Category Archives: court evaluator
Thank you CBS. Please keep it coming.
Link to full story: Investigation exposes little oversight of child advocates – CBS Atlanta 46.
Letter from a Child
“It Could Have All Been Prevented.”
From Sevier County News:
Jimmie Robinson accepted responsibility for killing his son-in-law, Jason Hicks, and agreed to a plea deal offered by Attorney General Jimmy Dunn.
Attorney Bruce Poston appeared with Robinson in court Thursday before Judge Richard Vance where he agreed to serve 17 and a half years in prison for the April 19, 2009 slaying.
Robinson, who is 67, won’t be eligible for parole and must serve his entire sentence.
Hicks was in the process of divorcing his wife, Wendi, when allegations that Hicks had molested one of the couple’s children surfaced.
A police investigation was conducted and Hicks was was never charged. Clinical psychologist Thomas Hanaway interviewed the couple and recommended Hicks be given full custody and Wendi should be allowed only visitation rights.
Although the police believed Hicks was not guilty of wrong doing, the Department of Children’s Services believed otherwise. After a social worker investigated the case, a DCS committee concluded the abuse had occurred…
Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.
The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.
If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.
One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.
From Karen and Wendi Robinson’s interview with Bill Windsor of Lawless America:
“I do also keep a picture of him when he was about five. So cute.
That’s what I grieve for. That’s what really makes me sad. I talked to that picture a long time ago and I told him,
These little boys will have the life that you should have had.
They’re gonna catch frogs and fish and…
You know? It won’t happen to them.
That’s who I talk to and that’s who I grieve for.
It’s the child he once was.”
– Wendi Robinson
In the video above, Karen and Wendi Robinson discuss the clustering of child custody cases and open collusion of those working in Tennessee family court. It’s happening in Tennessee just as it’s happening all over the country. Click on the screenshot below to read about Dr. Tom P Hanaway’s involvement in another family court case there:
May the truth be told. And may the truth hurry up and free Jimmie Robinson.
Sacrificing Mothers and Children
Max’s drawing from: Conscience Being Alliance
From Conscience Being Alliance:
A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN
Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial AbusePosted 23 January 2013
The below-referenced chart lists over 75 family court cases in Connecticut where children’s safety and well being has been jeopardized by unethical and even illegal activities of court professionals who routinely target, extort and exploit Connecticut mothers. In many of these cases, where mothers reported a father’s violent crimes against her family, the mother eventually lost custody to the wealthier father when he — the real perpetrator — accused her of alienation. Violent fathers almost always won sole or joint custody of victims, and in some cases these fathers even went on to become mass murderers.Insurance companies and the State are being defrauded by medical and mental health professionals who are routinely rewarded handsomely for submitting false claims that misdiagnose fit and loving mothers and their children with mental disorders they do not have; they are also providing diagnosis and treatment plans that are considered illegitimate by the AMA and APA. Meanwhile, the same professionals justify their billing by deliberately recommending to judges the placement of children in the care of violent fathers, even rapists, and by shielding these offenders from criminal prosecution that might otherwise keep children safe. The effect is that the whole family becomes damaged and in need of treatment, and are subsequently required to obtain ongoing court affiliated medical and legal professional services.
Federal Funding Fraud Underlying the ‘Cottage Industries’
From MMDNewswire.com:
August 31, 2011 (MMD Newswire) — On June 19, 2006, the Chicago-based grassroots, non-profit organization, Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates (IFCAA) issued its first press release on BusinessWire announcing that, despite the obstacle of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan representing the judges engaged in alleged racketeering enterprises, they had taken on apparent judicial corruption in the Cook County Circuit Court family court, called “the model for the nation” by Chief Judge Timothy Evans. Today IFCAA announces several major advances by grassroots efforts and the federal government nationally:
An April 2, 2008 Illinois appellate court opinion which, based on her one hour of testimony under oath, stated, “Dr. Sheila Mannix of the IFCAA assisted Lynch in bringing charges and filing complaints against the corrupt judges. Although Mannix did not provide Lynch with any information regarding Judge White, she produced direct evidence regarding several other judges’ involvement in the bribery scheme.” [382 Ill. App. 3d 960]
An April 10, 2010 certified report produced by the Illinois Family Law Study Committee [formed under the authority of House Resolution (HR1101) on May 19, 2008] was obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request which report stated: “(T)he effect of the present system, in practice, has created cottage industries of GALs/child representatives, custody evaluators and others…”
Mannix attached the report to a grand jury motion in her case against the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (U.S.D.C. Case No. 10 C 3849). On September 14, 2010, Chief Judge William Holderman of the federal court in Chicago deferred alleged “direct evidence of federal funding fraud underlying the ‘cottage industries’ operating in the State of Illinois’ family court system” to District U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, stating in a written order, “The United States Attorney may exercise the full prosecutorial authority of the Executive Branch of the United States Government in bringing the matter to the attention of the grand jury.”
An October 28, 2010, Chicago Defender article, “Grand jury demands documents on Ill. Grants,” reported that the prior month, August 2010, Holderman had already convened a grand jury and Fitzgerald had issued upwards of 50 subpoenas to Illinois agencies in receipt of public funds in an “official criminal investigation.”
A July 30, 2011 press release on Illinois’ Republican U.S Senator Mark Kirk’s official website states, “WASHINGTON – Just weeks after the conviction of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill which included Senator Mark Kirk’s (R-Ill.) “honest services” priority with bipartisan support. The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act, of which Sen. Kirk is a cosponsor, increases penalties for various public corruption crimes and provides additional tools for prosecutors to further crack down on public corruption.”
An encouraging August 21, 2011, AP release out of Georgia, “FBI squad to investigate corruption among judges, legislators” reported, “The FBI has assembled a new squad to investigate corruption among judges and legislators in Georgia, though the top federal agent in the state is being tightlipped about what cases are developing.” “Brian Lamkin, who heads the FBI office in Georgia,” stated “”We don’t take this lightly,” he said.”These are truly the types of investigations that are being done in the back room. And the circle of friends is very small. In order to penetrate that inner circle, you’ve got to have a strong and tenacious group to develop the intelligence.””
And the August, 11, 2011, 28-year sentence against Pennsylvania Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. in the successful “Kids-for-Cash” investigation by three federal agencies (FBI, IRS, and District U.S. Attorney’s Office) could signal a harbinger of more good things to come in line with the words of Chicago’s top prosecutor, Fitzgerald, after his second successful conviction of an Illinois governor within five years for “white collar crimes;” that he hopes “the message is heard this time” that the federal government will not tolerate public corruption.
Similarly, Utah citizens, who have alerted their state and federal authorities for over eight years to evidence of alleged criminal acts and due process violations in cases involving alleged “judicial kidnapping and child trafficking” as exemplified in the August 19, 2011 NBC Dateline report of the “adoption” of “Baby Emma” from her father involving the Utah and Virginia courts, are encouraged by the nomination of David Barlow for their District U.S. Attorney in hopes that he is appointed and, along with their new FBI Special Agent in Charge David Johnson, will follow the lead of Chicago’s Fitzgerald and FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Grant.
David Barlow, is the general counsel to U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) who, in June 2011, received a binder of direct evidence of alleged federal crimes hand delivered to his district office by Utah child advocate, Connie Fielding. Ms. Fielding also hand delivered the binder of evidence to the district office of Senate Judiciary Committee senior member, Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), on November 30, 2010 upon the direct request of his aide (a former agent of the Secret Service according to Hatch) with whom Mannix met in D.C. on November 16, 2010.
Dr. Mannix comments, “After working these past six years to help stop the apparent State-court based crimes which literally exploit the nation’s children as “commodities” in judicial system “profit centers,” I’ve found that an essential factor is differentiating between, on the one hand, the behaviors of traumatized parents being forced to watch their children irreparably harmed while being retaliated against, defamed, and impoverished and, on the other hand, the irrefutable sociopathic behaviors observed in public officials who have fiduciary obligations to stop that which they are participating in and enabling. I believe Mr. Fitzgerald summed it up best on June 27, 2011 after the solid conviction of ex-governor Blagojevich on 17 counts of federal crimes; he said, “There is legitimate politics. There are gray areas. Selling a Senate seat, shaking down a children’s hospital and squeezing a person to give money before you sign a bill that benefits them is not a gray area. It’s a crime.” Likewise, the evidence indicates that what is going on in the venue provided by the nation’s State courts in which private assets and federal funds can be unlawfully accessed are not “legitimate judicial proceedings” but crime, specifically, apparent violations of Federal funding laws and other Federal civil and criminal laws including alleged racketeering activity among public officials and State court actors.”
In addition to helping provide evidence to state and federal authorities in pursuit of indictments of allegedly corrupt public officials including Mormon judges, Mannix has networked with Virginia citizens as well as Utah citizens, the latter of which have specifically called upon their Mormon GOP state legislators to launch an independent forensic audit of all Federal taxpayers’ dollars coming into the State’s family court-related programs.
Dr. Mannix concludes, “No one will be able to balance any government budget until the public corruption involving hundreds of billions of the nation’s taxpayers’ hard-earned income, which, in part, is literally being using to perpetrate that which the U.S. Congress voted it is to prevent, specifically, child and elder abuse, domestic violence, parental deprivation, and child support avoidance, is stopped once and for all by more criminal investigations, forensic audits, and tough new laws which result in the loss of pensions in entirety and deterrent-based, long-term prison sentences for involved officials acting in positions of public trust. Onward for the children.”
About IFCAA:
Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates (IFCAA) is a volunteer, non-profit organization which was co-founded in June 2005 by licensed mental health practitioners, educators, and victims of the alleged fraudulently-concealed racketeering activity in the Cook County family court involving domestic violence cases. IFCAA is operating under said assumed name for the non-profit organization, In All Our Best Interest, which Dr. Sheila Mannix founded in 1995 when she was engaged in her pre-family court racket professional activities and whose mission is to stop child abuse and other social dysfunction through education, activism, and advocacy.
Media Contact: Dr. Sheila Mannix, Co-Founder Illinois Family Court Accountability Advocates (IFCAA) sheilamannix@yahoo.com (847) 971-6679###
“I had lost everything…”
From OC Weekly:
You might assume – – wrongly, it turns out – – that lying to a juvenile court commissioner so a woman’s two daughters would be taken away from her for years would cost two County of Orange social workers their jobs.
Even if you didn’t believe those workers lied after the first court judgment, surely you’d see the light after the highest court in the land agreed with previous court rulings and the $4.9 million judgment in favor of Seal Beach mom Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, right? Wrong.
One worker was even promoted and now trains other Orange County social workers. Read more …
From Lawless America:
Interview: Deanna Fogarty to Bill Windsor of Lawless America
Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.
The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.
If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.
One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.
In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.
Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.
For more information, see:
The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com
Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica
Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica
Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/
To reach Bill Windsor, email: Nobodies@att.net
Richard Gardner’s Smoking Guns and Elephants
Revised: January 4, 2014
by Julia Fletcher
The only time children aren’t protected in family court is when no one knows how to protect them and no one wants to talk about it.
Ever since Dr. Richard Gardner started marketing his ideas in lectures, “expert witness” courtroom testimony and self-published books, proverbial elephants in the room have stood in the middle of courtrooms, feeding at the troughs of hundreds of thousands of child custody cases with their backs facing abused children. Those elephants have been in the middle of courtrooms all over the country and all over the world for about the last four decades. They’ve been risking lives, ruining lives and taking lives.
It’s time for the elephants to leave.
Richard Gardner’s elephants are big, but they’re not complicated. In fact, as soon as everyone realized how twisted Richard Gardner’s theories were, the elephants should have been out the door.
Perhaps the first step is to ask this: Since those in authority must have known how disturbed Dr. Gardner was , why were the elephants allowed to stay? Was it because he earned a degree in psychiatry or because he invented a new “syndrome”?
He called the new creation, “The Parental Alienation Syndrome” — except it wasn’t a syndrome. It was a strategy.
The National District Attorneys Association knew it was a strategy and published the article, Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 and Part 2 in November 2003.
They wrote:
PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Prosecutors should educate themselves about PAS and be prepared to argue against its admission in court. In cases where PAS testimony is admitted, it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to educate the judge and jury about the shortfalls of this theory. As more criminal courts refuse to admit PAS evidence, more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system.
What have the authorities done since then to protect us from the “PAS” scam?
One way to measure the progress would be to count the cases in which attorneys, Guardians ad litem, Attorneys for Minor Children, custody evaluators, mediators, visit supervisors, parenting coordinators and judges feed the elephants every Monday through Friday.
Another would be to count the cases in the headlines each week about “high-conflict custody battles” ending in tragedy.
Meanwhile, travelling from case to case and show to show all over the country, those peddling Gardner’s theories, his vocabulary and Gardner-like vocabulary, fuel the fires of lucrative “high conflict” custody cases. Long lines of mothers and fathers accompanied by attorneys who have hired evaluators, who recommend mediators and reunifiers to be followed up by social workers, Guardians ad Litem and/or Attorneys for Minor Children who bring with them witnesses and experts – form long lines, walking one by one through courthouse metal detectors, past security guards and into family courtrooms where judges who manage these cases drag entire childhoods into the ground until the children “age out of the system”.
Most everyone working in family court sees what’s happening in case after case — and most pretend they don’t.
It’s that lack of honest discussion for the last four decades which has purchased shiny new things for those who set up and use the PAS scam in family courts. One attorney representing a protective mother in Italy spoke about the use of PAS in the Italian courts, aptly called it GAS:
“NO TO PAS YES TO GAS
I do not maintain that, in the name of the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) supposing that this pathology exists – and I am among those who firmly do not believe in it – that one can take children away from mothers or that it is possible to place children in foster homes for an indeterminate period of time – as happens for those poor mad offenders who violate the law and go to the criminal asylums (which are next to close down).
On the contrary, those who have serious mental problems are treated in a better way. They receive TSO (Involuntary Mental Health Treatment) and after fifteen days they are set free. The disease which surely exists in Italy and which is becoming more and more widespread is the GAS, acronym of the “Sindrome di Alienazione Giudiziaria” (Judiciary Alienation Syndrome).
This is one that actually exists: The citizens’ distrust of the Italian Judicial System is at it’s peak and there is no sign of improvement despite the experts’ government we have.
So I would ask psychologists and social workers to deal with from now on, the GAS instead of the PAS, and we will see who they suggest to be placed in the foster homes instead of the children.”
Rome 17th October 2012
Attorney Giuseppe Lipera
The PAS scam is wherever Gardner’s theories were spread and and wherever family court attorneys, child custody evaluators, parental coordinators and judges don’t talk about or care about whether or not child abuse occurred. Here’s why: According to Dr. Gardner’s theories, “inducing parental alienation in a child” is far worse than emotionally, physically and/or sexually abusing a child.
It should be no surprise to anyone that most child custody cases in which Dr. Gardner’s twisted theories reign drag on for the entire childhood of a child who is the subject of it all. Various attorneys, custody evaluators and parenting coordinators come and go, joining and leaving and joining the same circus year after year. Sometimes three or four elephants are needed to carry them all by the time the children “age out of the system”.
The attorney’s statement above and Gardner’s lecture below show what a nightmare of a spectacle it’s been ever since Dr. Gardner first began to spread his theories throughout the United States and other countries.
Maybe there’s enough of a smoking gun in the following transcript to show those with the power to do something where those elephants are so they can spoken about and removed from every family court.
The transcript is of Gardner’s lecture in The Netherlands in 1999. He’s speaking at a conference called “The Child’s Best Interest Conference”. He tells his audience about the “medical syndrome” he invented and named “The Parental Alienation Syndrome”. He recites his definition of “medical syndrome”. He lists the physiological and psychological symptoms of Down Syndrome and expects his audience will make the leap to believe “The Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) is a “medical syndrome” too. At least one man in the audience who laughs the loudest at Dr. Gardner’s jokes seems happy to make that leap.
One problem that isn’t talked about is that physiological and psychological signs and symptoms found in syndromes like Down Syndrome are not found in Richard Gardner’s “PAS”. There are no outward physical characteristics of “PAS”. No genetic difference, hormonal imbalance or vitamin deficiency. There are no weak or excessive nerve impulse patterns. No abnormal change in any bodily fluid, tissue or function.
Lacking a scientifically definitive list, Dr. Gardner appears confused, interrupting and contradicting himself throughout his lecture. He tells his audience the following:
- Mild, Moderate and Severe “PAS” is “a disease” found only in the context of child custody disputes.
- Mothers acquire this “disease” from the family court process – fathers, not so much.
- There are two components of the “PAS”:
- The
mothparent brainwashes the child in “a campaign of denigration” against the other parent; and, - The child’s own contributions to the “campaign of denigration”.
- Although Dr. Gardner doesn’t mention it during his lecture, one should apparently also look for certain speech patterns in infected
motparents. Specific inflections of a mother’s voice might include: anxious, angry, impatient, flustered, fearful, terrified, inconsiderate, rude, and/or obnoxious. - In addition, the clinician should be able to hear all of the parents’ telephone conversations – which requires certification in Phone Tap 101.
In place of talking about behavioral data showing the difference between symptoms of malicious alienation and symptoms of emotionally, physically and sexually abused children, Dr. Gardner acts out short skits.
Instead of comparing and contrasting reliable and scientifically valid therapeutic responses to malicious alienation with the reliable and scientifically valid therapeutic responses to emotionally, physically and sexually abused children, Dr. Gardner tells jokes.
He displaces actual child abuse statistics and data which provide plausible reasons for paternal abuse and maternal abuse with this theory:
“The women were the primary caretakers primarily, and the children wanted to be bonded more with the mothers because they want the mothers to have more availability, more access and the children wanted to stay with their mothers, they were more strongly bonded with their mothers.”
Using examples of his “own personal experiences” to support his theory, Gardner plays the roles of mothers, fathers and children – mostly anxious, angry, impatient, flustered, fearful, terrified, inconsiderate, rude, and/or obnoxious mothers and children who don’t sound very alienated at all.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Dr. Gardner’s lecture is that the behaviors he describes are common behaviors seen in mothers and children who have actually witnessed and/or endured emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse. Each scenario dramatized could easily be a typical day in the life of an abused mother and child. The words are there and the behaviors are there, but Gardner’s mocking impersonation of mothers and children trivializes those same words and behaviors – leading an unsuspecting audience to believe that red flags of possible abuse should instead be automatically suspect. (See FOX NEWS interview: Retired California Family Court Judge DeAnn Salcido , Lost in the System)
Gardner places behaviors actually seen in abused children in his category of: “Absurd Justifications” and speaks the words that would be cries for help in variations of the same mocking voice. He says the cases he dramatizes are cases from his office practice – in which he apparently mocked, challenged and ignored children if they:
– did not immediately disclose abuse
– used multisyllabic words
– became angry and/or emotionally shut down when their disclosures of abuse were challenged, and/or
– if they stopped disclosing abuse after being isolated with their named abuser.
Instead of saying how we can differentiate between symptoms of real abuse and symptoms of “induced” alienation he warns, “…bringing in the child protection people in it can destroy the father’s life in one telephone call.”
He does say in passing: In cases of real abuse, “the PAS diagnosis” doesn’t apply. If you sneeze, you’ll miss that part. If you miss it, you might think alienating a child is worse than any other kind of abuse anyway – because Dr. Gardner says that too. (That part is a “must see” because it’s when he feeds the elephants.)
Playing a teen who says his father “used to beat” his mother and threaten to hit him, Dr. Gardner morphs from the teen to a young child, using a sing-song voice and the term “mommy”. Then he turns himself back into a teen, explaining as Gardner the Teen to Gardner the Clinician that his father threatened to hit him if he didn’t smile for a photo. He says his father makes him watch videos he “hates”. Notice the total lack of follow-up questions to clarify why he “hates” the videos. There is no “What happened before that?” or “What happened next?” Instead, after a question or two, Gardner the Clinician confronts Gardner the Teen with the allegedly abusive father’s denials of abuse – something abusers can usually do for themselves.
He mocks a hypothetical mother who complains of becoming financially destitute after divorce – as though irreparable physical, emotional and financial damage could never leave a single parent – mother or father – without the funds to pay for food, clothes and bills.
That which Gardner says isn’t science, social theory or common sense. It’s entertainment – complete with someone in the audience laughing more loudly than the others like he’s planted in the audience to prompt others to laugh when he laughs.
He tells a joke with a punch line about a mother in labor. He questions a four-year-old girl about her use of the word “penetrated” and sounds like he’s struggling to keep a serious look on his face. Gardner the Clinician doesn’t ask the questions most good clinicians would ask. Instead, he explains to Gardner the Hypothetical Four-Year-Old Girl that the definition of the word “penetrated” is “sexual intercourse”.
Listening to the audio of this lecture and/or reading the transcript, most should wonder how Dr. Gardner’s twisted ways became such an integral part of the family court process.
After his gig in The Netherlands, Gardner toured the world for the next four years – marketing PAS and selling his books until he died from what was said to be a suicide. The FBI should probably investigate that too.
——————————————————————————–
Transcript: June 24 , 1999, Open University, Breda, The Netherlands. A One Day Symposium led by Richard A. Gardner M.D. on The Parental Alienation Syndrome.
Um… When I was a student in high school, and a, my teacher, one of my teachers, was giving me guidelines for writing a… an article, book review, or just any kind of an article. The guideline was this: Tell them what you’re going to say, say it, and then tell ‘em what you’ve said. And that helped increase my grades. It’s a very good principle.
So I’m going to tell you what I’m going to say first. And that is, that the legislators have power to give judges power to cure the disease Parental Alienation Syndrome. I repeat, the ju…the legislators have the power to empower judges, to cure, to prevent The Parental Alienation Syndrome. If the legislators do not give the judges the power to cure this disease, it will continue to grow and (unintelligible) and get worse and worse.
Now, um… You people in Europe have certain advantage over us in the United States, in that you can, you can sometimes learn from the errors that we make.
I have lived in Europe for two years, from 1960 to 1962, when I lived in Germany I was in the, a, military service. And then I’ve been back and forth many times. I’ve lectured in many countries in Europe. And uh, I was a visiting professor for a couple of years at The University of Leuven. I was a visiting professor at the University of St. Petersburg, uh, formerly uh, Leningrad, and I have lectured in various cities throughout uh Europe (unintelligible).
And I have been back and forth and I have seen certain trends. You take on our bad habits and you take on our good habits. 
Kind of what Oppenheimer once said, uh, “The United States is the greatest country in Europe.”
And I think there’s a lot of truth to that. But, we may be very bright, but we also have made mistakes. And bad habits start and you people pick them up a few years later.
So I’m going to tell you something about what’s going on in the United States and give you some advice, the same advice I’m giving in the United States. You’ll see how this all falls into place as I progress.
Let me first talk about the Parental Alienation Syndrome and elaborate what I mean by it. You have in your handout materials in the doc… this document, which I strongly recommend you look at as I talk. It’s an outline of my presentation. There are two pages. The diagnosis of The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the treatment, oh … I’m very sorry. There’s been an error! The um… this one sheet should have been diagnosis and one sheet should have been treatment. It was reproduced incorrectly.
So I’ll talk about the diagnosis and I’m going to just verbally tell you about the treatment. It’s unfortunate that… that error was made.
Okay let’s talk about the diagnosis. It is a syndrome. What is the definition of a syndrome? A syndrome in medicine is a collection of symptoms that justify being put together because they occur together and they may have a common cause. A good example of a syndrome would be Down Syndrome, uh in which you have a combination of uh mental retardation, um.. you have a uh, a drooping lip. You have a facial expression that is… is similar to Asian people. And it was because of that, that in… in the, in the last century, it was called “Mongolian Idiocy” because the facial expression was similar to Asians and of the mental retardation. Of course today, we would not… we’d find that offensive and we would not name a disorder uh, in that manner. Uh, but that was the original name. In addition, the children had certain uh, abnormal creases of the palms of the hands and uh… uh a shortening of the fifth finger. Now when you look at all those symptoms, why do they fit together? We now know that there’s a certain genetic abnormality that explains that.
And so it’s a cluster of symptoms that appear together in uh, and that warrant a uh, a that cluster is given the name “a syndrome” and… uh… you may or may not know the cause. I observe the syndrome and I will describe it to you and then I will give you some of my ideas as to the cause of this syndrome and um, what can be done about it – going back to the legislators and going back to the judges.
Now I have been involved in doing child psychiatry uh since my training days in the late 1950s, over forty years ago. And I have been involved in… in… in child custody litigation uh since the early 1960s – a period of about thirty-five years and I’ve observed certain… the evolution of certain developments. I did not see the Parental Alienation Syndrome until about 15 years ago. Uh, so from the late 50s and early 60s until the early 1980s I never saw this disorder. 
And yet I began to see it in the early 1980s, wrote my first article on it in the mid 1980s – 1985 – and it is still growing and uh, increasingly become a problem.
Now, what are the symptoms of this disorder? Let me define it first. The Parental Alienation Syndrome is a disorder that arises almost exclusively, if not completely, in the context of a child custody dispute. I have not yet seen a case in which it was not a child custody dispute. So most often it’s the mother and father. On occasion, I’ve seen it in grandparents and a, and a step-daughter or a step-son or, or some other relatives who are fighting with the parent for the child. But it’s still a child custody dispute.
There are two components. The first is a programming or brainwashing by one parent where they brainwash into the child a campaign of denigration against the other parent. And the second component, and this is most important, is the child’s own contributions. So it’s the two together that are present when one justifies the term, um, Parental Alienation Syndrome. Um, if it were merely a question of programming or brainwashing, I would have called it that. But there was this other ingredient, the element of the child’s own contribution, that led me to the conclusion that I should provide it a… a different name and then to encompass that other component.
Now, it generally does not start until a programming parent uh, decides to program the child in order to strengthen his or her position in a child custody dispute. The hope being that the children, in the context of this campaign of… of… of denigration and hatred will then speak to the court, speak to the judges and… and the lawyers, whomever, and convince them that they should not go with the other parent because they hate him or her because that parent has been so abusive, so neglectful that complete rejection is justified and that any court or any judge that would… would put the children with this other parent would be making a serious error. And so that there is a campaign that goes on every single day in order to keep it going, to keep the… the scenarios in the memory of the children, so that they can, they can uh, give their little speeches, uh to the proper people at the proper time in order to strengthen the programmings [sic] parent’s uh position in the custody lawsuit.
Now, if I will now address myself to the eight major symptoms of The PAS, Parental Alienation Syndrome. And the term PAS is… is… is very common and it is the one that is often referred to. Uh, now the first is the campaign of denigration. The, the other parent who we call “the victimized parent”, “the victim parent”, “the alienated parent”, these are the terms that are… are coming into use uh, in the United States.
Um, it’s usually not a parent who has been an abuser. If the parent has been an abuser, then The Parental Alienation Syndrome diagnosis is not applicable. It’s only in the situation where that parent has been a reasonably good, devoted and loving parent and then suddenly finds himself the, the target, the victim, the word “targeted parent” is also used, “the target parent”, “the victim parent” uh, to be the target of this campaign of hatred.
Uh and it’s a, it… it… it… it’s divided, you’ll see mild, moderate and severe forms. There are three categories, and the categories are very important in deciding what to do. So in the mild category, the campaign is… is a is mild, it may be uh just uh… uh maybe five ten percent of the time. It often, uh in the presence of the programmer, it will be most intense, but once the programmer is not available, not there.
It’s at the transition points when the child is being transferred from one parent to the other that a, the children will come forth with these little speeches of hatred in order to demonstrate to the programmer that they are uh, saying these things that they have been programmed and brainwashed to say. Uh, and the children will uh use violent profanities, uh, spit in the face of the uh, victimized parent, uh, the most terrible names that they can think of, uh they will use uh, against their parent. And the programming parent just stands there, says nothing.
Uh, if I were to say, you know, “What do you think about uh, what he’s saying to his father? It’s very disrespectful.”
It’s… (Feminine voice, nonchalantly.) “He’s just expressing himself. I encourage him to say how he feels. It’s important for him to express himself.”
With none of the traditional, “That’s no way to speak to your father.” You know, “If you say that again you’re going to be punished, you’ll go to your room.” No disciplinary measures uh, are uh, are imposed and that’s the way of programming the child and encourage, encouraging the child to uh, continue in this way.
Uh, the next, uh the second, there’s a weak, frivolous or absurd rationalizations for the deprecation.
So uh, you’ll say to the child, um, “Why do you hate your father so much? Why?”
He’ll say. (Voice of older child, hesitating, nervous.) “Uh, well, I,I, I can’t remember now, I’ll tell you next time.”
(Kindly.) “We have time. Please, please tell me, why?”
“Um, well, he used to chew too loud when we eat at the table.” Or, “He chews very loud.”
“Is that a reason never to see him again? “
“Yeah. Yeah. Well uh, that’s a reason.”
You’ll say to the mother, ”What do you think about that?”
(Feminine voice, flippantly.) “Well I respect his feelings and if he thinks it’s a good reason, it’s good enough for me.”
There is that support again. That’s more of the programming process. Um, some of these are very absurd. Every example I give, that I will give you today, and every example that I’ve written in any of my books and articles come from my own personal experience with these… patients. I have created none of them. I don’t have a creative enough mind to think of these things. Every one is a true clinical experience.
“Um, well, uh, why else don’t you want to see him?”
“Um, Well, uh um, he used to belch when he eats.”
“He used to belch.” he says. “Is that the reason not to see him? He used to hiccup, or belch or burp?”
“Yeah, yeah, that’s the reason.”
“Uh, any other reason?”
“He used to hit my mother.”
(In disbelief.) “Did you ever see him hit your mother?”
(Changing his voice to a sing-song younger child’s voice.) “No, but my mommy says he… she… he used to hit her…” >
“Did you ever…”
“…used to beat her.”
“Did you ever hear him beat your mother?”
“No.”
“No? Well, how do you know? Your father says, he says he never did that. He says that your mother is lying and that he not once in his life has he ever hit her.”
(Deeper voice, talking loudly, sounding agitated .) “He’s a liar!”
(Calmly.) “Your mother [sic]… your father says that your mother is a liar.”
“My mother would never lie to me.”
“And my…”
“My father always lies to me.”
(Calmly). “Wha, wha.. give me another example of the time your father lies.”
“I can’t think of it now. I’ll tell you next time.”
So, it’s… it’s… that the excuses, they have no basis in reality. Um the um…
“I never had a good time with him. I always hated every minute of it.”
“Well. There’s a picture here, and it’s from Disney World, and your mom and your dad and you and your sister. There’s Donald Duck, and Mickey Mouse and you have a big smile on your face. You seem to be having a good time.”
“I hated every minute of it.”
“Then why are you smiling?”
“He made me smile, he said if I didn’t smile, he would beat me.”
Or uh, “He said if I didn’t say “Cheese” like this, “Say cheese”, to make believe I was smiling, that he would hit me.”
So you have these absurd justifications for the campaign, uh maybe ludicrous, but uh, the child that doesn’t appreciate how absurd they are but it’s part of the child’s campaign.
Uh, the next is lack of ambivalence. All human relationships have mixed feelings. So you , you say to a child. “Okay, I want to write down the things you like about your… mother, the things you don’t like about your mother, things you like about your father and things you don’t like about your father.”
So when you get to the…preferred parent, everything is positive. Everything is wonderful. Anything negative? Nothing negative. And the opposite with the hated parent. Only negatives. So it, let us say it’s the mother who is the uh the target. And I’m going to come to that later. It’s an important point about the gender differences. There’s been a change, where now it’s shifting where more and more fathers are now becoming programmers and the mothers victims. That’s a recent development in the United States which I’m going to elaborate on a little later.
Um, so um…do…You’ll say, let’s say the father has programmed the child.
“I hate my mother. Uh, I can’t stand her.”
“Something positive. Something good.”
“Nothing good.”
“And in your whole life, she never did one good thing?”
“No.”
And then a list all of the bad things. “What’s the bad things?”
“She makes me turn off the television and go to sleep. She makes me…she says I can’t even watch television until I finish my homework. Uh, she says uh, uh, I…, I…, I can’t go out and play with my friends until I do my homework.”
Something like that. The opposites – all positives or all negatives – nothing’s a mixture. And you see that in PAS.
Uh, then the next is the “independent thinker” phenomenon where the child claims that all these ideas are his or her own and that it has nothing to do with the influence of the programming parent.
Now, the programming parent wants the child to say that because the programming parent is often accused by the father and by others of being a programmer, of being a brainwasher. So the child says, “It’s all my own ideas and she had nothing to do with it.”
Uh and the that, the programmer says,
(Feminine voice, harshly.) “It’s your opinion, right? It’s your own opinion, right? And it’s nobody elses’ opinion, right?”
(Weakly, resigned.) “That’s my own opinion.”
Uh, and I remember one mother said, “Now you tell him, do you want to see… if you don’t want to see your father, you don’t have to see your father. I respect your right not to see your father. I respect your right. If I have to get a lawyer to protect you from seeing your father, I will do so. If I have to go to the Supreme Court of the United States to protect you from seeing your father, I will do that because I respect your right not to see your father. Now, do you want to see your father?”
(Laughter from some in audience – one laughing louder than others.)
“No, no, no.”
“See Doc? He doesn’t want to see his father.”
And then the child says, “I don’t want to see my father.”
And the (Unintelligible) will say, “It’s my idea.”
“That’s your own opinion, isn’t it?”
“Yes, that’s my opinion.” (Sounding bored, resigned.)
(Seriously at first, Gardner then changes to a lighter tone, sounding like he’s smiling. He provides no background for the case or details of what “danger” prompted the mother to approach the Supreme Court for protection. He elicits more chuckles from a few in the audience.) And you see the programming. There is also the message that he is so dangerous, so dangerous that we’re going to have to get a lawyer to protect the child and that if we have to go the… the Supreme Court of the United States to hear this case, uh, on this child to see his father. Uh, but you see the programming. And you see the child being programmed, brainwashed to profess that these opinions are his own.
Uh, the next is the reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict. Uh, no matter how strong the evidence, that the victimized parent is… is… is in the right, has done nothing, and that the programming parent is being deceitful, the child reflexively supports the position of the programmer.
So uh the mother says, “He’s not giving us any money. He’s not sending us the money. Uh, uh, I don’t know where we’re gonna get food. We may starve. We may have to leave the house, freeze in the winter and things like that. We won’t have enough clothing to buy.”
And, and, and she… she creates in the children the… the idea that they’re going to be naked in the streets in the middle of the winter, frozen in the snow, starving to death, and it’s all because of the father because he’s not paying the money.
And, and, and the father, um says,
(Calmly, authoritatively.) “That’s a lie. That’s not true. I have checks here. Every week I give her this check and s..he shows the child, and she signs her name, that’s her name, and that means that she took that money”.
(Note: This was Gardner’s “therapy” in which the alleged abuser directly – and sometimes forcefully – confronts the child’s allegations with the “therapist” present in the room. Gardner recommended using this same confrontation in cases of child sexual abuse.)
The child looks at him and says, “That’s a forgery. You’re lying. That isn’t her s… that isn’t her signature.”
There’s no way to get the child to be convinced that perhaps that the… the programmer is lying. Uh, and, um, so there’s always support.
Uhm. The next is the absence of guilt.
The child I mentioned will spit in the face of the victimized parent. Uh, use the most vile profanities, the most hateful statements without any guilt, without any feeling of embarrassment, without feeling any… any sense of sympathy or empathy for the victimized parent. (Note to reader: It is important to know that this behavior is frequently seen in children who are forced to visit with a parent who has emotionally, physically or sexually abused them. Later in this lecture, Gardner tells his audience that parental “alienation” is worse for a child than physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse. This might be the reason, in all of these scenarios, Gardner dismisses all presented variations of alleged abuse as absurd or irrelevant.)
Uh, so I’ll say to the child, “Now, let me understand this. You say you never want to see your father again in your whole life, even if you live a thousand years.”
“Yeah, that’s right.” (Unconvincing.)
“And, uh, you say you want him to pay for all the expenses from your school, private school and private college uh, no matter how far you want to go.”
“Uh, Yeah, that’s right.” (Again, unconvincing.)
“Do you think that’s fair to him? That you never see him and that all he should do is pay them money?”
(Sounding annoyed.) “Yeah, that’s fair, that’s fair.”
“Uh, don’t you feel a little embarrassed with yourself?”
“No, I’m not embarrassed at all. I’m not guilty, no, it’s right.”
“But why?”
“Because of all those things he did.”
“All what things?”
“He’s mean. He’s always very mean to me. He made me go to Disney World. Uh, he, he, he made me uh go to movies I didn’t want to see. He… he got these video tapes that I hated.”
And… and… and all these, all these preposterous reasons.
Uh, but there’s no guilt because the programming parent is not inducing guilt, is not teaching the child good manners, respectful behavior, not reprimanding the child when the child is disrespectful and… and providing a healthy environment which teaches the child respect for the other parent. It’s the healthy parent says, “We’re divorced, I’ve had my problems with him, but he’s your father and you’re not going to speak to him that way. And you’re going to respect him and I want you to apologize to him for using those words. And if you don’t, then you’re gonna, no television.” Something like that.
Um, so you… you don’t get the parent teaching the child proper behavior, proper morals, proper ethics, proper values when it comes to the father… uh… uh… the… the victimized parent.
The next is the borrowed scenarios. The children incorporate into their campaign, words, terms that are not age appropriate.
Uh the… the child could not possibly have that in his or her vocabulary.
A, uh, a…a…a father calls.
(Authoritatively.) “Let me speak to the children.”
(Glibly.) “They just came home from school, and they’re changing their clothes, and they’re ready to go out and play, and they’re too busy to talk to you. Call back later.”
Call back later.
“Uh, uh… oh they’re ready, they’re just ready to have supper. You can’t talk to them now.”
And hangs up and he calls again.
“It they’re they’re just finishing their dessert. You can’t talk. And stop harassing us. Stop this harassment. “
And then uh, calls again.
“They’re doing their homework. They can’t be bothered. Stop harassing us. Stop the harassment.”
“They’re watching television”
Hang up.
“They’re re, they’re reading bedtime stories. Stop this harassment.”
Hang up.
“They’re asleep.”
Hang up.
(After somehow listening in on all of the phone conversations, Gardner moves the scene to his office.)
“Why don’t you want to see your father?”
“ He..” A four-year-old… “He harasses us.”
“Harrass? That’s a big word for a child your age. What… what does harassment mean?”
“Ask my mommy, she knows.”
That kind of thing. So you, you see where it came from. Um.
A, a sex abuse accusation is often a spin-off or a derivative in… in maybe 10 or 15 percent of the cases. And bringing in the child protection people in it can destroy the father’s life in one telephone call.
Uh, a four-year-old girl.
Uh, “Why don’t you want to see your father?”
Uh, (Young female voice.) “He penetrated me.”
“Penetrated. That’s a big word for a four-year-old girl. It means se, sexual intercourse…but…”
“He penetrated me.”
Says, “What does that mean, he penetrated you?”
“I don’t know. Ask my mommy. She said he penetrated me.”
So you see the incorporation of… of terminology that could not possibly be uh, appropriate to the child that comes into the scenarios of denigration.
Um, the uh, last is the spread of the animosity to the extended parent… extended family of the alienated parent. Um, the um previously, uh the grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins had good relationship with the child. Now almost overnight, the child doesn’t want to speak to the grandparents or the uncles. The grandmother calls,
“I hate you Grandma. I never want to speak to you again.” Hangs up.
Uh, and uh, the grandmother of course is very pained by this, or the grandfather, uh, uncles aunts, they call up, they send presents for certain uh… events, cards, birthday cards, birthday presents, Christmas cards, Christmas presents, they’re returned, they’re thrown in the basket and there’s a sudden cut-off of all the extended family. And uh, uh… uh… and and these people may be in deep grief and pain over the loss of this child, but the alienating parent um… uh feels no sense of loss.
“I hated to go over there. I only acted as if I wanted to go but I really hated it.”
Now, as you can see from the chart, uh…these symptoms are in three categories uh, mild, moderate, uh and severe. Uh now, um, the differentiation is extremely important. And uh, if we go to the bottom part of this chart where it says “The transitional difficulties uh and the behavior”, that gives you a good idea often uh, as to which category it’s in. And so in uh transitional time, when the child is going from one parent to the other, um, you have limited or minimal problem in the mild. The moderate may be a significant problem. Uh the children refuse to go, uh, the… the father is begging, he’s trying to talk them into it, says to the programming parent, uh,
“Would you please tell them to cooperate?”
(Slightly higher-pitched voice.) “Can’t you see they don’t want to see you? Can’t you see they hate you? Don’t you get the message? What’s wrong with you? Are you blind? They hate you. Can’t you see they hate you? Why are you pushing them? Why don’t you respect their right not to see you if they don’t want to see you. What kind of a father are you?”
Those are the kinds of things which often serve to support… (Interrupting his own sentence.)
“Don’t you respect their wishes? Can’t ya see that they don’t want to go?”
And ah, or “Go to your father, we, I’ll get in trouble with the judge if you don’t go.”
Implication being that there’s no reason to go, but I’ll get in trouble, so go.”
And the children in the moderate, sometimes the visit is possible. Most often it is. 
Once the children are outside of the view of the programming parent, usually they will quiet down and then they’ll be alright, …but then periodically, they catch themselves and will then start in with the campaign. Um, they um, often an older sibling will be the assistant programmer to the younger one so that you’ll have the ten or eleven-year-old girl uh, you know, who’ll watch the younger ones. And uh, uh intermittently, periodically say,
“I gotta watch, you gotta be careful of him, make sure everything’s alright….watch over you.” And then,
“I’m going to tell mommy you were nice to Daddy.”
“Daddy, I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.” And then,
So then child will go back, and go back to the mommy and say, “I told him I hated him.”
It’s traditionally, they only say bad things to the programmer. They say nothing good happened, that they were there for the whole weekend, they hated every minute of it and they couldn’t, kept look, looking at their watches to see when the time would be over and couldn’t wait to get back. The reality being, they had a great time and that periodically, they come forth with these uh, uh angry statements in order to have the material to give back to the programming parent.
In the severe form, visitation is impossible. Impossible. The children refuse to go. The programmer is often paranoid. The children believe they will be murdered, they will be poisoned, they’ll be raped. Uh they will be uh sexually abused, physically abused, neglected, beaten. Uh, uh togetherness in the house, there’s blood-curdling shrieks, they’re trying to jump out of the window, run into the street. Uh, the.. they’re paranoid and they believe that uh… uh they will be subjected to, to terrible punishments, even though they have no evidence for it or even though they’ve never had any personal experiences to suggest that even for one second that such things will happen to them. And so visitation is just about impossible in the severe form.
Now the behavior during visitation I described uh…
The bonding with the alienator: In the mild and moderate cases, the bonding with the alienator is usually good with the exception that the alienator, in, in order to um… strengthen his or her position in the lawsuit will um… uh, will program the children. Um, in the um, severe cases, the bonding with the alienator is usually quite set. Either the m… the uh, the alienating parent is is programming, uh, i… i… is paranoid or is extremely over protective, never trusted the um, the father, even at the very beginning.
Uh, I’ve had cases, uh, one case in which uh the mother uh refused to let the father in the delivery room. Now in recent years, this is much more common. I don’t know in Europe, in… in the US, they come in with the camcorders and they’re taking pictures of the delivery… (Gardner laughs and the audience laughs.) and they show their friends the delivery. (More laughter.)
Uh, anyway, uh…
(Feminine, irritated voice) “I don’t want you to film me. This is a personal matter.”
There was one woman, when the father came into the delivery room she said to the obstetrician… while she’s in labor, delivering,
“If you don’t get him out of here, I’m going to fire you.” (Just a few laughs.)
That’s not usually the time to fire the obstetrician.
But uh… this is the uh, the extent of the, of the uh… uh the re…the rejection. Uh, they don’t trust the father to hold the baby, he’ll drop it. I… I had one father who was a professional football player – uh, not soccer, our American football. Professional football player, and uh, the mother didn’t trust him to hold the baby. Uh, he couldn’t hold the baby, but he…he could hold footballs. And uh, this kind of thing. He would drop the baby. Uh, but these things are ludicrous and absurd, but uh, this is the extent uh to which you have people justifying uh ,the over protectiveness.
The bonding with the alienated parent is usually good. And that, as I said at the outset, if the father is a rejector, is an abandoner, is an abuser, then… uh… the “parental alienation syndrome”… uh… diagnosis is not justified because there has been no… there has been abuse and it’s an entirely different situation and this is a very important point.
Now, let me tell you a little bit about my opinion as to what has happened, why we have this disorder, why it wasn’t until the early 1980s that I saw it and that I was doing uh, child psychiatry for maybe twenty-five years and never saw it, and then suddenly appears in the early 1980s.
I believe that the main reason relates to the uh, the fact that prior to the 1970s, uh mothers were automatically given custody. And that at least in the twentieth century, uh p… prior centuries, it was usually the fathers. That, that’s a different thing.
Um, and that in the 60s and the 70s, with the expansion of the women’s liberation movement, uh women, justifiably uh were given more opportunities for education, equal pay, job opportunities, education opportunities, all of these things which are important and wonderful developments and uh long past due. Men began to say, “Wait a minute, wait a minute. Uh the idea that a woman should be given preferential treatment in child… as primary custodial parent sets it’s… it’s… it’s predjudiced, it’s biased against men and we want to have equal opportunity for custody of the children.”
And the legislators, the courts agreed and there became a shift where fathers had equal opportunity for custody. And what happened was that then the custody litigation began to increase uh because now fathers had a chance to be, to get primary custodial status. The… as a result, there was an increase in custody litigation and then the parents began to program the children in order to strengthen their positions in the lawsuits.
Now, up until a couple of years ago, my experience had been that it was primarily the mother who was the programmer and that although the fathers would program, they weren’t as successful and the mothers seemed to prevail. And that uh, so that most of the programmers were mothers. And in my first book on the PAS, uh, my… my first was in 1987, uh the mothers were the primary programmers. The second book in 1992, the mothers were the primary programmers. The third book, which came out in 1998, I started to see a shift. And in the last year or two, the shift has been dramatic, where I’m seeing in the US, many more fathers now who are programmers and it’s almost at the point now where it may be 50/50. And I think what’s happened is, one thing, is that fathers have read my books and are learning the techniques and so can use the same intervention. And another relates to the fact that there’s been increasing time the children have with the fathers with the expansion of father opportunities and father access so that the more time, they have more opportunity to uh, to program the children.
So now it seems… and my own personal experiences are being verified by friends, relatives, colleagues, uh, various parts of the country who are reporting the same thing to me and when I lecture in different parts of the US, I ask my greatest fans, “What’s your experience been?” and that’s usually been uh… uh the um… uh… in… in the last year or two, it seems to be equaling out.
Let me ask this audience, for all of our interest. For those of you in this audience who have familiar with this disorder… who are familiar with the disorder, in how many cases have the mothers been the programmer and the father the victim? By raising hands. Where it’s primarily the mothers as the programmer and the father… uh please raise hands high you should all look and see. It seems about a third of you are raising your hands. Now, how many have seen as the… the father is the programmer and the mother is the victim? Father is the programmer… I see just a few hands. This is why we’re seeing in the U.S. … um… up until two or three years ago and now it’s changing. And if I’m correct, and so many other waves that I’ve seen to come here a few years later, uh, you probably will see more fathers as programmers if that principle continues to hold uh, of… of… of getting our bad habits here in Europe a few years after it they’ve come… they’ve become common in the United States.
Now, um, unfortunately, your uh material does not have information on the treatment. It… it’s uh there was an error, there was another error, all the publications, uh on the PAS in scientific journals have been omitted from this document as well.
You have uh, citations from the uh the legal movements in which testimony of The Parental Alienation Syndrome has been recognized by a court of law but the um, and those are listed in your document here, but all the publications of which, of which there are probably a hundred now, uh some in German literature, uh one in French and the others in English. Um, I, I would assume uh that uh, Mr. van Dijk can probably make those available to you.
Now let me say something about the treatment um and uh emphasize very important points.
(Clears throat.) The Parental Alienation Syndrome has become politicized. It has become adversarial uh… in part because anything that goes into a court of law, almost, almost automatically becomes adversarial as one lawyer supports one parent’s position and one lawyer supports the other. 
So it behooves one of the lawyers to come up with garbage, with lies, with misrepresentations in order to support that lawyer’s position. Another reason why it’s become politicized, is that, because women were the ones who were more often the programmers up until a couple of years ago, I was criticized as being sexist, as biased against women for claiming that women are more often the programmers.
And my answer was, “That’s the reality. Let’s not deny this reality. To call me names for describing the reality, is it loses sight, what’s the reason for it?”
The reason was that the women were the primary caretakers primarily, and the children wanted to be bonded more with the mothers because they want the mothers to have more availability, more access and the children wanted to stay with their mothers, they were more strongly bonded with their mothers.
Uh, and uh, but with time now fathers are becoming equally bonded and the children now it it’s evening out.
The… the problem that I have found is that the courts have been unreceptive to coming down heavily and being properly restrictive of the programming parent. Um. This is the central problem.
(Lowering voice. Speaking slowly, deliberately.) Um. Inducing The Parental Alienation Syndrome in a child is a form of abuse. In a way, it may even be worse than physical abuse and sexual abuse.
(Speaking more casually.) You see, in physical abuse, there comes a time when the child reaches a point where the child can s…stop the parent. You… you’re twelve you… you’re thirteen, you’re fourteen, you can fight back, you can resist, you can run away. You’re old enough to call the police and you can protect yourself somewhat. And, so it certainly reaches a… a point when it stops. Not that there aren’t ongoing psychological consequences after but it… it can stop.
(Less seriously. Raising the pitch at the end of each statement as in questioning.) Sexual abuse uh, can certainly damage any child, psychologically to varying degrees from very little to very much depending upon the… the… the trauma associated with it. But ultimately the child can… is old enough to stop, to report it and bring about a discontinuation of it.
(Slowly, seriously, emotionally.) In psych… in PAS, you get life-long alienation. The bonding is eroded, it’s corrupted, it’s destroyed and if… if after eight, ten years, you’re strangers. It’s like an alumni meeting. The brain is just filled with hatred in the brain circuitry and all the loving, tender feelings all the… all the positive, loving experiences have evaporated. They’re replaced by the campaign of denigration. And even if there is contact then, it’s a lost. It’s lost. It’s never again the same. And it’s… it’s a… it’s a form of abuse that may not be as easy to detect as physical abuse where you see bones and broken fractures and you see abrasions and you have medical reports or physical abuse, where you s… you may see evidence in… in… in medical examination. Here it’s psychological but it is… it is very detrimental.
Now, the courts have the power to cure the PAS. If a judge were to treat a PAS indoctrinating parent… like, let us say a father who reneges on paying his support or alimony. In the United States, and I’m sure here too, if a father doesn’t come up with his support and alimony payment, they can be taken from his salary or uh automatically or he can be put on notice that if he doesn’t pay, he’s on house arrest for the weekend so that from Friday afternoon to Monday morning he must stay at home and if he’s out of the house, he’s in contempt of court, he can be arrested. They can put shackles on his ankle, electronically communicating with the police department. Uh, random telephone calls 24 hours a day. No answering machine to ensure that he’s there. They do that routinely to fathers who have not properly paid for their uh, their monetary obligations.
If a judge were to say to a mother, “If the children are not… if the children… if the children are not at the father’s house at 5:00 on Friday, the car … there’s a court order here at 5:01, for the police to come and arrest you … for not getting your children there. And you will spend the weekend in jail …to help remind you that those children must be there.”
I haven’t gotten one judge to do that. Not one.
I haven’t even gotten one judge to say to a, such a mother, “I order you to take a tour of the jail just to see what it’s like to give you an idea of where you’re going if those children don’t go.”
I had a child in the early eighties, a seven-year-old boy, who was a PAS victim himself… boy is …the children are victims too. (As afterthought.)
(In the voice of a young adoring child.) “Dr. Gardner, is it true that if I don’t go and see my daddy, uh the judge is going to put my mommy in jail? That’s right, isn’t it true the judge is going to put my mommy in jail?”
Oh my, the kid was begging me. Every cell in his body was begging me to say, “Yes, the judge will put my… your mommy in jail.”
I said, “Well, you know that’s a possibility, he has the power to do that.”
“Okay I’ll see, I’ll see my daddy. Mommy, Dr. Gardner says the judge will put me in jail if I don’t see daddy, my daddy, so I’ll go see my daddy.” (Note: According to Gardner’s categories, such behavior in a child would indicate a total absence of the “Parental Alienation Syndrome”.)
He was begging me for the excuse. I beg the judges, the kids need the excuse. They want to be able to say to the alienator “I hate him. But I’ll go anyway to protect you.”
The judges won’t do it. Because it’s not the politically correct thing to do in the United States in 1999 to put a woman in jail, for not visit… visiting. Put a man in jail for not paying the money, it’s done every minute. Put a woman in jail, politically incorrect…look bad in the papers.
Now that men are starting to induce PASs, it’s easier… it will be easier. There are so many cases all over the United States of PAS… hundreds of thousands. There’s an epidemic, there’s no question. It has to happen. And once it happens, it’ll probably be easier if the man is the first one because then it will be easier for the judges.
So what I’m saying is this, the judges have the power, if anybody is in contempt of court, to put in jail. In other words, if… if… if somebody before a judge in the United States were to not appear … [Audio 45:28 – 45:31 missing]… to work within those guidelines. Contempt of court in general, the judge has power to incarcerate.
There’s only two states in the United States that I know where the judge is empowered to incarcerate up to six months a parent who is in contempt of court for a visitation uh… order. And once that happens, there will be very, there will be a rapid shrinkage of PAS.
So, I started this presentation saying, what I said about the cure of PAS is the legislators empowering the judges to impose penalties, meaningful, humane penalties, on PAS inducing parents – regardless of the gender of the parent. This is the only cure I know of. Psychotherapy will not work. Nothing else I can think of will work and I’ve certainly been giving a lot of thought to this over the last fifteen years. And there’s nothing in my experience to suggest that there’s any other route to cure and my hope is that what I’ve said today will play some role in bringing about this change here.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Standing Strong
Video Interview: Jennie Morton with Bill Windsor of Lawless America
From Lawless America:
Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.
The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.
If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.
One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.
In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.
Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.
For more information, see:
The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com
Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica
Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica
Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/
To reach Bill Windsor, email: Nobodies@att.net
Lawless America Congressional Testimony: Marlene Jones
From Lawless America:
Lawless America Congressional Testimony: Marlene Jones
Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.
The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.
If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.
One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.
In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.
Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.
For more information, see:
The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com
Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica
Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica
Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/
To reach Bill Windsor, email: Nobodies@att.net
For Christian
Game Changer for California Family Court Evaluations: Take the Tape Recorder With You
A Primer: All About Waste and the Wizard of Oz
by Julia Fletcher
Did you read what that quote says? Who would include such a vulgar quote as the introduction to a “custody primer”?
In a mandatory video for Guardian ad Litem and Attorney for Minor Child training and certification in Connecticut, the woman playing the Guardian ignores the mother’s concerns about “child porn” on the father’s computer. The Guardian expresses concern for a thirteen-year-old girl’s “sexting”, but doesn’t do anything to help protect any of the children who are involved.
Other required materials for the training and certification include the document below. The state of Connecticut’s Office of Child Protection that handles the training and certification doesn’t offer any explanation of what the document is. No reason is offered for its inclusion in the required materials.
It’s an essay called, What Matters in Custody? A Primer. Here’s an excerpt:
So, if one were to watch the required video and read that bit of required reading, upon receiving one’s certification as a Guardian ad Litem in Connecticut, one should NOT contact the FBI as soon as possible to report crimes against children such as “sexting” and/or “child porn” on a computer. Interesting.
Apparently, someone in Connecticut’s Office of Child Protection decided that parents, under the threat of “sanctions”, will wait to report child endangerment and abuse to the authorities. At what point was that decided in Connecticut and who decided it? Who decided to make the training video noted above, instructing Connecticut’s Guardians ad Litem to totally ignore disclosures of crimes against children?
Clearly, Connecticut legislators must not be aware of these new rules. Perhaps no one has had the time or the courage to tell the legislators about the criminal quackery that has infiltrated Connecticut’s family courts.
Maybe it would help if someone would write a post called “Whistle Blower Week”. It could include information about people like Retired Judge DeAnn Salcido, Emily Gallup and John Peragine. Maybe then a few good people in Connecticut will step forward and say something. When a few courageous people speak up, many more usually follow.
I’m still looking forward to the results of the FBI investigation there. Maybe the FBI needs the information found in this post. I should probably tag it with words that will grab their attention: “bombs”, “terrorists”, “Martha Stewart” (As referenced on page 9)
There. That should do it.
“I am petitioning for the following changes…”
From Change.org:
Mother’s Day wish to bring my child home…
Dear Attorney General Eric Schneidermann:
It is Mother’s Day of 2012 and nearly one year ago, my daughter was taken from me as a result of an “arbitrary and capricious” decision made by the Family Court judge. This “temporary” order gives my daughter’s father full custody and limited access to me–her mother (which means barely 20 hours every other week, no overnights)
Despite much effort to avoid court intervention for my divorce, I placed trust in the system to be fair in judging what would be in her best interest of our child. Three years later, my petition for full-custody has evolved into a “kangeroo court” focused on anything but the “best interest of my child”.
As I’m sure you know, the state’s Family Court system needs serious reform.
Countless responsible and loving parents lose their children dictated by corrupt activities in our courts. Parents are powerless because of the immunity granted to all judges, law guardian, and expert witnesses.
It is time that we stop from allowing these individuals to operate by their own rules. This is an abuse of power, similar to police brutality. And these actions are parallel to sick acts of children bullying of other children.
On that note, I am petitioning for the following changes:
* Enforcement of a child’s constitutional right to their own attorney through parents’ consent.
* Clear guidelines and standards on what qualifies and DOES NOT qualify as quasi-immunity in child custody trials for judges, law guardians and expert witnesses. Disciplinary action taken for defined unethical behavior.
* Forensic evaluators, specifically child psychiatrists or psychologists must provide reports and testimony that is objective and evidence-based. Mandate that these paid professionals are Board Certified in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology to insure they understand the clear difference between forensic and clinical evaluations.
* Gross negligence would be subject to possible civil tort litigation and/or prosecution.
In cases medical experts who act with gross negligence, their actions can qualify as medical malpractice despite absence of patient-physician relationship.• Priority through an immediate trial must be placed for temporary decisions that orders significant change in child’s custody.
• Enforce open forum to public in courtroom and/or cameras present, specifically as it relates to interviews with appointed law guardians and forensic evaluators. Privacy of child also would be strictly mandated.
Children are also guaranteed constitutional rights and the laws need to protect them. How can a legal system in our state and country have the liberty of allowing such injustice that is destroying our children? I speak for so many parents who have completely lost faith and trust in our judicial system.
Mr. Attorney General, please help to make this change in New York and be an example for other states to follow. I trust and pray you will make this happen.
Respectfully,
Anonymous (until my child comes home!)
New York County- Manhattan[Your name]
“Barbaric” Courts on Both Sides of the Pond
From The Daily Mail Online:
Scandal of ‘unqualified’ experts who advise our family courts:
Decisions about the care of thousands of children routinely flawed
By Katherine Faulkner
Life-changing decisions about the care of thousands of children are routinely being made on flawed evidence from poorly qualified ‘experts’ in the family courts, a damning study reveals.
More than a fifth of these vital reports are being produced by people who are completely unqualified, the Channel 4 News investigation found.
‘Experts’ used in hundreds of family court proceedings are frequently unqualified or unreliable, the study reveals. In some cases, reports on parents or children are being given to courts by doctors who have not even seen the individuals concerned. Until now, these ‘expert witnesses’ – often psychologists or psychiatrists – have largely escaped scrutiny due to the draconian secrecy surrounding the family courts.
But in a unique study for the Family Justice Council, Professor Jane Ireland – a forensic psychologist who has herself been an expert witness – examined over 100 expert witness reports used in family court cases. Incredibly, she found that 20 per cent had been produced by people who were not qualified at all. A further fifth had been carried out by people who were writing reports in areas entirely beyond their knowledge and qualifications.
In addition, as many as 90 per cent of the reports had been produced by ‘expert’ witnesses who were no longer in current practice at all, but were simply working as ‘professional expert witnesses’. Often, these professional experts – who rake in thousands of pounds in fees from the chaotic family courts system – have not practised for years, leaving them out of touch with developments in their field.
They are often appointed to assess the suitability of a parent or parents to continue to look after their child in care proceedings brought by local councils. They can also be used in access cases following the separation of a child’s parents. Thousands of children have their futures decided in the family courts every year and because of strict rules on what can be reported, often little is revealed about what happens once the court doors are closed.
In the past, parents have bitterly complained that they have not even been allowed to know the names of the paid expert witnesses who testified against them.
That has now changed but Professor Ireland, of the University of Central Lancashire, said 65 of the 100 reports she examined were ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ carried out.
Some reports were found to ‘cite opinion without conducting a formal assessment’ or show a complete lack of understanding of the conditions discussed. One was even found to have ‘completed an assessment on the mother without actually seeing her’.
Professor Ireland said an ‘urgent review’ of expert witnesses in the family courts was needed. ‘I think we were very concerned and perturbed by some of the reports that we read,’ she told Channel 4 News.
‘Some of the most startling results were the sheer number of expert psychologists . . . who are reporting that their entire job is the production of assessment reports for courts.
‘I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing.’
The Family Justice Council is an independent public body set up in 2004 and funded by the Ministry of Justice. It is charged with monitoring the family justice system and advising the Government and the courts on how the system can be improved.
One mother involved in family court proceedings told how a psychiatrist who had never seen her wrote a 14-page report on her and her family. The day after the psychiatrist signed off his report he was suspended by the General Medical Council for a separate offence. Despite this, his report was still used by the courts.
‘He’s never seen us, never spoken to us,’ she said, ‘and yet he’s ended up writing 14 pages, with recommendations, that he could not possibly have made if he had spoken to any of us or had he read through the court papers.’
She said her custody case dragged on for five years because of the competing testimonies of no fewer than eight expert witnesses.
‘The court system in England is barbaric,’ she said. ‘It does not allow parents to be given a voice, it doesn’t allow their children to be given a voice.
‘But what it does instead is it focuses on employing expert witnesses – at huge expense.’
Nigel Priestley, a family solicitor in Huddersfield, said: ‘If the statistics are that 20 per cent are unqualified, that is not just a mess, that is staggering.’
No “French Whore” in the DSM-IV
by Julia Fletcher
When Rush Limbaugh called a young woman a “slut” and a “prostitute”, those words didn’t sit well.
In fact, as soon as Mr. Limbaugh unleashed those words, advertisers began to pull hundreds of thousands of dollars from his radio show.
Dr. Kenneth Robson isn’t a radio talk-show host.
He’s a custody evaluator in Connecticut family courts.
Connecticut parents and taxpayers pay Dr. Robson to evaluate mothers, fathers and children in family court cases – usually cases involving some form of child abuse. The cases Dr. Robson reviews are serious cases. Some are extremely disturbing. Some involve unspeakable abuse.
In one of those cases involving allegations of unspeakable abuse, the mother noticed and reported what she believed to be signs and symptoms of purposeful, horrific child abuse. Others witnessed those signs and symptoms. Experts in the field of child abuse were called to investigate. The signs and syptoms of abuse were documented.
Dr. Robson investigated and called the young mother “a French whore“.
Could “French whore” be one of those clinical terms that doesn’t sound clinical?
According the the American Psychatric Association’s website,
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States. It is intended to be applicable in a wide array of contexts and used by clinicians and researchers of many different orientations (e.g., biological, psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral, interpersonal, family/systems). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) has been designed for use across clinical settings (inpatient, outpatient, partial hospital, consultation-liaison, clinic, private practice, and primary care), with community populations. It can be used by a wide range of health and mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and counselors. It is also a necessary tool for collecting and communicating accurate public health statistics.
I typed the terms “DSM-IV” and “French whore” into the Google search bar and was quite surprised to find that the term “French whore” has indeed been used in a clinical setting.
In the book, The Physician as Patient: A Clinical Handbook for Mental Health Professionals, Michael Meyers, M.D. and Glen Gabbard, M.D. describe a case in which a 50-year-old primary care practitioner used that same term. In the chapter called, “Personality Disorders, Personality Traits and the Disruptive Physician” they describe the “ego-syntonic personality disorder” which would describe Dr. Robson’s mental state – not the mental state of the mother.
Could Dr. Robson be mentally ill?
It would not be the first time a mentally ill health care provider was allowed to run rampant in our family courts. (See Seattle Times Special Report: Twisted Ethics of an Expert Witness)
If Dr. Robson is not mentally ill, and if Dr. Robson’s use of the term “French whore” was not an attempt to diagnose the young mother, then he could have been using the term “French whore” to degrade her. To humiliate her. To discredit her.
So, what if a heart surgeon were to refer to a patient as “a French whore”? Could a congressional representative get away with calling a constituent “a French whore”?
How about a radio talk show host?
Perhaps the most important question is this: Which Connecticut legislators will take another look at Dr. Eli Newberger’s testimony in that case in Connecticut and pull the taxpayer dollars from Dr. Robson’s show?
Here’s part of Dr. Newberger’s testimony:
Click on the photo above for full text.
Penn State, Sedgwick County and The Protective Parent Reform Act
“… Not only are these children in danger,
but your children,
their neighbors children, and
the child’s friend at school …”
Caroline Rice on Trial Today for “Aiding and Abetting”
by Julia Fletcher
Does anyone know of any good investigative reporters who might be willing and able to look into this case and publish what they find?
Please share this with friends in and around Minnesota today. Thank you.
This is from Carver County Corruption:
“Wednesday, December 14th Caroline Rice is on trial for aiding and abetting a minor, A. Rice, her 13 year old daughter. There is a 45 minute DVD of Carole Cole (unlicensed CPS worker) interrogating and badgering …A. Rice into making false claims about her mother and why she ran away – of which A. Rice (who is used to the abuse from Carver County) never allowed Carole Cole to force her into any such false claims.
This DVD exonerates Caroline Rice of all charges. Judge Richard Perkins berated Caroline Rice for entering the DVD into evidence.
Perkins also appointed a public defender, Steve Walburg. Perkins stated on the record that he wanted to `speak` to Steve Walburg personally before he represents Caroline Rice. Steve Walburg has not been representing his client at all, Steve Walburg is only there to represent the courts, he has made that very obvious in emails and treatment of Caroline Rice.
This is typical in these rigged cases.Carver County court held Caroline Rice for 53 days because her daughter ran away and desperately wanted to find and see her own mother. Bail for Caroline Rice was set at $15,000 – this is an insane amount for the charge she was being held on.
Bail was paid by a kind older man wanting to help Caroline and her kids. When the man stood in court and offered to bail Caroline out of jail the courts tried talking him out of it right in the courtroom, calling Caroline a `criminal` and asking why he wanted to help. The man refused to be talked out of the decision and insisted on bailing Caroline out. The county made it near impossible for the man to make her bail, upping her bail $700 and taking 8 hours to process the payment and release Caroline. This kind man will lose his savings if the courts refuse to drop the charges, as they should be dropped.
A. Rice and her brother (two youngest Rice children) are still living with their father. Caroline has not had contact with the two kids in over three years – other than when A. Rice ran to her mother last year.
Trial Wed, December 14th, 2011 at 8:30 am. We will keep you updated as to what Judge Perkins does and rules during the proceedings. Legally, all charges should be dropped against Caroline Rice. But we know this Judge does not abide by law – in any way shape or form.”
See related posts: Letter to Caroline from Annie and You Always Stand for the Truth
How Well is our Nation Protecting Children?
From: HedgeCo.net
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
New York (HedgeCo.net) – Hedge Funds Care, a global charity dedicated to preventing and treating child abuse, published a press release commending the Senate HELP Committee’s planned hearing on December 13 that will “examine how well our nation is protecting children from child abuse and neglect.”
Hedge Funds Care is committed to educating and assisting the Senate HELP Committee about the existing issues that surround the reporting and prevention of child abuse. Currently, there is a wide discrepancy in protocol for reporting child abuse, for holding perpetrators accountable and for seeing that victims and their families get treatment.
“Given the news surrounding Penn State and Syracuse University, we believe that Congress needs to act immediately to create national guidelines that will provide consistency about how to report child abuse, address perpetrators and serve those affected,” said Dr. Kathryn Conroy, Executive Director and CEO of Hedge Funds Care.
Hedge Funds Care has reached out to the Senate Committee to aid their staff in preparing for the congressional hearing. Since its inception in 1998, Hedge Funds Care has awarded over 800 grants totaling more than $30 million. In the last year alone, Hedge Funds Care has touched over 46,000 lives through prevention, education and service.
Alex Akesson
Editor for HedgeCo.net
California Protective Parents Association Newsletter
|
|
|
Family Court in America 