books are in a state of chaos to the same event.
As the tranny concerned, I can tell Peter Burns that some of the reasons I was picked to sit on the tribunal involved in that High Court case were my board life experience, as well as, many years of community service.
That includes fostering around 70 children over 23 years, as well, as being and elected councillor. In 1998 I was made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.
Being a tranny had no bearing on any of my achievements – it’s just what I am, something I have never let interfere with my goals of being the best person I can.
Jacquie Grant
Hokitika
In a few words section September 18th
Is it little wonder that I am a disillusioned constituent and bewildered father of four children when it is deemed normal to have a tranny granny sitting behind a High Court bench at the same time a Law Commissioner proclaims that our law books are in state of chaos (Sept 13)?
Reply - letter titled; Just what I am
September 21st
Peter Burns seems to questioning how a tranny granny could end up sitting behind a High Court bench (Sept 18). He goes on to tell us he is a father of four and disillusioned. He then seems to try to link a law commissioner’s proclamation that our law books are in a state of chaos to the same event.
As the tranny concerned, I can tell Peter Burns that some of the reasons I was picked to sit on the tribunal involved in that High Court case were my board life experience, as well as, many years of community service.
That includes fostering around 70 children over 23 years, as well, as being and elected councillor. In 1998 I was made a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.
Being a tranny had no bearing on any of my achievements – it’s just what I am, something I have never let interfere with my goals of being the best person I can.
Jacquie Grant
Hokitika
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Don't Quit
Don’t Quit
When things go wrong as they sometimes will,
When the road you’re trudging seems all up hill,
When the funds are low and the debts are high and you want to smile,
but you have to sigh, when care is pressing you down a bit,
rest if you must but don’t quit.
Life is queer with its twists and turns,
as everyone of us sometimes learns, and many a failure
turns about when he might have won had he stuck it out;
Don’t give up though the pace seems slow –
You may succeed with another blow.
Success is failure turned inside out –
The silver tint of clouds of doubt,
And you never can tell how close you are,
It may be near when it seems so far;
So stick to the fight when you’re hardest hit –
It’s when things seem worst that you must not quit.
VC 216 Litho in Italy
When things go wrong as they sometimes will,
When the road you’re trudging seems all up hill,
When the funds are low and the debts are high and you want to smile,
but you have to sigh, when care is pressing you down a bit,
rest if you must but don’t quit.
Life is queer with its twists and turns,
as everyone of us sometimes learns, and many a failure
turns about when he might have won had he stuck it out;
Don’t give up though the pace seems slow –
You may succeed with another blow.
Success is failure turned inside out –
The silver tint of clouds of doubt,
And you never can tell how close you are,
It may be near when it seems so far;
So stick to the fight when you’re hardest hit –
It’s when things seem worst that you must not quit.
VC 216 Litho in Italy
Friday, September 21, 2007
Human Rights Review Tribunal Case No 28/04
BURNS v DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES & OTHERS ( POLICE & FAMILY COURT ) [2005] NZHRRT 10 (26 May 2005)
Last Updated: 1 June 2005
Decision No. 10/2005
Reference No. HRRT 28/04
BETWEEN PETER JOSEPH BURNS
Plaintiff
AND DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES & OTHERS
Defendants
BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL
R D C Hindle - Chairperson
I Vodanovich - Member
P J Davies - Member
DATE OF DECISION 26 May 2005
DECISION REGARDING COSTS
[1] On 4 April 2005 we determined that the plaintiff’s claim in this proceeding should be struck out: HRRT Decision 7/05. Our decision invited the Department of Child, Youth & Family Services to apply for costs if it wished to do so.
[2] Subsequently memoranda have been filed which make it clear that neither the Department of Child, Youth & Family Services nor the Police Complaints Authority (another of the subjects of the plaintiff’s proposed claims) wish to ask for costs.
[3] A memorandum filed on behalf of ‘the Family Court’, however, sought costs in favour of that party. Evidently ‘the Family Court’ has incurred costs of $600.75 in respect of its defence of the claim. In support of the application it was submitted that (as the Tribunal found in its decision) there was never any jurisdiction for a claim against the Court, with a result that ‘the Family Court’ has been put to unnecessary expense in preparing and filing a statement of reply, and otherwise in dealing with the claim.
[4] The claim for costs by ‘the Family Court’ was a little unexpected. Although the claim as initially filed by the plaintiff named the Department of Courts (and expressly included ‘the Family Court’), as our decision of 4 April 2005 explains an amended claim was filed later which named a large number of suggested defendants. Of all of those, it still seemed that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services was the primary target. That is why the Tribunal’s decision named that particular defendant in its intituling. In addition, it was and is not immediatley obvious that ‘the Family Court’ is a legal entity that can or should be named in an order of the kind sought.
[5] These matters were raised with the parties by way of a minute from the Chairperson of the Tribunal dated 16 May 2005. A memorandum has since been received from counsel for the defendant in question. She has confirmed that the Department for Courts has been abolished, and its successor is the Ministry of Justice. Pursuant to ss. 6 and 14 of the State Sector Amendment Act 2003, the reference to the Department for Courts should now be read as a reference to the Ministry of Justice. On that basis we are satisfied that the party entitled to costs as a result of the claim put forward by the plaintiff as against ‘the Family Court’ is the Ministry of Justice.
[6] The Chairperson’s minute of 16 May 2005 also offered the plaintiff a further opportunity to respond to the application for costs (he had not done so at that time). In response, the plaintiff has now filed a letter that was received by the Secretary of the Tribunal on 23 May 2005. The letter indicates that the plaintiff wishes to appeal from our decision dated 4 April 2005 to the High Court. Whether or not he has complied with the procedural requirements in s.123 of the Act and under Part 10 of the High Court Rules we do not know (although we do note that if the letter of 23 May 2005 is the only step that has been taken, then at least on the face of things any appeal may be out of time: see s.123(4) of the Act). But beyond that there is nothing in the plaintiff’s letter to displace the usual presumption that a defendant which has applied for costs against an unsuccessful plaintiff should be given an appropriate award.
[7] We do not regard this as being one of those rare cases in which a full indemnity award of costs should be made, nor did the defendant suggest as much. In our view an award of $300 is appropriate to meet the circumstances. For these reasons and pursuant to s.92L of the Human Rights Act 1993 we award costs in a sum of $300.00 to be paid by the plaintiff to the Ministry of Justice.
R D C Hindle I Vodanovich P J Davies
Chairperson Member Member
Last Updated: 1 June 2005
Decision No. 10/2005
Reference No. HRRT 28/04
BETWEEN PETER JOSEPH BURNS
Plaintiff
AND DEPARTMENT OF CHILD, YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES & OTHERS
Defendants
BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL
R D C Hindle - Chairperson
I Vodanovich - Member
P J Davies - Member
DATE OF DECISION 26 May 2005
DECISION REGARDING COSTS
[1] On 4 April 2005 we determined that the plaintiff’s claim in this proceeding should be struck out: HRRT Decision 7/05. Our decision invited the Department of Child, Youth & Family Services to apply for costs if it wished to do so.
[2] Subsequently memoranda have been filed which make it clear that neither the Department of Child, Youth & Family Services nor the Police Complaints Authority (another of the subjects of the plaintiff’s proposed claims) wish to ask for costs.
[3] A memorandum filed on behalf of ‘the Family Court’, however, sought costs in favour of that party. Evidently ‘the Family Court’ has incurred costs of $600.75 in respect of its defence of the claim. In support of the application it was submitted that (as the Tribunal found in its decision) there was never any jurisdiction for a claim against the Court, with a result that ‘the Family Court’ has been put to unnecessary expense in preparing and filing a statement of reply, and otherwise in dealing with the claim.
[4] The claim for costs by ‘the Family Court’ was a little unexpected. Although the claim as initially filed by the plaintiff named the Department of Courts (and expressly included ‘the Family Court’), as our decision of 4 April 2005 explains an amended claim was filed later which named a large number of suggested defendants. Of all of those, it still seemed that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services was the primary target. That is why the Tribunal’s decision named that particular defendant in its intituling. In addition, it was and is not immediatley obvious that ‘the Family Court’ is a legal entity that can or should be named in an order of the kind sought.
[5] These matters were raised with the parties by way of a minute from the Chairperson of the Tribunal dated 16 May 2005. A memorandum has since been received from counsel for the defendant in question. She has confirmed that the Department for Courts has been abolished, and its successor is the Ministry of Justice. Pursuant to ss. 6 and 14 of the State Sector Amendment Act 2003, the reference to the Department for Courts should now be read as a reference to the Ministry of Justice. On that basis we are satisfied that the party entitled to costs as a result of the claim put forward by the plaintiff as against ‘the Family Court’ is the Ministry of Justice.
[6] The Chairperson’s minute of 16 May 2005 also offered the plaintiff a further opportunity to respond to the application for costs (he had not done so at that time). In response, the plaintiff has now filed a letter that was received by the Secretary of the Tribunal on 23 May 2005. The letter indicates that the plaintiff wishes to appeal from our decision dated 4 April 2005 to the High Court. Whether or not he has complied with the procedural requirements in s.123 of the Act and under Part 10 of the High Court Rules we do not know (although we do note that if the letter of 23 May 2005 is the only step that has been taken, then at least on the face of things any appeal may be out of time: see s.123(4) of the Act). But beyond that there is nothing in the plaintiff’s letter to displace the usual presumption that a defendant which has applied for costs against an unsuccessful plaintiff should be given an appropriate award.
[7] We do not regard this as being one of those rare cases in which a full indemnity award of costs should be made, nor did the defendant suggest as much. In our view an award of $300 is appropriate to meet the circumstances. For these reasons and pursuant to s.92L of the Human Rights Act 1993 we award costs in a sum of $300.00 to be paid by the plaintiff to the Ministry of Justice.
R D C Hindle I Vodanovich P J Davies
Chairperson Member Member
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Days of Tempest - The Liam Magill saga.
http://www.helium. com/tm/603924/ tempest-magill- story-eight
"DAYS OF TEMPEST"
The Liam Magill story
Written by Lea Anna Cooper
The eight year, historical Paternity battle that rocked Australia
Introduction
To Liam Magill, Meredith McClelland-Magill, who prefers to be called Pat, appeared to be a truly pleasant person; a rather quiet young woman, and she was a bit different. She presented that Betty Davis-Susan Sarendon style about her. Her eyes were slightly bulging; although, now have become very prominent in recent years. Meredith was also a country girl and gave the impression of having respectable values about everything. However, as Liam would learn later, and if truth be told, he married a stranger. This unfamiliar person suddenly began to lead a double life. Liam observed her two faces once they were married. One countenance for him, and another facade for her friends and family. Meredith is essentially two different people.
This time in Liam Magill's life was surreal. Consistent with accounts by Liam, they experienced a very passionate time after they first met; but perhaps they married too soon. Meredith changed almost immediately after the wedding. Liam thought that she was merely trying to adjust to being married, but it slowly became worse. Each day he found it more challenging to talk to Meredith after they tied the knot, because she would go for days without uttering a word. To him, as a non-confrontational man, he withdrew from any possible friction, and so coupled with Meredith's stony silence, the relationship, from almost the beginning, was destined to fail.
Meredith stated that after the wedding, she realized she'd made a big mistake marrying Liam. But why then, did she stay and have three children? What she told everyone is that she was in an awful relationship, yet she enjoyed the trappings, and creating ensurances, so Liam would acquire a larger house. Liam, being a dutiful husband and trusting his new wife, gave her all of his money each payday. She found all her financial rewards of being married and supported, thus she was secured in her position, as unpleasant as it may sound. She lead Liam by the nose to complete her duties as a homemaker and mother to the three children. Meredith possessed the deck, played each and every one of her cards correctly, won the game, and collected all of the spoils.
Meredith was not diagnosed with Bipolar disorder until 1998. The quote appearing in the Bulletin was utterly false. Her first psychotic episode was in Aug 1995. A second psychotic episode occurred in early 1998. Her drug abuse is documented. Marijuana and amphetamines were her drugs of choice. Her parents boast a long, lingering guilt for allowing their four children to be raised by nannies. The McClellands are very wealthy people, and the family business in Sea Lake was always their first priority. One day this massive inheritance will go to Meredith and her three siblings; however, in the meantime, she had completely decayed the lives of her children, and what is worse, Liam Magill. He is the only man that had actually loved her, and she betrayed him without a trace of bad conscience.
This true story contains a torrent of lies, deceit and threats against Liam, whose only unsullied intention was to create a successful marriage. He gave Meredith everything she wanted, that he could afford, and this included handing to her all of his money. However, this was not satisfactory for Meredith. Even with Liam's unselfish actions his only reward was his wife's self-inflicted despondency, cheating, deceiving, prostituting herself, and incorporating the assistance of others to maintain that deception, of her more than well-hidden second life. Her heart was cold and callus, and her gratitude was entirely absent because she felt, in her own mind, that in reality, this man was paying her for her time.
Liam's case of Paternity Fraud should have won, and it almost did. But as people who read this will become aware, it's a difficult mission to pave the road for the self and others, while evil is always lurking. The world is filled with sad and irksome injustices and this true account and historical case is a shining example
"DAYS OF TEMPEST"
The Liam Magill story
Written by Lea Anna Cooper
The eight year, historical Paternity battle that rocked Australia
Introduction
To Liam Magill, Meredith McClelland-Magill, who prefers to be called Pat, appeared to be a truly pleasant person; a rather quiet young woman, and she was a bit different. She presented that Betty Davis-Susan Sarendon style about her. Her eyes were slightly bulging; although, now have become very prominent in recent years. Meredith was also a country girl and gave the impression of having respectable values about everything. However, as Liam would learn later, and if truth be told, he married a stranger. This unfamiliar person suddenly began to lead a double life. Liam observed her two faces once they were married. One countenance for him, and another facade for her friends and family. Meredith is essentially two different people.
This time in Liam Magill's life was surreal. Consistent with accounts by Liam, they experienced a very passionate time after they first met; but perhaps they married too soon. Meredith changed almost immediately after the wedding. Liam thought that she was merely trying to adjust to being married, but it slowly became worse. Each day he found it more challenging to talk to Meredith after they tied the knot, because she would go for days without uttering a word. To him, as a non-confrontational man, he withdrew from any possible friction, and so coupled with Meredith's stony silence, the relationship, from almost the beginning, was destined to fail.
Meredith stated that after the wedding, she realized she'd made a big mistake marrying Liam. But why then, did she stay and have three children? What she told everyone is that she was in an awful relationship, yet she enjoyed the trappings, and creating ensurances, so Liam would acquire a larger house. Liam, being a dutiful husband and trusting his new wife, gave her all of his money each payday. She found all her financial rewards of being married and supported, thus she was secured in her position, as unpleasant as it may sound. She lead Liam by the nose to complete her duties as a homemaker and mother to the three children. Meredith possessed the deck, played each and every one of her cards correctly, won the game, and collected all of the spoils.
Meredith was not diagnosed with Bipolar disorder until 1998. The quote appearing in the Bulletin was utterly false. Her first psychotic episode was in Aug 1995. A second psychotic episode occurred in early 1998. Her drug abuse is documented. Marijuana and amphetamines were her drugs of choice. Her parents boast a long, lingering guilt for allowing their four children to be raised by nannies. The McClellands are very wealthy people, and the family business in Sea Lake was always their first priority. One day this massive inheritance will go to Meredith and her three siblings; however, in the meantime, she had completely decayed the lives of her children, and what is worse, Liam Magill. He is the only man that had actually loved her, and she betrayed him without a trace of bad conscience.
This true story contains a torrent of lies, deceit and threats against Liam, whose only unsullied intention was to create a successful marriage. He gave Meredith everything she wanted, that he could afford, and this included handing to her all of his money. However, this was not satisfactory for Meredith. Even with Liam's unselfish actions his only reward was his wife's self-inflicted despondency, cheating, deceiving, prostituting herself, and incorporating the assistance of others to maintain that deception, of her more than well-hidden second life. Her heart was cold and callus, and her gratitude was entirely absent because she felt, in her own mind, that in reality, this man was paying her for her time.
Liam's case of Paternity Fraud should have won, and it almost did. But as people who read this will become aware, it's a difficult mission to pave the road for the self and others, while evil is always lurking. The world is filled with sad and irksome injustices and this true account and historical case is a shining example
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Zoe wants her Daddy
ZOE WANTS HER DADDY
Every day I watch the other Children in play school
Daddies dropping them off , I pretend I`m cool
No hugs no kisses from my daddy will I receive
I sit hugging my knees and wipe my tears on my sleeve.
Where are you my Daddy?
I wonder as to sore that is in the centre of my heart ?
These lumps in my throat have been there at the start.
As the dam of tears trickle slowly down my cheek,
Mom says I`m a big girl can`t let anyone see I am weak.
Where are you my Daddy?
Sometimes I hope and dream in my castle in the tree,
I wait for you my hero to come out and rescue me.
I wait until the sun meets the sky until darkness falls,
Just as I search all faces that go by in the Malls.
Where are you my Daddy?
At night to sleep I must go, no bedtime stories to my hero meet,
The darkness of night fear takes shape no daddy to my dragon beat.
My heart pounds waiting for strong arms my comfort to supply,
Disappointment sets in, let down again, in myself I must rely,
Where are you my Daddy?
Monday, September 17, 2007
UK - Death sentence for family courts ?
Regarding the attitude of a concerned public about the dismal state of our justice system in New Zealand this was printed today in a few words Christchurch Press newspaper, letter to editor section;
It is little wonder that I am a disillusioned constituent and bewildered father of four children when it is deemed normal to have a tranny granny sitting behind a High Court bench at the same time a Law Commissioner proclaims that our law books are in a state of chaos?
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=death-sentence-for-family-courts&method=full&objectid=19796450&siteid=50081-name_page.html
Death sentence for family courts ?
Sep 16 2007
by Michael Kelly, Sunday Sun
THE Government is coming under increased pressure to open up the family courts after a number of scandals and contentious decisions. Those for change say such incidents have proved that the authorities require public scrutiny to ensure they do their jobs properly. Those against say it could harm children at the centre of sensitive proceedings. PHIL DOHERTY looks at the arguments . . .
IN May last year, Harriet Harman, then Minister for Constitutional Affairs, said: "It is impossible to defend a system from accusations of bias and discrimination if it operates behind closed doors."
Many campaigners saw this as a prelude to the family courts being made open to the media again.
Harman's statement followed a series of high-profile scandals -- including mothers being wrongly jailed for murdering their children -- on flawed medical evidence which is often used in family courts as well.
Yet, when the changes did come, announced earlier this year by Justice Minister Lord Falconer, they did not include the courts being opened up.
More than 200 MPs and a growing number of former heads of social services, judges, solicitors and even Government Ministers are now campaigning to change that.
Ironically, it has long been believed that the courts were closed to the media in 1989 because of the Cleveland child abuse scandal, where around 120 children from Teesside were taken into care thanks mainly to evidence from experts using what was, even then, not an accepted method of diagnosis. It has now been wholly discredited.
The scandal came to the public's attention after a media campaign, and many of the children were returned to their parents.
Charles Pragnell, a former senior social services manager, was involved in exposing the Cleveland Sex Abuse scandal. He said: "Many parents report that social workers and medical witnesses often fabricate, embellish and distort evidence against them. Some have even been found out in the law courts, but judges have just ignored it.
"Often, so-called evidence owes more to fanciful speculations and imaginative construction than to the presentation of observed facts. Unproven, discredited and scientifically fraudulent and other professionally disputed theories of child abuse are often presented to courts as facts or to cover up the absence of evidence. This is why the family courts must be opened up to the media."
Ian Johnston, chief executive of the British Association of Social workers, is quick to disagree. He said: "We fought for 25 years to get independent regulation and in 2000 the Care Standards Act came into force.
"Social workers' practices have improved considerably in recent years and we don't feel that having open courts will improve those practices further.
"In care proceedings there is always going to be conflict and differences of opinion and we need to be very careful that we do not base perceptions of social work on one side of the story."
A Justice Ministry spokeswoman said: "We need instead a new approach which concentrates on improving the information coming out of family courts, rather than on who can go in."
Recently, the Sunday Sun highlighted the story of Fran Lyon -- an expectant mum who could have her unborn child taken from her by Northumberland Social Services.
It is claimed she suffers from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, Msbp, where the sufferer harms somebody -- usually a child -- to get attention.
The paediatrician who diagnosed Msbp has never even met her and based his opinions on information from social services.
Fran, of Hexham, was able to highlight her plight in full public view because her case hasn't been to court yet.
Maggie Atkinson, vice president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, said it was not against greater public scrutiny . . . as long as proper safeguards were in place.
She said: "We must ensure, above all else, that sensitive information about families and individuals remains private and is treated as sensitively and confidentially as possible.
"Many court hearings deal with matters that genuinely need to remain confidential, to protect both the young children concerned, and the other people involved.
"The last thing we would want is for cases to be made public in a way that would present further harm to already vulnerable children and young people."
However, Jack Frost of Fassit -- an open justice campaign group -- said the odds were stacked against families.
He said: "In criminal proceedings, the police provide evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service who then see if there is a case to answer. But these checks and balances do not happen in the family courts.
"According to the Government, 200 people have been jailed by secret family courts for speaking out against the injustices they say have happened to them.
"If you are falsely convicted in criminal courts you can campaign to clear your name. But you can't in the family courts.
"There is no faith any more in the closed court system."
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
It is little wonder that I am a disillusioned constituent and bewildered father of four children when it is deemed normal to have a tranny granny sitting behind a High Court bench at the same time a Law Commissioner proclaims that our law books are in a state of chaos?
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=death-sentence-for-family-courts&method=full&objectid=19796450&siteid=50081-name_page.html
Death sentence for family courts ?
Sep 16 2007
by Michael Kelly, Sunday Sun
THE Government is coming under increased pressure to open up the family courts after a number of scandals and contentious decisions. Those for change say such incidents have proved that the authorities require public scrutiny to ensure they do their jobs properly. Those against say it could harm children at the centre of sensitive proceedings. PHIL DOHERTY looks at the arguments . . .
IN May last year, Harriet Harman, then Minister for Constitutional Affairs, said: "It is impossible to defend a system from accusations of bias and discrimination if it operates behind closed doors."
Many campaigners saw this as a prelude to the family courts being made open to the media again.
Harman's statement followed a series of high-profile scandals -- including mothers being wrongly jailed for murdering their children -- on flawed medical evidence which is often used in family courts as well.
Yet, when the changes did come, announced earlier this year by Justice Minister Lord Falconer, they did not include the courts being opened up.
More than 200 MPs and a growing number of former heads of social services, judges, solicitors and even Government Ministers are now campaigning to change that.
Ironically, it has long been believed that the courts were closed to the media in 1989 because of the Cleveland child abuse scandal, where around 120 children from Teesside were taken into care thanks mainly to evidence from experts using what was, even then, not an accepted method of diagnosis. It has now been wholly discredited.
The scandal came to the public's attention after a media campaign, and many of the children were returned to their parents.
Charles Pragnell, a former senior social services manager, was involved in exposing the Cleveland Sex Abuse scandal. He said: "Many parents report that social workers and medical witnesses often fabricate, embellish and distort evidence against them. Some have even been found out in the law courts, but judges have just ignored it.
"Often, so-called evidence owes more to fanciful speculations and imaginative construction than to the presentation of observed facts. Unproven, discredited and scientifically fraudulent and other professionally disputed theories of child abuse are often presented to courts as facts or to cover up the absence of evidence. This is why the family courts must be opened up to the media."
Ian Johnston, chief executive of the British Association of Social workers, is quick to disagree. He said: "We fought for 25 years to get independent regulation and in 2000 the Care Standards Act came into force.
"Social workers' practices have improved considerably in recent years and we don't feel that having open courts will improve those practices further.
"In care proceedings there is always going to be conflict and differences of opinion and we need to be very careful that we do not base perceptions of social work on one side of the story."
A Justice Ministry spokeswoman said: "We need instead a new approach which concentrates on improving the information coming out of family courts, rather than on who can go in."
Recently, the Sunday Sun highlighted the story of Fran Lyon -- an expectant mum who could have her unborn child taken from her by Northumberland Social Services.
It is claimed she suffers from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, Msbp, where the sufferer harms somebody -- usually a child -- to get attention.
The paediatrician who diagnosed Msbp has never even met her and based his opinions on information from social services.
Fran, of Hexham, was able to highlight her plight in full public view because her case hasn't been to court yet.
Maggie Atkinson, vice president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, said it was not against greater public scrutiny . . . as long as proper safeguards were in place.
She said: "We must ensure, above all else, that sensitive information about families and individuals remains private and is treated as sensitively and confidentially as possible.
"Many court hearings deal with matters that genuinely need to remain confidential, to protect both the young children concerned, and the other people involved.
"The last thing we would want is for cases to be made public in a way that would present further harm to already vulnerable children and young people."
However, Jack Frost of Fassit -- an open justice campaign group -- said the odds were stacked against families.
He said: "In criminal proceedings, the police provide evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service who then see if there is a case to answer. But these checks and balances do not happen in the family courts.
"According to the Government, 200 people have been jailed by secret family courts for speaking out against the injustices they say have happened to them.
"If you are falsely convicted in criminal courts you can campaign to clear your name. But you can't in the family courts.
"There is no faith any more in the closed court system."
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The Alienated Child - New York Law Journal
Unfortunately, I have two biological daughters that are living examples of the insidious damage of Parental Alienation Syndrome. PAS = Yuck off! . I do not want any children to ever have experience being used as weapons of war in the adversarial litigation world of the de -family court.
We must stop PAS and the brainwashing of vulnerable children. Society must stop it at all costs , we must eradicate it now, before it is too late and we have a generation of children taught how to hate before they ever get to enter a school yard? Children don’t deserve PAS.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1185527211257
New York Law Journal30 July 2007
The Alienated Child
By Harriet Newman Cohen and Gretchen Beall Schumann
On April 19, 2007, celebrated actor Alec Baldwin is reported to have left a voicemail for his 11-year-old daughter, which was later circulated on the Internet and in the media. "You've insulted me for the last time," he yelled. "You would never dream of doing [this] to your mother . . . "
Efforts that have been undertaken and proposed to mend strained relations when a child is reluctant to or will not visit with a parent after separation or divorce is the topic of this article.
The alienated child has been described as a child who expresses persistently unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent.1. Estranged children, unlike alienated children, have been described as children who reject a parent as a consequence of that parent's own history of behaviours and conduct. Estranged children frequently "present with a mix of intense anger towards the abusive parent and subconscious fear of retaliation that can induce phobic reactions to that parent, like alienated children do."2 Aligned children have been described as children who exhibit a clear preference for one parent and eschew all but limited contact with the other parent.3
A Discredited 'Disorder'
The term, "parental alienation syndrome," or PAS, was coined in 1985 by psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner to describe behaviours that he observed in the context of a custody dispute and labelled a diagnosable disorder. He identified three components of PAS;
(1) the child's obsessive hatred of a target parent, frivolous and absurd complaints against that parent justified by parroting "borrowed scenarios," and lack of ambivalence or guilt toward the hated parent;
(2) a vindictive parent who consciously or unconsciously brainwashes the child into this indoctrinated stance; and
(3) false allegations of child sexual abuse generated by the vindictive parent, generally the mother, and the alienated child.
(4) Dr. Gardner maintained that PAS was present in approximately 90 percent of all custody cases and that PAS constituted an example of folie a deux or folie a trois.5
Dr. Gardner's "treatment" for PAS was the abrupt removal of the child from the house of the purported alienator with a transfer of custody to the rejected parent. The child was then to be subjected to reverse brainwashing. Only after a period of no contact with the former primary custodian could there be any contact, and then only by way of supervised visitation.6
PAS has been criticized as "junk science."7 Dr. Gardner's "syndrome" has been roundly rejected by mental health professionals, bar and bench.
New Models and Case Law
Expressions such as "redesigning," "rethinking" and "reformulating" heralded the arrival of new models developed to deal with the alienated, estranged and aligned child. Under the new formulation, children may become alienated, not only because of the behaviours of the "beloved parent," but also, as a result of the behaviours of the "rejected parent." There may also be other factors including the child's developmental stage, his or her reaction to the divorce itself and/or parental conflict.8
New York courts have been applying the new models, epitomized by the utilization of interdisciplinary team approaches. The team may be so elaborate as to consist of a court-appointed separate law guardian to represent each child, a mental health forensic evaluator to assess the family dynamic and pathology, separate therapists for each parent and child, a case manager, and/or a parenting coordinator. The team may operate during the pendency and after the conclusion of the court proceedings with the objectives being to rehabilitate the broken parent-child relationship, broker contact and communication between the rejected parent and the child who resists visitation and alleviate the dysfunction in the family. The extent of the team and of each team member's role depends on the severity of the antipathy (and the ability to pay fees).
In L.S. v. L.F., Justice Jeffrey Sunshine utilized the team approach where, post-divorce, the 12-year-old daughter of the parties was reluctant to visit with her father.9 Prior to the judgement of divorce, the court had appointed a law guardian for the child and a mental health forensic evaluator. As part of the stipulation of settlement, the child was required to see a treating therapist. The therapist was assisting with the parent-child antipathy, but the situation did not improve.
A hearing was held, and the judge had an in camera interview with the child. Justice Sunshine concluded that not only were both parents contributing to the tumult and the child's reluctance to visit with her father, but also, the child was "part and parcel of the post divorce discord between the parties."10
This family was already working within the team model. The child was required to see her therapist. The law guardian continued to function post-divorce. Justice Sunshine added a parenting coordinator to the team whose role would be to:
[A]ssist the parties in establishing regular visitation with the child, the ultimate goal being overnight parent child time consistent with the stipulation, judgement and this decision. It is anticipated that the coordinator will meet with the parents and child bi-weekly at the beginning of the process, expanding to monthly, and hopefully assisting the parties and child in re-establishing meaningful parent time.11
The parent coordinator could act as "an accurate reporter of events leading up to visitations, plans and hopefully successful visits . . . [and] as a go-between for the parents and child to assure that there are open lines of communication."12 The court recalendared the case for six months later to assess the success of these measures, thereby keeping control of the case.13
In Mark L. v. Gail S., Justice Elaine Stack, too, utilized the team approach.14 There, the court found that the mother was proactively alienating two daughters and preventing them from having any normal relationship with their father. The father's behaviours were also a contributing factor. Years of efforts by several judges, mental health professionals and a law guardian had not succeeded in changing the mother
or father's behaviours, and the children, although high functioners in school, were severely anxious.
Lamenting that this would be an appropriate case for a change in custody, Justice Stack, nevertheless, did not transfer custody, based on her assessment that the children were in too delicate a condition for that. Reasoning that the children were so bonded to the mother that a change in custody would serve to punish them for their mother's transgressions, Justice Stack, instead, implemented a detailed and costly interdisciplinary team approach, but she warned the mother that changes in custody, under case law, can occur at any time adding, ominously, "even in this family . .
. ."15
Under the court's approach each of the children was to be enrolled in therapy separately and individually. The father was to enter therapy for assistance in anger management and parenting skills as a component of a custody and visitation order but not as a precondition for visitation (since the one is permitted and the other is not under our case law). 16. The mother was to enter therapy to endeavour to differentiate between her anger and disappointment at the father and the children's right to have a relationship with him. The mother was further directed to "examine the reasons for her deliberate alienation of the children against the father and put an end to it."17
The team leader was to be a mental health professional, appointed to serve as a parenting coordinator and the coordinator of all of the therapies.
Each participant was required to sign releases so that the individual therapists could discuss with him the participation of the parties and the children in the court-ordered therapies. The parenting coordinator was charged with insuring that the schedule of parental access by the father was adhered to by the mother and that she ceased her negative conduct. The parental coordinator was also charged with addressing all changes to and interference with the parenting schedule. The father, a physician, was directed to pay 90 percent of the cost of the team's intervention.18
Boon or Bane?
Potential negatives of the team approach - intrusive, coercive, expensive, without empirical basis and potentially counterproductive and the source of boomerang - are conspicuous. These pitfalls have been analyzed by the researchers in the field.
Carol S. Bruch, professor at the University of California Davis School of Law, has observed that, like Dr. Gardner before them, the proponents of the team approach "go far beyond their data as they craft recommendations for extended, coercive, highly intrusive judicial interventions."19 Like in the New York cases, the parties are directed to waive significant rights to confidentiality and other privileges. The parenting coordinators and other team members are directed to play "quasi-judicial" roles. The costs of paying for the team are astronomical.
Ms. Bruch asks why, when the state does not intervene and impose grief counselling on a minor child or surviving spouse who loses a parent absent behaviour that provides an independent basis for coercive intervention, such as those imposed by laws regulating neglect, abuse, and criminal behaviour, must it intervene to fix damaged or lost relationships in living dysfunctional families?20
How About 'Benign Neglect'?
Some researchers have even questioned whether the team approach has the opposite effect to that which is intended, namely, to further rather than stem parent-child antipathies. Judith S. Wallerstein, a psychologist and authority on the effects of divorce, has recommended "allowing natural maturation to take its course and to avoid overzealous intervention to break these alliances, which are usually strengthened by efforts to separate the allies."21 Ms. Wallerstein has reported that of 131 children in her study of divorcing California families, the "children's alignments with a parent were transient, with every child later abandoning his or her harsh position, mostly within one or two years and all before the age of eighteen."22 She further has reported that the children remained with their primary caregivers throughout, "yet were profusely apologetic to the parents they had previously treated so badly."23
Matthew J. Sullivan and Joan B. Kelly, psychologists and researchers, have reported that "there is clinical support but no empirical research demonstrating that by letting go of the relationship, the rejected parent and child will at some later time reconcile and restore the relationship."24 Janet R. Johnston and her co-authors have reported that "the long-term outcomes are a matter of conjecture and currently unknown."25
Conclusion
The dynamics of alienation, estrangement and alignment in the context of a custody dispute are all alike: Each consists of a child, a "beloved" parent and a "rejected" parent. The antipathy may be transient or long-lasting. The cause does not lend itself to simple answers. Long-term outcomes of the "redesigned" "rethought" and "reformulated" well-intended approaches remain a matter of conjecture. What is not a matter of conjecture, however, is that the problem of the "alienated, estranged or aligned child" poses a unique challenge for bench, bar and mental health professionals.
Harriet Newman Cohen is a member of Cohen Hennessey Bienstock & Rabin and the author of "The Divorce Book for Men and Women" (Avon 1994). Gretchen Beall Schumann is an associate at the firm.
Endnotes:
1. Carol S. Bruch, "Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation:
Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases," 35 Fam. L. Q. 527, 542 at fn. 57
(2001).
2. Janet R. Johnston, "Rethinking Parental Alienation and Redesigning
Parental-Child Access Services for Children who Resist or Refuse
Visitation," at 5. Paper submitted at International Conference on
Supervised Visitation, Staatsinstitut fur Fruhpadagogik, Munich, Germany, July 9-10, 2001. Paper constitutes a summary of the joint work of a task force especially convened to study the problem of children who become alienated from their divorcing parents. The task force included: Steven Friedlander, Ph.D., Janet R. Johnston, Ph.D., Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D.,Margaret Lee, Ph.D., Nancy Olesen, Ph.D., John Sikorsky, M.D., Matthew J.Sullivan, Ph.D. and Marjorie Gans Walters, Ph.D.
3. Id. at 4.
4. Richard A. Gardner, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome" (1992).
5. American Psychiatric Association DSM IV §297.3 describes "folie a deux" as a shared psychotic disorder in which a second or further person in a close relationship with a primary person comes to share the delusional beliefs of that person, who already suffers from a psychotic disorder, most commonly, schizophrenia. Dr. Gardner expands the phrase to, "folie a trois," to include a therapist, often female, according to Dr. Gardner, "harboring deep-seated hostility towards men, hostility so strong that they will seize upon every opportunity to vent their rage on them." This therapist supports the concerned parent and the complaining child. See,Gardner, supra, note 4 at 146-149.
6. Gardner, supra, note 4 at 226-228.
7. See, e.g., Alayne Katz, "Junk Science v. Novel Scientific Evidence:
Parental Alienation Syndrome, Getting It Wrong in Custody Cases," 24 Pace
L. Rev. 239 (2001).
8. See, e.g., Philip M. Stahl, "Understanding and Evaluating Alienation in
High-Conflict Custody Cases," 24 Wisc. J. Fam. L. 1 (2003). Dr. Stahl describes the new models as "clinical" (i.e., multiple causes may contribute to an effect) and Dr. Gardner's model as "linear" (a single cause with an obvious effect). See also, Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan B.Kelly, "Surviving the Breakup - How Children and Parents Cope With Divorce"(1980).
9. L.S. v. L.F., 10 Misc3d 714 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co., Sunshine, J., 2005).
10. Id. at 718.
11. Id. at 727.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Mark L. v. Gail S., NYLJ, May 30, 2006, p. 24, col. 1 (Sup. Ct., Nassau
Co., Stack, J.).
15. Id. at 26. Accord, John A. v. Bridget M., 16 AD3d 324 (1st Dept. 2005), where the First Department modified a Family Court order by changing custody from prime custodian mother to non-custodian father, endorsed therapeutic intervention and warned the mother that she could lose custody if she continued to engage in the complained of alienation in the future.
16. See, e.g., Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753 (2d Dept. 2006), which holds that while a court may not condition a parent's application for visitation upon attendance in therapy, court-directed therapy may properly be made a part of a visitation order. The Second Department reiterated that the therapy requirement in Zafran "[w]as imposed as a component of the court-ordered program of temporary visitation, which is perfectly permissible."
17. Mark L. v. Gail S., supra, note 14 at 26.
18. The First Department has utilized monetary sanctions as a deterrent in extreme cases of alienation. In Rodman v. Friedman, 33 AD3d 400 (1st Dept. 2006), it imposed self-executing fines if the mother, already found to have engaged in alienation, failed to comply with court-ordered visitation and therapy in the future. Justice Jacqueline W. Silbermann conditioned maintenance and child support on a teenage boy's compliance with a visitation schedule in Bragar v. Bragar (unreported decision after first financial trial, dated Oct. 28, 1999). At the conclusion of the second financial trial between the parties, Justice Silbermann went further and found that the alienation was so extreme as to constitute egregious misconduct warranting a reduction in equitable distribution. Bragar v. Bragar, 227 NYLJ 119, p. 19, col. 4 (Sup. Ct., New York Co., Silbermann, J., June 21, 2002).
19. Bruch, supra, note 1 at 543.
20. Id. at 546 et seq.
21. Id. at 548 quoting Judith S. Wallerstein, Julie M. Lewis and Sandra
Blakeslee, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce - A 25 Year Landmark Study,"
116-117, 125 (2000); see also, Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan B. Kelly,
"Surviving the Breakup - How Children and Parents Cope With Divorce," 77-80(1980).
22. Id. at 547.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 545 quoting Matthew J. Sullivan and Joan B. Kelly, "Legal and Psychological Management of Cases With an Alienated Child," 39 Fam. Ct.
Rev. 299 at 313-314 (2001).
25. Id. quoting Janet R. Johnston, Marjorie Gans Walters & Steven
Friedlander, "Therapeutic Work With Alienated Children and Their Families,"
39 Fam. Ct. Rev. 316, 329 (2001).
__._,_.___
We must stop PAS and the brainwashing of vulnerable children. Society must stop it at all costs , we must eradicate it now, before it is too late and we have a generation of children taught how to hate before they ever get to enter a school yard? Children don’t deserve PAS.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1185527211257
New York Law Journal30 July 2007
The Alienated Child
By Harriet Newman Cohen and Gretchen Beall Schumann
On April 19, 2007, celebrated actor Alec Baldwin is reported to have left a voicemail for his 11-year-old daughter, which was later circulated on the Internet and in the media. "You've insulted me for the last time," he yelled. "You would never dream of doing [this] to your mother . . . "
Efforts that have been undertaken and proposed to mend strained relations when a child is reluctant to or will not visit with a parent after separation or divorce is the topic of this article.
The alienated child has been described as a child who expresses persistently unreasonable negative feelings and beliefs toward a parent that are significantly disproportionate to the child’s actual experience with that parent.1. Estranged children, unlike alienated children, have been described as children who reject a parent as a consequence of that parent's own history of behaviours and conduct. Estranged children frequently "present with a mix of intense anger towards the abusive parent and subconscious fear of retaliation that can induce phobic reactions to that parent, like alienated children do."2 Aligned children have been described as children who exhibit a clear preference for one parent and eschew all but limited contact with the other parent.3
A Discredited 'Disorder'
The term, "parental alienation syndrome," or PAS, was coined in 1985 by psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner to describe behaviours that he observed in the context of a custody dispute and labelled a diagnosable disorder. He identified three components of PAS;
(1) the child's obsessive hatred of a target parent, frivolous and absurd complaints against that parent justified by parroting "borrowed scenarios," and lack of ambivalence or guilt toward the hated parent;
(2) a vindictive parent who consciously or unconsciously brainwashes the child into this indoctrinated stance; and
(3) false allegations of child sexual abuse generated by the vindictive parent, generally the mother, and the alienated child.
(4) Dr. Gardner maintained that PAS was present in approximately 90 percent of all custody cases and that PAS constituted an example of folie a deux or folie a trois.5
Dr. Gardner's "treatment" for PAS was the abrupt removal of the child from the house of the purported alienator with a transfer of custody to the rejected parent. The child was then to be subjected to reverse brainwashing. Only after a period of no contact with the former primary custodian could there be any contact, and then only by way of supervised visitation.6
PAS has been criticized as "junk science."7 Dr. Gardner's "syndrome" has been roundly rejected by mental health professionals, bar and bench.
New Models and Case Law
Expressions such as "redesigning," "rethinking" and "reformulating" heralded the arrival of new models developed to deal with the alienated, estranged and aligned child. Under the new formulation, children may become alienated, not only because of the behaviours of the "beloved parent," but also, as a result of the behaviours of the "rejected parent." There may also be other factors including the child's developmental stage, his or her reaction to the divorce itself and/or parental conflict.8
New York courts have been applying the new models, epitomized by the utilization of interdisciplinary team approaches. The team may be so elaborate as to consist of a court-appointed separate law guardian to represent each child, a mental health forensic evaluator to assess the family dynamic and pathology, separate therapists for each parent and child, a case manager, and/or a parenting coordinator. The team may operate during the pendency and after the conclusion of the court proceedings with the objectives being to rehabilitate the broken parent-child relationship, broker contact and communication between the rejected parent and the child who resists visitation and alleviate the dysfunction in the family. The extent of the team and of each team member's role depends on the severity of the antipathy (and the ability to pay fees).
In L.S. v. L.F., Justice Jeffrey Sunshine utilized the team approach where, post-divorce, the 12-year-old daughter of the parties was reluctant to visit with her father.9 Prior to the judgement of divorce, the court had appointed a law guardian for the child and a mental health forensic evaluator. As part of the stipulation of settlement, the child was required to see a treating therapist. The therapist was assisting with the parent-child antipathy, but the situation did not improve.
A hearing was held, and the judge had an in camera interview with the child. Justice Sunshine concluded that not only were both parents contributing to the tumult and the child's reluctance to visit with her father, but also, the child was "part and parcel of the post divorce discord between the parties."10
This family was already working within the team model. The child was required to see her therapist. The law guardian continued to function post-divorce. Justice Sunshine added a parenting coordinator to the team whose role would be to:
[A]ssist the parties in establishing regular visitation with the child, the ultimate goal being overnight parent child time consistent with the stipulation, judgement and this decision. It is anticipated that the coordinator will meet with the parents and child bi-weekly at the beginning of the process, expanding to monthly, and hopefully assisting the parties and child in re-establishing meaningful parent time.11
The parent coordinator could act as "an accurate reporter of events leading up to visitations, plans and hopefully successful visits . . . [and] as a go-between for the parents and child to assure that there are open lines of communication."12 The court recalendared the case for six months later to assess the success of these measures, thereby keeping control of the case.13
In Mark L. v. Gail S., Justice Elaine Stack, too, utilized the team approach.14 There, the court found that the mother was proactively alienating two daughters and preventing them from having any normal relationship with their father. The father's behaviours were also a contributing factor. Years of efforts by several judges, mental health professionals and a law guardian had not succeeded in changing the mother
or father's behaviours, and the children, although high functioners in school, were severely anxious.
Lamenting that this would be an appropriate case for a change in custody, Justice Stack, nevertheless, did not transfer custody, based on her assessment that the children were in too delicate a condition for that. Reasoning that the children were so bonded to the mother that a change in custody would serve to punish them for their mother's transgressions, Justice Stack, instead, implemented a detailed and costly interdisciplinary team approach, but she warned the mother that changes in custody, under case law, can occur at any time adding, ominously, "even in this family . .
. ."15
Under the court's approach each of the children was to be enrolled in therapy separately and individually. The father was to enter therapy for assistance in anger management and parenting skills as a component of a custody and visitation order but not as a precondition for visitation (since the one is permitted and the other is not under our case law). 16. The mother was to enter therapy to endeavour to differentiate between her anger and disappointment at the father and the children's right to have a relationship with him. The mother was further directed to "examine the reasons for her deliberate alienation of the children against the father and put an end to it."17
The team leader was to be a mental health professional, appointed to serve as a parenting coordinator and the coordinator of all of the therapies.
Each participant was required to sign releases so that the individual therapists could discuss with him the participation of the parties and the children in the court-ordered therapies. The parenting coordinator was charged with insuring that the schedule of parental access by the father was adhered to by the mother and that she ceased her negative conduct. The parental coordinator was also charged with addressing all changes to and interference with the parenting schedule. The father, a physician, was directed to pay 90 percent of the cost of the team's intervention.18
Boon or Bane?
Potential negatives of the team approach - intrusive, coercive, expensive, without empirical basis and potentially counterproductive and the source of boomerang - are conspicuous. These pitfalls have been analyzed by the researchers in the field.
Carol S. Bruch, professor at the University of California Davis School of Law, has observed that, like Dr. Gardner before them, the proponents of the team approach "go far beyond their data as they craft recommendations for extended, coercive, highly intrusive judicial interventions."19 Like in the New York cases, the parties are directed to waive significant rights to confidentiality and other privileges. The parenting coordinators and other team members are directed to play "quasi-judicial" roles. The costs of paying for the team are astronomical.
Ms. Bruch asks why, when the state does not intervene and impose grief counselling on a minor child or surviving spouse who loses a parent absent behaviour that provides an independent basis for coercive intervention, such as those imposed by laws regulating neglect, abuse, and criminal behaviour, must it intervene to fix damaged or lost relationships in living dysfunctional families?20
How About 'Benign Neglect'?
Some researchers have even questioned whether the team approach has the opposite effect to that which is intended, namely, to further rather than stem parent-child antipathies. Judith S. Wallerstein, a psychologist and authority on the effects of divorce, has recommended "allowing natural maturation to take its course and to avoid overzealous intervention to break these alliances, which are usually strengthened by efforts to separate the allies."21 Ms. Wallerstein has reported that of 131 children in her study of divorcing California families, the "children's alignments with a parent were transient, with every child later abandoning his or her harsh position, mostly within one or two years and all before the age of eighteen."22 She further has reported that the children remained with their primary caregivers throughout, "yet were profusely apologetic to the parents they had previously treated so badly."23
Matthew J. Sullivan and Joan B. Kelly, psychologists and researchers, have reported that "there is clinical support but no empirical research demonstrating that by letting go of the relationship, the rejected parent and child will at some later time reconcile and restore the relationship."24 Janet R. Johnston and her co-authors have reported that "the long-term outcomes are a matter of conjecture and currently unknown."25
Conclusion
The dynamics of alienation, estrangement and alignment in the context of a custody dispute are all alike: Each consists of a child, a "beloved" parent and a "rejected" parent. The antipathy may be transient or long-lasting. The cause does not lend itself to simple answers. Long-term outcomes of the "redesigned" "rethought" and "reformulated" well-intended approaches remain a matter of conjecture. What is not a matter of conjecture, however, is that the problem of the "alienated, estranged or aligned child" poses a unique challenge for bench, bar and mental health professionals.
Harriet Newman Cohen is a member of Cohen Hennessey Bienstock & Rabin and the author of "The Divorce Book for Men and Women" (Avon 1994). Gretchen Beall Schumann is an associate at the firm.
Endnotes:
1. Carol S. Bruch, "Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation:
Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases," 35 Fam. L. Q. 527, 542 at fn. 57
(2001).
2. Janet R. Johnston, "Rethinking Parental Alienation and Redesigning
Parental-Child Access Services for Children who Resist or Refuse
Visitation," at 5. Paper submitted at International Conference on
Supervised Visitation, Staatsinstitut fur Fruhpadagogik, Munich, Germany, July 9-10, 2001. Paper constitutes a summary of the joint work of a task force especially convened to study the problem of children who become alienated from their divorcing parents. The task force included: Steven Friedlander, Ph.D., Janet R. Johnston, Ph.D., Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D.,Margaret Lee, Ph.D., Nancy Olesen, Ph.D., John Sikorsky, M.D., Matthew J.Sullivan, Ph.D. and Marjorie Gans Walters, Ph.D.
3. Id. at 4.
4. Richard A. Gardner, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome" (1992).
5. American Psychiatric Association DSM IV §297.3 describes "folie a deux" as a shared psychotic disorder in which a second or further person in a close relationship with a primary person comes to share the delusional beliefs of that person, who already suffers from a psychotic disorder, most commonly, schizophrenia. Dr. Gardner expands the phrase to, "folie a trois," to include a therapist, often female, according to Dr. Gardner, "harboring deep-seated hostility towards men, hostility so strong that they will seize upon every opportunity to vent their rage on them." This therapist supports the concerned parent and the complaining child. See,Gardner, supra, note 4 at 146-149.
6. Gardner, supra, note 4 at 226-228.
7. See, e.g., Alayne Katz, "Junk Science v. Novel Scientific Evidence:
Parental Alienation Syndrome, Getting It Wrong in Custody Cases," 24 Pace
L. Rev. 239 (2001).
8. See, e.g., Philip M. Stahl, "Understanding and Evaluating Alienation in
High-Conflict Custody Cases," 24 Wisc. J. Fam. L. 1 (2003). Dr. Stahl describes the new models as "clinical" (i.e., multiple causes may contribute to an effect) and Dr. Gardner's model as "linear" (a single cause with an obvious effect). See also, Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan B.Kelly, "Surviving the Breakup - How Children and Parents Cope With Divorce"(1980).
9. L.S. v. L.F., 10 Misc3d 714 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co., Sunshine, J., 2005).
10. Id. at 718.
11. Id. at 727.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Mark L. v. Gail S., NYLJ, May 30, 2006, p. 24, col. 1 (Sup. Ct., Nassau
Co., Stack, J.).
15. Id. at 26. Accord, John A. v. Bridget M., 16 AD3d 324 (1st Dept. 2005), where the First Department modified a Family Court order by changing custody from prime custodian mother to non-custodian father, endorsed therapeutic intervention and warned the mother that she could lose custody if she continued to engage in the complained of alienation in the future.
16. See, e.g., Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753 (2d Dept. 2006), which holds that while a court may not condition a parent's application for visitation upon attendance in therapy, court-directed therapy may properly be made a part of a visitation order. The Second Department reiterated that the therapy requirement in Zafran "[w]as imposed as a component of the court-ordered program of temporary visitation, which is perfectly permissible."
17. Mark L. v. Gail S., supra, note 14 at 26.
18. The First Department has utilized monetary sanctions as a deterrent in extreme cases of alienation. In Rodman v. Friedman, 33 AD3d 400 (1st Dept. 2006), it imposed self-executing fines if the mother, already found to have engaged in alienation, failed to comply with court-ordered visitation and therapy in the future. Justice Jacqueline W. Silbermann conditioned maintenance and child support on a teenage boy's compliance with a visitation schedule in Bragar v. Bragar (unreported decision after first financial trial, dated Oct. 28, 1999). At the conclusion of the second financial trial between the parties, Justice Silbermann went further and found that the alienation was so extreme as to constitute egregious misconduct warranting a reduction in equitable distribution. Bragar v. Bragar, 227 NYLJ 119, p. 19, col. 4 (Sup. Ct., New York Co., Silbermann, J., June 21, 2002).
19. Bruch, supra, note 1 at 543.
20. Id. at 546 et seq.
21. Id. at 548 quoting Judith S. Wallerstein, Julie M. Lewis and Sandra
Blakeslee, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce - A 25 Year Landmark Study,"
116-117, 125 (2000); see also, Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan B. Kelly,
"Surviving the Breakup - How Children and Parents Cope With Divorce," 77-80(1980).
22. Id. at 547.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 545 quoting Matthew J. Sullivan and Joan B. Kelly, "Legal and Psychological Management of Cases With an Alienated Child," 39 Fam. Ct.
Rev. 299 at 313-314 (2001).
25. Id. quoting Janet R. Johnston, Marjorie Gans Walters & Steven
Friedlander, "Therapeutic Work With Alienated Children and Their Families,"
39 Fam. Ct. Rev. 316, 329 (2001).
__._,_.___
Saturday, September 15, 2007
USA - A win for Fathers !
15 Sep 2007
Subject: ABQjournal message from a friend
To: dad4justice@yahoo.com.au
From: "Shelly Barreras"
New Mexicos Leading Journal the Albuquerque Journal
A win for Fathers!
Recommended by shelly@shellybarreras.com
Saturday, September 15, 2007
'Dad' Awarded $1.2M Over Phony Child
By Carolyn Carlson
Journal Staff Writer
A District Court jury awarded $1.2 million to a man whose life was turned upside down after two DNA tests pinpointed him as the father of a child who didn't exist.
On Friday, Mobile Blood Services and owner David Quintana were found liable of fraudulent, negligent and intentional actions that inflicted emotional distress on Steve Barreras, 50.
The jury of 11 men and one woman awarded $625,000 in compensatory damages and $575,000 in punitive damages.
The claim of a child was made during divorce proceedings by his ex-wife, Viola Trevino, to secure child support payments. She is now in federal prison on a related conviction and awaits trial on several state charges.
On Friday, Barreras' attorneys, Mary Han and Rob Perry, said the award was remarkable.
"Steve is incredibly grateful that he received vindication and recognition from a jury of his peers about the hell he has gone through," Han said.
She said the jurors told her they wanted to send a strong message of accountability.
"Their concern was that places like Mobile Blood Services are unregulated," Han said. "They said they wanted the message out that people and businesses will be held accountable even if the government does not regulate them."
Han said she and Perry asked the jury to put a value on Barreras' hopes and dreams.
"That is what they did," Han said. "They were an intelligent jury who understood it could have happened to any one of them."
During divorce proceedings in 1999, Trevino claimed she was pregnant by Barreras. Later, Trevino insisted there was a child, even though no one had seen it.
Because of the DNA tests, Barreras was under court order to pay child support.
Meanwhile, Barreras kept trying to get someone to believe there was no child because of his vasectomy and Trevino's tubal ligation.
Twice, DNA was collected, and, both times, test results came back positive.
That's because samples were taken from Eve Barreras, the adult daughter of Trevino and Barreras, court records show.
In December 2004, state District Court Judge Linda Vanzi ordered Trevino to bring the child to court.
Instead, Trevino picked up a 2-year-old girl and her grandmother from a South Valley street, promising them lunch, $50 and a trip to see Santa Claus.
Trevino took the child into Vanzi's courtroom, leaving the grandmother in the car. When the grandmother followed her into court, Trevino had to admit the child was not hers.
Vanzi declared the child was a fiction.
Quintana testified this week that he wasn't present and didn't have any knowledge of the fraud committed when his then-employee, Pamela Flores, said she took saliva samples from Barreras' ex-wife, Viola Trevino, and the nonexistent child.
Terrance Yenson, who defended Quintana and Mobile Blood Services, argued that the responsibility didn't lie with Quintana or his service.
Yenson said jurors should look instead at Flores, the employee who certified she had taken the DNA sample; or at Trevino; or at Barreras' daughter, Eve; or even at Barreras' first attorney, who failed to subpoena hospital records that might have unveiled the fraud sooner.
Flores, during her deposition, admitted she and Eve Barreras were friends.
After the jury's decision, Barreras and his current wife, Shelly, said they were a bit stunned by the award.
"All we wanted was justice," Shelly Barreras said.
Quintana left the courtroom without comment after the verdicts were read.
Trevino, 54, is serving a 16-month federal sentence for filing a false tax return based on the same series of incidents.
Trevino pleaded not guilty Monday to state criminal charges of kidnapping, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, Medicaid fraud, falsification of documents, unlawful dealing in federal food stamps, tampering with public records, fraudulent application for a vital record and perjury.
Flores and Eve Barreras are each charged in state criminal court with two counts of fraud for their roles in the incident.
State District Judge Linda Vanzi presided over the civil trial.
Subject: ABQjournal message from a friend
To: dad4justice@yahoo.com.au
From: "Shelly Barreras"
New Mexicos Leading Journal the Albuquerque Journal
A win for Fathers!
Recommended by shelly@shellybarreras.com
Saturday, September 15, 2007
'Dad' Awarded $1.2M Over Phony Child
By Carolyn Carlson
Journal Staff Writer
A District Court jury awarded $1.2 million to a man whose life was turned upside down after two DNA tests pinpointed him as the father of a child who didn't exist.
On Friday, Mobile Blood Services and owner David Quintana were found liable of fraudulent, negligent and intentional actions that inflicted emotional distress on Steve Barreras, 50.
The jury of 11 men and one woman awarded $625,000 in compensatory damages and $575,000 in punitive damages.
The claim of a child was made during divorce proceedings by his ex-wife, Viola Trevino, to secure child support payments. She is now in federal prison on a related conviction and awaits trial on several state charges.
On Friday, Barreras' attorneys, Mary Han and Rob Perry, said the award was remarkable.
"Steve is incredibly grateful that he received vindication and recognition from a jury of his peers about the hell he has gone through," Han said.
She said the jurors told her they wanted to send a strong message of accountability.
"Their concern was that places like Mobile Blood Services are unregulated," Han said. "They said they wanted the message out that people and businesses will be held accountable even if the government does not regulate them."
Han said she and Perry asked the jury to put a value on Barreras' hopes and dreams.
"That is what they did," Han said. "They were an intelligent jury who understood it could have happened to any one of them."
During divorce proceedings in 1999, Trevino claimed she was pregnant by Barreras. Later, Trevino insisted there was a child, even though no one had seen it.
Because of the DNA tests, Barreras was under court order to pay child support.
Meanwhile, Barreras kept trying to get someone to believe there was no child because of his vasectomy and Trevino's tubal ligation.
Twice, DNA was collected, and, both times, test results came back positive.
That's because samples were taken from Eve Barreras, the adult daughter of Trevino and Barreras, court records show.
In December 2004, state District Court Judge Linda Vanzi ordered Trevino to bring the child to court.
Instead, Trevino picked up a 2-year-old girl and her grandmother from a South Valley street, promising them lunch, $50 and a trip to see Santa Claus.
Trevino took the child into Vanzi's courtroom, leaving the grandmother in the car. When the grandmother followed her into court, Trevino had to admit the child was not hers.
Vanzi declared the child was a fiction.
Quintana testified this week that he wasn't present and didn't have any knowledge of the fraud committed when his then-employee, Pamela Flores, said she took saliva samples from Barreras' ex-wife, Viola Trevino, and the nonexistent child.
Terrance Yenson, who defended Quintana and Mobile Blood Services, argued that the responsibility didn't lie with Quintana or his service.
Yenson said jurors should look instead at Flores, the employee who certified she had taken the DNA sample; or at Trevino; or at Barreras' daughter, Eve; or even at Barreras' first attorney, who failed to subpoena hospital records that might have unveiled the fraud sooner.
Flores, during her deposition, admitted she and Eve Barreras were friends.
After the jury's decision, Barreras and his current wife, Shelly, said they were a bit stunned by the award.
"All we wanted was justice," Shelly Barreras said.
Quintana left the courtroom without comment after the verdicts were read.
Trevino, 54, is serving a 16-month federal sentence for filing a false tax return based on the same series of incidents.
Trevino pleaded not guilty Monday to state criminal charges of kidnapping, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, Medicaid fraud, falsification of documents, unlawful dealing in federal food stamps, tampering with public records, fraudulent application for a vital record and perjury.
Flores and Eve Barreras are each charged in state criminal court with two counts of fraud for their roles in the incident.
State District Judge Linda Vanzi presided over the civil trial.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Big Mother is Watching
The Children's Commissioner - Cindy Kiro contacted New Zealand police last year alleging letters and email that I had sent her were offensive.
A detective senior sergeant from Southern CIB left his calling identity card in my front door 26 July 2006. I contacted him that day. He said, “he was busy today and would get back to me tomorrow.”
Unfortunately I did not get to talk to the senior sergeant until 22 December 2006.
Talk about anxiety mate ! I think Winston can relate to the stressful thought of having to spend another Christmas dinner locked up in the can or nuthouse courtesy of the Ministry of Love.
I outlined my serious concerns I had with care and protection children’s issues to the detective. I showed him extensive documented evidence showing that the family court and cyfs have both failed my two young biological daughters. He agreed, and said, he would contact the Geraldine Police , so they can keep someone monitoring the sad situation for my daughter’s safety and welfare.
Needless to say he did not arrest me. I said on the way out of the cop shop,
“ I must be the only dude in NZ that has been lucky enough to have survived prison requests from both a Prime Minister and children’s commissioner? ”
He laughed and said, “try and have a good Christmas Mr Burns.”
Anyway enough of my woffle. I really enjoyed this brilliant article from Mr Hopkins.
Big Mother is Watching - Jim Hopkins
Jim Hopkins: Big Mother is watching
Friday September 14, 2007
By Jim Hopkins
Commissioner Wants ALL Parents Checked - Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro wants mandatory screening of every baby's home life in a bid to halve New Zealand's child murder rate. Under her proposal, parents and caregivers would nominate an authorised inspector for compulsory home visits. Parents who refused to participate would be referred to welfare authorities - News Item
It is with much pride that the Harold now presents a thrilling extract from George Allswell's provocative novel Big Mother Is Watching You:
"Attention all parents!" boomed the strident loudspeaker on top of the big grey Ministry of Love van cruising slowly along the quiet suburban street. "You must be good to your children!"
"I am!" fumed Cindy Smith, near deafened by the din outside.
"And that's an order!!" rasped the harsh metallic voice, apparently unconvinced by her protestations.
"I'd like to order you not to broadcast your stupid messages five minutes after I've finally got little Winston to sleep!" yelled Cindy, her anger lost on the fading voice as the Ministry's windowless vehicle turned into Kiro Lane.
"What's the point," she muttered, resigned to spending another 20 minutes soothing her fractious offspring.
Before she could lift him, there was an urgent knock on the door. Cindy flung it open to two very grey people in very grey, ill-fitting uniforms of a proletarian cut.
"We're from the Family Inspectorate," declared the larger of the duo, presenting a Ministry of Love Identity Badge. "I'm Inspector One and this is Inspector Other One."
"Your baby's crying," said Inspector Other One. "You haven't been ... ?"
"No!" Cindy protested. "I have not!!!"
As if on cue, young Winston's wails became, first a gurgle, then a contented coo. Cindy's relief was palpable.
"We'll suspend judgment on that," Inspector One purred menacingly. "But you have denied access to the approved agencies authorised to conduct mandatory visits for the purpose of assessing family progress, haven't you, Cindy?" She paused. "I presume you think your home's your own?"
"Yes, I do!"
"Well, it's not!!" snapped the second inspector. "So we're coming in. And don't try to stop us. We've got a court order."
"Who cares?" Cindy shrugged. "The police just ignore them!"
"Are you Maori?" asked Inspector One.
"No."
"Then I don't think we'll have any problems," she hissed, striding into the house. "Check the nursery," Inspector One instructed her colleague. "You know what to look for."
Cindy waited until the inspector returned. "We've got a problem," the woman snapped, staring balefully as she re-entered the room. "The child has a Grade 7 cut on the left lower arm!"
"He's just learning to walk!" Cindy protested. "He tripped and scratched ... "
"Citizen 3124583 denies injuring infant," murmured Inspector One, noting the particulars in a large black book.
"I'm a good mother," Cindy pleaded. "I read stories to him. See! Thomas the Tuck Engine. It's a lovely story about how brave little Thomas helps the Fat Controllers take all the bad food out of schools!" She thrust it towards her interrogators. "See for yourself !"
"That won't be necessary," said Inspector One primly. "We don't accept books as proof of approved parenting!"
"Especially when a Citizen also possesses this!!" snarled Inspector Other One, brandishing a pamphlet found in the pile from whence Thomas had come.
Inspector One gasped as the offending document was waved under her nose.
"Why We Need Nuclear Power." The woman read the title with manifest distaste. "And you think this is suitable when you have a baby in the house?"
"It's not for him!!!" Cindy raged. "It's for me. I like to keep an open mind."
"Oh really, Citizen?" inquired the inspectors sardonically. "Well, the Great Leader doesn't. She likes to have a closed mind on the subject. She doesn't want nuclear power, the Party doesn't want nuclear power, so New Zealand won't get nuclear Power, Citizen!"
"Huh! Next time you see her, give her a knowledge wave from me!" Cindy mumbled.
"Pardon?"
"I said nuclear could be the new wave of low emission energy."
"But, Citizen, think of the risks!" urged Inspector Two. "As an approved parent, it is your official obligation to think of the risks!"
"There's risks with everything," Cindy replied. "That's no reason to blindly reject an idea! Look, its obviously risky for 15-year-olds to drive cars but the Leader allows that."
"Enough!!!" shouted Inspector One. "Citizen 3124583, I'm recommending you for immediate re-education as an unsuitable parental entity. Do not approach your child unless supervised and do not attempt to escape. We will be waiting outside until your re-educator arrives!" With that, the two grey figures clicked their heels and left.
Distraught, Cindy slumped into a chair. "When will people like the Children's Commissioner accept that the problem is largely caused by a welfare system which pays people to look after children but ignores how they're doing it? When will she admit it's the state that's failing, by neglecting the very children it professes to help? And when will she stop making ludicrous proposals for everybody else and start putting the Government's own house in order?"
"Don't hold your breath," came a little voice behind her. Cindy turned, astonished, to see Winston. With an inscrutable smile on his innocent face. Cindy couldn't decide whether to be thrilled he'd said his first words or chilled by his prescience.
"Out of the mouths of babes and ... " she whispered, but her message was swamped once again by the blasting loudspeaker on the Ministry van. "Attention all parents! Attention all parents ... "
A detective senior sergeant from Southern CIB left his calling identity card in my front door 26 July 2006. I contacted him that day. He said, “he was busy today and would get back to me tomorrow.”
Unfortunately I did not get to talk to the senior sergeant until 22 December 2006.
Talk about anxiety mate ! I think Winston can relate to the stressful thought of having to spend another Christmas dinner locked up in the can or nuthouse courtesy of the Ministry of Love.
I outlined my serious concerns I had with care and protection children’s issues to the detective. I showed him extensive documented evidence showing that the family court and cyfs have both failed my two young biological daughters. He agreed, and said, he would contact the Geraldine Police , so they can keep someone monitoring the sad situation for my daughter’s safety and welfare.
Needless to say he did not arrest me. I said on the way out of the cop shop,
“ I must be the only dude in NZ that has been lucky enough to have survived prison requests from both a Prime Minister and children’s commissioner? ”
He laughed and said, “try and have a good Christmas Mr Burns.”
Anyway enough of my woffle. I really enjoyed this brilliant article from Mr Hopkins.
Big Mother is Watching - Jim Hopkins
Jim Hopkins: Big Mother is watching
Friday September 14, 2007
By Jim Hopkins
Commissioner Wants ALL Parents Checked - Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro wants mandatory screening of every baby's home life in a bid to halve New Zealand's child murder rate. Under her proposal, parents and caregivers would nominate an authorised inspector for compulsory home visits. Parents who refused to participate would be referred to welfare authorities - News Item
It is with much pride that the Harold now presents a thrilling extract from George Allswell's provocative novel Big Mother Is Watching You:
"Attention all parents!" boomed the strident loudspeaker on top of the big grey Ministry of Love van cruising slowly along the quiet suburban street. "You must be good to your children!"
"I am!" fumed Cindy Smith, near deafened by the din outside.
"And that's an order!!" rasped the harsh metallic voice, apparently unconvinced by her protestations.
"I'd like to order you not to broadcast your stupid messages five minutes after I've finally got little Winston to sleep!" yelled Cindy, her anger lost on the fading voice as the Ministry's windowless vehicle turned into Kiro Lane.
"What's the point," she muttered, resigned to spending another 20 minutes soothing her fractious offspring.
Before she could lift him, there was an urgent knock on the door. Cindy flung it open to two very grey people in very grey, ill-fitting uniforms of a proletarian cut.
"We're from the Family Inspectorate," declared the larger of the duo, presenting a Ministry of Love Identity Badge. "I'm Inspector One and this is Inspector Other One."
"Your baby's crying," said Inspector Other One. "You haven't been ... ?"
"No!" Cindy protested. "I have not!!!"
As if on cue, young Winston's wails became, first a gurgle, then a contented coo. Cindy's relief was palpable.
"We'll suspend judgment on that," Inspector One purred menacingly. "But you have denied access to the approved agencies authorised to conduct mandatory visits for the purpose of assessing family progress, haven't you, Cindy?" She paused. "I presume you think your home's your own?"
"Yes, I do!"
"Well, it's not!!" snapped the second inspector. "So we're coming in. And don't try to stop us. We've got a court order."
"Who cares?" Cindy shrugged. "The police just ignore them!"
"Are you Maori?" asked Inspector One.
"No."
"Then I don't think we'll have any problems," she hissed, striding into the house. "Check the nursery," Inspector One instructed her colleague. "You know what to look for."
Cindy waited until the inspector returned. "We've got a problem," the woman snapped, staring balefully as she re-entered the room. "The child has a Grade 7 cut on the left lower arm!"
"He's just learning to walk!" Cindy protested. "He tripped and scratched ... "
"Citizen 3124583 denies injuring infant," murmured Inspector One, noting the particulars in a large black book.
"I'm a good mother," Cindy pleaded. "I read stories to him. See! Thomas the Tuck Engine. It's a lovely story about how brave little Thomas helps the Fat Controllers take all the bad food out of schools!" She thrust it towards her interrogators. "See for yourself !"
"That won't be necessary," said Inspector One primly. "We don't accept books as proof of approved parenting!"
"Especially when a Citizen also possesses this!!" snarled Inspector Other One, brandishing a pamphlet found in the pile from whence Thomas had come.
Inspector One gasped as the offending document was waved under her nose.
"Why We Need Nuclear Power." The woman read the title with manifest distaste. "And you think this is suitable when you have a baby in the house?"
"It's not for him!!!" Cindy raged. "It's for me. I like to keep an open mind."
"Oh really, Citizen?" inquired the inspectors sardonically. "Well, the Great Leader doesn't. She likes to have a closed mind on the subject. She doesn't want nuclear power, the Party doesn't want nuclear power, so New Zealand won't get nuclear Power, Citizen!"
"Huh! Next time you see her, give her a knowledge wave from me!" Cindy mumbled.
"Pardon?"
"I said nuclear could be the new wave of low emission energy."
"But, Citizen, think of the risks!" urged Inspector Two. "As an approved parent, it is your official obligation to think of the risks!"
"There's risks with everything," Cindy replied. "That's no reason to blindly reject an idea! Look, its obviously risky for 15-year-olds to drive cars but the Leader allows that."
"Enough!!!" shouted Inspector One. "Citizen 3124583, I'm recommending you for immediate re-education as an unsuitable parental entity. Do not approach your child unless supervised and do not attempt to escape. We will be waiting outside until your re-educator arrives!" With that, the two grey figures clicked their heels and left.
Distraught, Cindy slumped into a chair. "When will people like the Children's Commissioner accept that the problem is largely caused by a welfare system which pays people to look after children but ignores how they're doing it? When will she admit it's the state that's failing, by neglecting the very children it professes to help? And when will she stop making ludicrous proposals for everybody else and start putting the Government's own house in order?"
"Don't hold your breath," came a little voice behind her. Cindy turned, astonished, to see Winston. With an inscrutable smile on his innocent face. Cindy couldn't decide whether to be thrilled he'd said his first words or chilled by his prescience.
"Out of the mouths of babes and ... " she whispered, but her message was swamped once again by the blasting loudspeaker on the Ministry van. "Attention all parents! Attention all parents ... "
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
d4j to Minister of Courts
Office of Hon Rick Barker
Minster of Courts
REF; 36
24 January 2007
Dear Mr Burns,
On behalf of Hon Rick barker, Minister for Courts, thank you for your letter on 15 January 2007 regarding your concerns with the Family Court.
I have placed your letter in front of the Minister who has noted your comments.
Yours sincerely
Carol Murray –Brown
Private Secretary –Courts
I am still waiting so I sent this email this morning ;
Dear Mr Rick Barker
Can you please tell me as the whether your response to the directive from the United Nations regarding a father whose complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee has born fruit?
Don’t you remember;
"The UNHRC says the delays in police investigations and court proceedings have denied him a fair trial and violate Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was signed by the NZ government in 1979. The present government now has 90 days to answer this charge."
I am still awaiting for your response to my 15 January 2007 letter about my extreme difficulties I am experiencing in the Family Court.
Your laborious inertia on such a sensitive and important matter does raise serious concerns as to your credibility and suitability as a competent Minister of Courts?
Yours truly
Peter Burns
Minster of Courts
REF; 36
24 January 2007
Dear Mr Burns,
On behalf of Hon Rick barker, Minister for Courts, thank you for your letter on 15 January 2007 regarding your concerns with the Family Court.
I have placed your letter in front of the Minister who has noted your comments.
Yours sincerely
Carol Murray –Brown
Private Secretary –Courts
I am still waiting so I sent this email this morning ;
Dear Mr Rick Barker
Can you please tell me as the whether your response to the directive from the United Nations regarding a father whose complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee has born fruit?
Don’t you remember;
"The UNHRC says the delays in police investigations and court proceedings have denied him a fair trial and violate Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was signed by the NZ government in 1979. The present government now has 90 days to answer this charge."
I am still awaiting for your response to my 15 January 2007 letter about my extreme difficulties I am experiencing in the Family Court.
Your laborious inertia on such a sensitive and important matter does raise serious concerns as to your credibility and suitability as a competent Minister of Courts?
Yours truly
Peter Burns
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
d4j to Minister of Corrections
In my opinion the Minister of Corrections & Police are fob off experts. The police Complaints Authority are callous corrupt cretins who have sullied my dignity and breached the Human Rights of my family , including my female partner who was assaulted by police . Talk about a excersize in futility . Battling against such a dysfunctional white elephant bureaucratic inertia is hopeless and pointless. for example ;
Here is the paper trail from the gallery of the absurd Liarbour fools ;
email 28 August 2006
Title - d4j to Minister of Corrections
Dear Minister,
In 2002 I was Court directed to a compulsory mental health treatment order because I wanted to reconnect with my stolen daughters, whom I brought up on the West Coast, as a happy father to them in their early childhood years.
Unfairly I was ordered by a judge to month in the DUC Unit 24-hour lock down, no privileges, at Paparoa Prison. The first week locked up like an animal was in the round cell and I was forced to wear padded jacket and paper overalls for three court appearances. Then a judge ordered me to Hillmorton hospital where I spent two months locked up in the forensic maximum-security ward . I was forced to take psychotropic medication which was scary!
The police van would come from Paparoa Prison and stop at the Hillmorton hospital where they would pick me up for Court. The police would then put me in a van full of dangerous prisoners and savage inmates who were told by police that I was a paedophile regularly beat me senseless. Police paraded me before Court 15 times for two psychological abuses of protection orders. I had to fight for my life on every van trip to the Christchurch courthouse .Is this fair or is this how your feminazi government treat falsely accused fathers! After months I was finally sentenced to probation and police were highly annoyed that I did not get more prison.
In one week I was beaten so bad the doctors and nurses at Hillmorton hospital rung police who laughed at them. They said to them that I deserve everything that is dished out to me.
Is it all right for a patient at a psychiatric hospital to be put in a van full of violent prisoners? What about my rights and safety as a medical patient? Is it all right for police to try and incite violence by stating that I was a child abuser?
I expect answers from you as a minister as some serious questions have got to be answered here, however I know your pathetic government is a dishonest jellyfish and I fully expect you to fob me off much like all your other deluded cronies that I have previously dealt with!
My heart goes out to Liam John Ashley, but what would you care?
What a disgrace this country is.
Peter Burns
Ministerial.Office.of.Hon.Damien.O'Connor"
Subject: Re: d4j to Minister of Corrections
To: "Peter Burns"
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:19:01 +1200
Thank you for your email message. This note is to acknowledge
receipt of your letter that arrived in my office today.
Although I am not able to provide a personal response to every email I
receive, all messages are carefully read and considered.
For West Coast/Tasman constituents, it would be appreciated if you
could also forward a postal address so that a hard copy reply can
be sent to your home.
For other correspondents, where I have portfolio responsibility for the
issues that you have raised, I will ask the Ministry to assist with
providing a reply
Thanks again for keeping me informed of your views.
Yours sincerely
Hon Damien O'Connor
LETTERS
A. Office of Hon Damien O’Connor
Minister of Corrections.
29 August 2006
Min 487
Dear Mr Burns
Hon Damien O’Connor, Minister of Corrections, has asked me to thank you for your letter of 28 August 2006 regarding your complaint about police actions while transporting you to and from court.
A copy of your letter has been passed to the Minister for his information.
As the matter you raise comes under the portfolio responsibilities of Hon Annette King, Minister of Police, I have also forwarded your letter to her office for her consideration.
Yours sincerely
Kelley Reeve
Private Secretary: Corrections.
B.Office of Hon Annette King
Minister of Police.
4 September 2006
Our reference MIN06005687
Dear Peter Burns
The Hon Annette King, Minister of Police, has asked me to thank you for your recent letter regarding police actions while transporting you to and from court.
The Minister has asked officials to look into matters you have raised. You will receive a response as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Rachael Bambery
Police Private Secretary.
C.Office of Hon Annette King
Minister of Police
27 September 2006
0065689
Dear Mr Burns
Thank you for your email of 28 August 2006 about a complaint of the actions and behaviour of some police.
I have been advised that these matters referred to the Police Complaints Authority, an independent body that receives and investigates complaints about alleged misconduct or neglect of duty by any member of the Police. The Police Complaints Authority was established to ensure complaints are investigated independently of politicians or police.
I am also advised that the police Complaints Authority completed it’s inquiry in 2003.
Yours sincerely
Hon Annette King
MINSTER OF POLICE
The complaint to the PCA is far from finished, as I am far from satisfied with the fob off by a government clearly intent on mucking legitimate grievances around in circles of unaccountability. If the PCA has finished it’s inquiry Ms King then what are these letters received since 2003, namely;
D. Police Complaints Authority write;
30 June 2004
Ref: 01-1187/bpd
Judge I A Borrin
Dear Mr Burns fob off.
E. Police Complaints Authority;
15 February 2007
Ref:03-1349/bpd
The Hon Justice Goddard
Dear Ms E really sad fob off .
F.Office of Hon Damien O'Connor
Minster of Corrections
5 June 2007
Min No:295
Dear Mr Burns
On behalf of the Hon Damien O'Connor , Minster of Corrections , I acknowledge with thanks your letter dated 30 May 2007, regarding your request for employment .
Please note that employment matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Minster of Corrections does not have authority to intervene.
The Minster has therefore referred your letter to his officials at the Department for a direct response . You may expect a reply in due course.
Thank you for taking the time to contact the Minster .
Yours sincerely
Samuel King
Private Secretary : Corrections
Here is the paper trail from the gallery of the absurd Liarbour fools ;
email 28 August 2006
Title - d4j to Minister of Corrections
Dear Minister,
In 2002 I was Court directed to a compulsory mental health treatment order because I wanted to reconnect with my stolen daughters, whom I brought up on the West Coast, as a happy father to them in their early childhood years.
Unfairly I was ordered by a judge to month in the DUC Unit 24-hour lock down, no privileges, at Paparoa Prison. The first week locked up like an animal was in the round cell and I was forced to wear padded jacket and paper overalls for three court appearances. Then a judge ordered me to Hillmorton hospital where I spent two months locked up in the forensic maximum-security ward . I was forced to take psychotropic medication which was scary!
The police van would come from Paparoa Prison and stop at the Hillmorton hospital where they would pick me up for Court. The police would then put me in a van full of dangerous prisoners and savage inmates who were told by police that I was a paedophile regularly beat me senseless. Police paraded me before Court 15 times for two psychological abuses of protection orders. I had to fight for my life on every van trip to the Christchurch courthouse .Is this fair or is this how your feminazi government treat falsely accused fathers! After months I was finally sentenced to probation and police were highly annoyed that I did not get more prison.
In one week I was beaten so bad the doctors and nurses at Hillmorton hospital rung police who laughed at them. They said to them that I deserve everything that is dished out to me.
Is it all right for a patient at a psychiatric hospital to be put in a van full of violent prisoners? What about my rights and safety as a medical patient? Is it all right for police to try and incite violence by stating that I was a child abuser?
I expect answers from you as a minister as some serious questions have got to be answered here, however I know your pathetic government is a dishonest jellyfish and I fully expect you to fob me off much like all your other deluded cronies that I have previously dealt with!
My heart goes out to Liam John Ashley, but what would you care?
What a disgrace this country is.
Peter Burns
Ministerial.Office.of.Hon.Damien.O'Connor"
Subject: Re: d4j to Minister of Corrections
To: "Peter Burns"
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:19:01 +1200
Thank you for your email message. This note is to acknowledge
receipt of your letter that arrived in my office today.
Although I am not able to provide a personal response to every email I
receive, all messages are carefully read and considered.
For West Coast/Tasman constituents, it would be appreciated if you
could also forward a postal address so that a hard copy reply can
be sent to your home.
For other correspondents, where I have portfolio responsibility for the
issues that you have raised, I will ask the Ministry to assist with
providing a reply
Thanks again for keeping me informed of your views.
Yours sincerely
Hon Damien O'Connor
LETTERS
A. Office of Hon Damien O’Connor
Minister of Corrections.
29 August 2006
Min 487
Dear Mr Burns
Hon Damien O’Connor, Minister of Corrections, has asked me to thank you for your letter of 28 August 2006 regarding your complaint about police actions while transporting you to and from court.
A copy of your letter has been passed to the Minister for his information.
As the matter you raise comes under the portfolio responsibilities of Hon Annette King, Minister of Police, I have also forwarded your letter to her office for her consideration.
Yours sincerely
Kelley Reeve
Private Secretary: Corrections.
B.Office of Hon Annette King
Minister of Police.
4 September 2006
Our reference MIN06005687
Dear Peter Burns
The Hon Annette King, Minister of Police, has asked me to thank you for your recent letter regarding police actions while transporting you to and from court.
The Minister has asked officials to look into matters you have raised. You will receive a response as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Rachael Bambery
Police Private Secretary.
C.Office of Hon Annette King
Minister of Police
27 September 2006
0065689
Dear Mr Burns
Thank you for your email of 28 August 2006 about a complaint of the actions and behaviour of some police.
I have been advised that these matters referred to the Police Complaints Authority, an independent body that receives and investigates complaints about alleged misconduct or neglect of duty by any member of the Police. The Police Complaints Authority was established to ensure complaints are investigated independently of politicians or police.
I am also advised that the police Complaints Authority completed it’s inquiry in 2003.
Yours sincerely
Hon Annette King
MINSTER OF POLICE
The complaint to the PCA is far from finished, as I am far from satisfied with the fob off by a government clearly intent on mucking legitimate grievances around in circles of unaccountability. If the PCA has finished it’s inquiry Ms King then what are these letters received since 2003, namely;
D. Police Complaints Authority write;
30 June 2004
Ref: 01-1187/bpd
Judge I A Borrin
Dear Mr Burns fob off.
E. Police Complaints Authority;
15 February 2007
Ref:03-1349/bpd
The Hon Justice Goddard
Dear Ms E really sad fob off .
F.Office of Hon Damien O'Connor
Minster of Corrections
5 June 2007
Min No:295
Dear Mr Burns
On behalf of the Hon Damien O'Connor , Minster of Corrections , I acknowledge with thanks your letter dated 30 May 2007, regarding your request for employment .
Please note that employment matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Minster of Corrections does not have authority to intervene.
The Minster has therefore referred your letter to his officials at the Department for a direct response . You may expect a reply in due course.
Thank you for taking the time to contact the Minster .
Yours sincerely
Samuel King
Private Secretary : Corrections
Monday, September 10, 2007
D4J Para Legal Services
Dad4justice - PARA-LEGAL SERVICES DOC-1
Friendly advice for couples considering Separation or Divorce
**********************************************************
Providing practical solutions to avoid conflict at the onset by either party
*To avoid issues and difficulties caused by parental alienation syndrome.
*To avoid most conflicts that might seriously impact on any/ the Children
*To arrange by mutual agreement a ‘Memorandum of Consent’ of Orders
*To provide equitable ‘Parent Plan Templates’ towards a swift resolution
*To strenuously avoid any false allegations or adversarial tactics for effect
*To present a mutually agreeable solution to reduce stress to the Children
*To complete a mutually agreeable solution within 2-3 weeks or sooner
*To avoid the use of Solicitors/Barristers costing both parties substantially
*To avoid lengthy ‘Family Court Proceedings’ which may create adversity
*To provide a ‘practical’ counseling service by Experienced Divorcees
*To settle differences immediately even when Conflict is Heated or High
*To enable any Children to continue a settled routine despite any conflicts
In all events to insure that any Children as innocent parties remain stable.
Friendly advice for couples considering Separation or Divorce
**********************************************************
Providing practical solutions to avoid conflict at the onset by either party
*To avoid issues and difficulties caused by parental alienation syndrome.
*To avoid most conflicts that might seriously impact on any/ the Children
*To arrange by mutual agreement a ‘Memorandum of Consent’ of Orders
*To provide equitable ‘Parent Plan Templates’ towards a swift resolution
*To strenuously avoid any false allegations or adversarial tactics for effect
*To present a mutually agreeable solution to reduce stress to the Children
*To complete a mutually agreeable solution within 2-3 weeks or sooner
*To avoid the use of Solicitors/Barristers costing both parties substantially
*To avoid lengthy ‘Family Court Proceedings’ which may create adversity
*To provide a ‘practical’ counseling service by Experienced Divorcees
*To settle differences immediately even when Conflict is Heated or High
*To enable any Children to continue a settled routine despite any conflicts
In all events to insure that any Children as innocent parties remain stable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)