THE CANADIAN FAMILY FORUM
Open forum by Canadians about legal and social issues affecting Canadian families
Published by Canada Court Watch: http://www.canadacourtwatch.com
By Grant Brown, DPhil (Oxon) LLB
January 20, 2007.
While there has been a lot of recent press surrounding the problems facing
Conrad Black in court, nobody should think that the legal travails of this business mogul are anything out of the ordinary.
As a former professor of business and professional ethics, an author of peerreviewed research in the field, and a current practitioner of family law, I can say without fear of contradiction that the common man frequently receives treatment much worse than Lord Black's from our dysfunctional
family-dispute system.
There is no "presumption of innocence" for men. They are routinely evicted from their own homes by ex parte restraining orders, on the basis of false or completely uncorroborated allegations of abuse or even merely the "fear" of abuse.
They are consequently denied access to their assets, especially the equity in their homes, while paying the mortgage and credit cards for the benefit of the estranged partners and their alienated children.They may have to spend thousands of
dollars to defend themselves against criminal charges of assault, over ridiculously minor incidents in which the woman was equally a participant, if not a
deliberate provocateur.
They may have to spend thousands more to have a home study done to prove their innocence and their competence as a parent.
Rarely is a woman legally sanctioned in any way for false or exaggerated allegations of abuse, or self-serving slander of fathers.
Private lawyers in family disputes often behave no better than the public prosecutor in Lord Black's case.
They encourage clients to take uncompromising positions, to swear questionable affidavits, and to rebuff
reasonable settlement offers.
They speak out of turn and tell judges
irrelevant and misleading half-truths in Court, to slant the proceedings in their
client's favour and put the other side off their message.
They delay, play procedural games,obstruct the other side from getting at the information they are entitled to, and run up the cost of litigation until it becomes unaffordable to continue. They do all this with the blessing of the Courts and the Law Societies.
Lord Black can fend for himself, with the able assistance of Eddie Greenspan.
The common man is the more to be pitied.
Grant A. Brown, DPhil (Oxon), LL.B is a lawyer who practices law in Edmonton, Aberta, He may be reached by phone at (780) 433-1505
Source: http://www.canadacourtwatch.com/CanFamForumFiles/CFF-2007Jan20-ConradBlacksProblemsNoWorseComparedToDivorcedDads.pdf
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Father's Day: a challenge to absentee fathers
by Betty Sims
Go to Betty's Home Page
Atlanta Christianity Examiner
On Sunday, June 21, people all over the world will commemorate Father’s Day, a day set aside to honor men who have sacrificed to raise offspring. But, I often wonder about how children that don’t have fathers really feel. In the twenty-first century with our modern-day ideologies about responsible parenting, a lot of men fail to “father” their children. Not unlike males in the animal kingdom, they “hit that,” and go on to the next victim of unbridled passion and unprotected sex. Many men may never know the woman has conceived; and sadly, some women couldn’t identify their baby’s daddy without a paternity test! Anonymous absentee dads have become more the norm than the exception, far removed from the Biblical genealogies that recorded who begot whom with accuracy and aplomb.
While we honor those fathers that elected to honorably marry and rear children, my heart aches for children that don’t know their dads. That missing link can make the difference between a child that is self-assured and feels secure and one that fails to connect emotionally and spiritually to those that offer love. A mother or grandmother, uncle, cousin, or older brother can never replace a birth father’s love, given freely, self-sacrificially, and without reservation. Mothers are not meant to be both Mom and Dad. Grandparents are not meant to raise children when they ought to be retired and rocking in their favorite easy chair. As a people—saved or unsaved – we must stop the madness of childhood abandonment, emotional and physical abuse, and alienation absentee fatherhood causes. As responsible adults, we must begin teaching our children the Biblical way to become parents: waiting until marriage and waiting until maturity before bringing innocent babies into the world.
As saint and sinner alike, we need to become bold enough to tell our young men to pull their pants up instead of down and put their genitals “on ice,” before risking ruining another young girl’s life and saddling her with an infant they have no intention of helping to support. We need to take a stance against premarital sex and teen pregnancy and teach our young ladies that they are of much value – both in the sight of God and in society. We’ve got to tell our girls that teen pregnancy is not a play thing, boosting a baby on your hip is not cool, and a welfare check can never replace a college education and a chance at a better life. Parents need to demand more discipline at home; teachers must demand more respect at school; and the pulpit must demand and more importantly, demonstrate sound Biblically-based family lifestyles that young people will want to emulate.
Instead of babies having babies and children trying to rear children, we who do know the way cannot afford to turn away and bury our heads in the sand as if the problem doesn’t exist, or whisper behind closed doors when it’s someone else’s child that’s “in trouble.” As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once stated, “It takes a village to raise a child;” and we, especially Christians, are that village that God is calling for to help our future generation realize the importance overcoming the throes of puberty without pregnancy. It’s our job, it is our divine commission, and it is our utmost duty, as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and clergymen to wage a serious and ongoing battle against teen parenting, absentee fatherhood, and premarital promiscuity. Can we do it? Yes, we can; and the challenge is before us. On June 21st, let us honor those who helped bring us into the world, for they are worthy of the sacrifices made and the unconditional love they shared. But let us not forget to teach, to admonish, and to exhort our young people to wait until they are fully mature, married, and mentally ready to become parents. I dare you to take the challenge, and have a Happy Father’s Day!
Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-7327-Atlanta-Christianity-Examiner~y2009m6d11-Fathers-Day-a-challenge-to-absentee-fathers
Go to Betty's Home Page
Atlanta Christianity Examiner
On Sunday, June 21, people all over the world will commemorate Father’s Day, a day set aside to honor men who have sacrificed to raise offspring. But, I often wonder about how children that don’t have fathers really feel. In the twenty-first century with our modern-day ideologies about responsible parenting, a lot of men fail to “father” their children. Not unlike males in the animal kingdom, they “hit that,” and go on to the next victim of unbridled passion and unprotected sex. Many men may never know the woman has conceived; and sadly, some women couldn’t identify their baby’s daddy without a paternity test! Anonymous absentee dads have become more the norm than the exception, far removed from the Biblical genealogies that recorded who begot whom with accuracy and aplomb.
While we honor those fathers that elected to honorably marry and rear children, my heart aches for children that don’t know their dads. That missing link can make the difference between a child that is self-assured and feels secure and one that fails to connect emotionally and spiritually to those that offer love. A mother or grandmother, uncle, cousin, or older brother can never replace a birth father’s love, given freely, self-sacrificially, and without reservation. Mothers are not meant to be both Mom and Dad. Grandparents are not meant to raise children when they ought to be retired and rocking in their favorite easy chair. As a people—saved or unsaved – we must stop the madness of childhood abandonment, emotional and physical abuse, and alienation absentee fatherhood causes. As responsible adults, we must begin teaching our children the Biblical way to become parents: waiting until marriage and waiting until maturity before bringing innocent babies into the world.
As saint and sinner alike, we need to become bold enough to tell our young men to pull their pants up instead of down and put their genitals “on ice,” before risking ruining another young girl’s life and saddling her with an infant they have no intention of helping to support. We need to take a stance against premarital sex and teen pregnancy and teach our young ladies that they are of much value – both in the sight of God and in society. We’ve got to tell our girls that teen pregnancy is not a play thing, boosting a baby on your hip is not cool, and a welfare check can never replace a college education and a chance at a better life. Parents need to demand more discipline at home; teachers must demand more respect at school; and the pulpit must demand and more importantly, demonstrate sound Biblically-based family lifestyles that young people will want to emulate.
Instead of babies having babies and children trying to rear children, we who do know the way cannot afford to turn away and bury our heads in the sand as if the problem doesn’t exist, or whisper behind closed doors when it’s someone else’s child that’s “in trouble.” As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once stated, “It takes a village to raise a child;” and we, especially Christians, are that village that God is calling for to help our future generation realize the importance overcoming the throes of puberty without pregnancy. It’s our job, it is our divine commission, and it is our utmost duty, as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and clergymen to wage a serious and ongoing battle against teen parenting, absentee fatherhood, and premarital promiscuity. Can we do it? Yes, we can; and the challenge is before us. On June 21st, let us honor those who helped bring us into the world, for they are worthy of the sacrifices made and the unconditional love they shared. But let us not forget to teach, to admonish, and to exhort our young people to wait until they are fully mature, married, and mentally ready to become parents. I dare you to take the challenge, and have a Happy Father’s Day!
Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-7327-Atlanta-Christianity-Examiner~y2009m6d11-Fathers-Day-a-challenge-to-absentee-fathers
Monday, June 8, 2009
Family Court Australia Journalists Call for Change
Four journalists call for more freedom in scrutinizing the Family Court.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
NB Report of the Access to Family Justice Task Force
NB Report of the Access to Family Justice Task Force
Presented to the Minister of Justice and Consumer Affairs
The Honourable Thomas
In February of 2008, Justice and Consumer Affairs Minister T.J. Burke announced the appointment of a Task Force to examine the issues and challenges faced by the Family Division of the Court of Queen’s Bench.
Led by Justice Raymond Guerette of Campbellton, the seven-member task force included Michelle Boudreau-Dumas of Campbellton; Sheila Cameron of Moncton; Jennifer Donovan of Fredericton; Mary-Eileen Flanagan of Saint John; David Lutz, Q.C. of Hampton; and Brenda Noble, Q.C. of Saint John.
The Task Force was mandated to make recommendations to government that would lead to:
More timely access to justice in resolving family law disputes;
Expanded use of alternatives to the family court to resolve family law issues; and,
Increased access to legal information and legal assistance in family law matters.
The Report of the Access to Family Justice Task Force was tabled on June 2, 2009.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Presented to the Minister of Justice and Consumer Affairs
The Honourable Thomas
In February of 2008, Justice and Consumer Affairs Minister T.J. Burke announced the appointment of a Task Force to examine the issues and challenges faced by the Family Division of the Court of Queen’s Bench.
Led by Justice Raymond Guerette of Campbellton, the seven-member task force included Michelle Boudreau-Dumas of Campbellton; Sheila Cameron of Moncton; Jennifer Donovan of Fredericton; Mary-Eileen Flanagan of Saint John; David Lutz, Q.C. of Hampton; and Brenda Noble, Q.C. of Saint John.
The Task Force was mandated to make recommendations to government that would lead to:
More timely access to justice in resolving family law disputes;
Expanded use of alternatives to the family court to resolve family law issues; and,
Increased access to legal information and legal assistance in family law matters.
The Report of the Access to Family Justice Task Force was tabled on June 2, 2009.
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Note: Below are the recommendations. The report appears to be an exercise on “dusting off” and rearranging the court furniture and changing the “emperor’s new clothes”. In other words, it lacks true substance and brings in more bureaucracies and government agencies to the nation’s bedrooms. Note that the task force lacked equal gender representation, made no emphasis on equal parenting as a presumption, dodged fairness in child support payments, (especially, when the custodial parent makes more than the non-custodial or non-residential parent), and the mention of parental alienation was like a ”flash in the pan”.
The report may be a start in the right direction but not as impressive as the photo op of the task force members.
I would like to hear your comments on this report.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Endorse the Department of Social Development’s new model for resolution of child protection matters.
2. Create a separate court docket for child protection matters.
3. Create a separate Rule of Court for child protection matters.
4. Create benchmarks for process timelines.
5. Reduce the number of non-parent parties represented in child protection matters.
6. Implement legislative changes to:
a. define “all interested persons”
b. add a section on evidentiary requirements to the Family Services Act.
7. Implement settlement conferences as a precursor to trial.
8. In the very rare case where a child requires legal representation, it shall be provided by the Child and Youth Advocate.
9. The Family Services Act requires amendment to clearly define when it is appropriate to appoint legal representation for a child.
10. Provide public information and mandatory education regarding child and spousal
support.
11. Revise Rules 72 and 73 and the Family Court forms.
12. Create standard forms of orders to provide greater consistency.
13. Implement the new paradigm to provide a lean and fair system.
14. Implement a child/spousal support recalculation service.
15. Provide consensual dispute resolution options as alternatives to litigation in support matters.
16. Implement “Status of the Child” reports for child support files.
17. Provide public information and mandatory education regarding custody and access.
18. Implement a triage system of case management.
19. Expand and enhance the role of court social workers.
20. Provide consensual dispute resolution options for custody matters as alternatives to litigation.
21. Empower deputy sheriffs to enforce court orders.
22. Replace affidavits with a claim for relief in custody matters.
23. Revise Rule 72, Rule 73 and the Family Court forms.
24. Adopt higher threshold financial criteria for determining eligibility for Domestic Legal Aid, as recommended by the Review Panel.
25. Intake of clients should be done by Domestic Legal Aid lawyers who assist in the choice of process for dispute resolution.
26. Allow access to Domestic Legal Aid services for all components of a family law file.
27. Transfer support enforcement legal work to the Attorney General’s office.
28. Provide more Domestic Legal Aid staff and/or contractual lawyers.
29. A staff psychologist should be attached to the Court to prepare custody and access assessments.
30. Create a standard request form for psychological assessments.
31. Educate legal professionals at every stage of their careers in interest-based negotiation.
32. Introduce collaborative family law into the new model for child protection matters.
Report of the Access to Family Justice Task Force 61
33. Implement changes to Domestic Legal Aid to permit mediators more time to mediate.
34. Invest in administrative support, professional development and continuing education for mediators.
35. Establish mandatory courses at law schools and bar admission courses in interestbased negotiation.
36. Offer continuing education for judges and lawyers in a full range of dispute resolution processes.
37. Create new forms for Family Court in conjunction with the new paradigm.
38. Affidavits should be shorter and non-inflammatory and filed only after other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted.
39. Develop Rules to govern other dispute-resolution processes.
40. Adopt or create standard forms of court orders.
41. Make and enforce meaningful awards of costs.
42. Create a standing rules committee chaired by the Associate Chief Justice for Family Division.
43. Immediately appoint an Associate Chief Justice for Family Court.
44. Appoint three new Family Court judges.
45. Appoint masters to each judicial district.
46. Create and implement a province-wide computerized case management system.
47. Appoint a chief financial officer to be responsible for the budget and financial
management of the Court system.
48. Ensure a sufficient number of skilled administrative support staff.
49. Implement a workload assessment
Read full report PDF
1. Endorse the Department of Social Development’s new model for resolution of child protection matters.
2. Create a separate court docket for child protection matters.
3. Create a separate Rule of Court for child protection matters.
4. Create benchmarks for process timelines.
5. Reduce the number of non-parent parties represented in child protection matters.
6. Implement legislative changes to:
a. define “all interested persons”
b. add a section on evidentiary requirements to the Family Services Act.
7. Implement settlement conferences as a precursor to trial.
8. In the very rare case where a child requires legal representation, it shall be provided by the Child and Youth Advocate.
9. The Family Services Act requires amendment to clearly define when it is appropriate to appoint legal representation for a child.
10. Provide public information and mandatory education regarding child and spousal
support.
11. Revise Rules 72 and 73 and the Family Court forms.
12. Create standard forms of orders to provide greater consistency.
13. Implement the new paradigm to provide a lean and fair system.
14. Implement a child/spousal support recalculation service.
15. Provide consensual dispute resolution options as alternatives to litigation in support matters.
16. Implement “Status of the Child” reports for child support files.
17. Provide public information and mandatory education regarding custody and access.
18. Implement a triage system of case management.
19. Expand and enhance the role of court social workers.
20. Provide consensual dispute resolution options for custody matters as alternatives to litigation.
21. Empower deputy sheriffs to enforce court orders.
22. Replace affidavits with a claim for relief in custody matters.
23. Revise Rule 72, Rule 73 and the Family Court forms.
24. Adopt higher threshold financial criteria for determining eligibility for Domestic Legal Aid, as recommended by the Review Panel.
25. Intake of clients should be done by Domestic Legal Aid lawyers who assist in the choice of process for dispute resolution.
26. Allow access to Domestic Legal Aid services for all components of a family law file.
27. Transfer support enforcement legal work to the Attorney General’s office.
28. Provide more Domestic Legal Aid staff and/or contractual lawyers.
29. A staff psychologist should be attached to the Court to prepare custody and access assessments.
30. Create a standard request form for psychological assessments.
31. Educate legal professionals at every stage of their careers in interest-based negotiation.
32. Introduce collaborative family law into the new model for child protection matters.
Report of the Access to Family Justice Task Force 61
33. Implement changes to Domestic Legal Aid to permit mediators more time to mediate.
34. Invest in administrative support, professional development and continuing education for mediators.
35. Establish mandatory courses at law schools and bar admission courses in interestbased negotiation.
36. Offer continuing education for judges and lawyers in a full range of dispute resolution processes.
37. Create new forms for Family Court in conjunction with the new paradigm.
38. Affidavits should be shorter and non-inflammatory and filed only after other forms of dispute resolution have been attempted.
39. Develop Rules to govern other dispute-resolution processes.
40. Adopt or create standard forms of court orders.
41. Make and enforce meaningful awards of costs.
42. Create a standing rules committee chaired by the Associate Chief Justice for Family Division.
43. Immediately appoint an Associate Chief Justice for Family Court.
44. Appoint three new Family Court judges.
45. Appoint masters to each judicial district.
46. Create and implement a province-wide computerized case management system.
47. Appoint a chief financial officer to be responsible for the budget and financial
management of the Court system.
48. Ensure a sufficient number of skilled administrative support staff.
49. Implement a workload assessment
Read full report PDF
N.B. family court procedural snarls cause lengthy delays: report
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 2, 2009 4:46 PM AT Comments3Recommend8CBC News
A task force report on New Brunswick's family courts says the system is in disarray, as workers are bogged down with paperwork and the interests of children have become secondary to procedural requirements.
Justice Raymond Guerette, the chairman of the Access to Family Justice Task Force, released the report on Tuesday, which states the family court system has been suffering for years.
"For some time, now, perhaps going back 15 years, the court has steadily deteriorated in giving appropriate and expeditious service to the public."
The report says the court system has worsened because of a variety of factors, including an almost 50 per cent jump in people without lawyers, an escalation in the number and complexity of hearings in child protection cases, and "perceived procedural requirements."
"In the last few years, especially, the lack of money, resources and attention has resulted in reduced service to the public," the report says.
"This situation has arisen from inordinate delays in obtaining a hearing date, far too numerous adjournments, the inability to provide expeditious and proportionate resolution to relatively minor problems and the failure to keep up with progressive changes in other jurisdictions."
Justice Minister T.J. Burke said overhauling the system will be his most important task as minister, but it won't be quick or easy.
He has appointed a committee to look at how to implement the report's recommendations and to launch a pilot program this fall.
Ordinary motions can take months
Even a routine motion for interim relief can take four to six months to be heard, according to the report.
Last year, the provincial government spent $900,000 to hire 20 assistants to help social workers clear a backlog of paperwork.
The report says that the interests of children are now secondary to "excessive procedural demands."
It also recommends replacing the "adversarial system" with one that lets families break up with dignity and respect.
It suggests adopting a triage system that would quickly assess new cases and route them toward appropriate services such as mediation.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/06/02/nb-family-court-task-force-404.html
A task force report on New Brunswick's family courts says the system is in disarray, as workers are bogged down with paperwork and the interests of children have become secondary to procedural requirements.
Justice Raymond Guerette, the chairman of the Access to Family Justice Task Force, released the report on Tuesday, which states the family court system has been suffering for years.
"For some time, now, perhaps going back 15 years, the court has steadily deteriorated in giving appropriate and expeditious service to the public."
The report says the court system has worsened because of a variety of factors, including an almost 50 per cent jump in people without lawyers, an escalation in the number and complexity of hearings in child protection cases, and "perceived procedural requirements."
"In the last few years, especially, the lack of money, resources and attention has resulted in reduced service to the public," the report says.
"This situation has arisen from inordinate delays in obtaining a hearing date, far too numerous adjournments, the inability to provide expeditious and proportionate resolution to relatively minor problems and the failure to keep up with progressive changes in other jurisdictions."
Justice Minister T.J. Burke said overhauling the system will be his most important task as minister, but it won't be quick or easy.
He has appointed a committee to look at how to implement the report's recommendations and to launch a pilot program this fall.
Ordinary motions can take months
Even a routine motion for interim relief can take four to six months to be heard, according to the report.
Last year, the provincial government spent $900,000 to hire 20 assistants to help social workers clear a backlog of paperwork.
The report says that the interests of children are now secondary to "excessive procedural demands."
It also recommends replacing the "adversarial system" with one that lets families break up with dignity and respect.
It suggests adopting a triage system that would quickly assess new cases and route them toward appropriate services such as mediation.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/06/02/nb-family-court-task-force-404.html
Burke accepts report on N.B. family court system, promises action
Burke accepts report on N.B. family court system, promises action
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:01 AM AT Comments4Recommend4CBC News
Justice Minister T.J. Burke said he accepts the findings of a scathing report that says the family court system is dysfunctional — and he is promising action.
'I have no doubt in my mind that we are make our best efforts to adopt as many of them as we possibly can over the next 24 to 48 months.'
— T.J. Burke, justice ministerThe Access to Family Justice Task Force report said families are facing unacceptable delays in seeing their cases resolved because the system is overwhelmed by paperwork and by procedure.
Burke said he is striking a committee which will look at how to implement the recommendations from the report. As well, a pilot project will start this fall intended to ease the pressure on the family court division.
"I have no doubt in my mind that we are make our best efforts to adopt as many of them as we possibly can over the next 24 to 48 months," Burke said.
Burke said he accepts the report's main point that spending a bit more on alternatives at the outset will cost the system less overall.
Justice Raymond Guerette, the task force's chairman, said in the report —which was released Tuesday and includes 50 recommendations — that the family justice system has deteriorated over the last 15 years.
The report attributed the worsening state of the system to a variety of factors, including an almost 50 per cent jump in people without lawyers, an escalation in the number and complexity of hearings in child protection cases, and "perceived procedural requirements."
"The object is to keep the case moving through the system, because right now it takes too long to get anything done," Guerette told reporters.
Court workers spend too much time on paperwork
The report said court workers, including social workers, spend most of their time on paperwork, rather than resolving family disputes.
'Being a single parent is bad enough as it is, without this family court adding to their problems.'
— Judge Raymond GueretteThe best interests of children are secondary to what the report calls "excessive procedural demands."
The report proposed a triage model that would divert some cases to mediation or to other services to lower the court's caseload.
Guerette said that recommendation will save money in the long run.
"Our finding is that the longer a case remains in the judicial system, the more it costs," he said.
However, the province recently cut some of the very services in the recent budget that the task force report says are needed, such as mediators.
With the problems facing the court process, Guerette said the system is insensitive to what families are going through.
"It's insensitive, because it doesn't take into account the anguish and the anxiety of single parents who have to go through the system to obtain a remedy or some relief. Being a single parent is bad enough as it is, without this family court adding to their problems."
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/06/03/nb-burke-family-justice-959.html
Last Updated: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 11:01 AM AT Comments4Recommend4CBC News
Justice Minister T.J. Burke said he accepts the findings of a scathing report that says the family court system is dysfunctional — and he is promising action.
'I have no doubt in my mind that we are make our best efforts to adopt as many of them as we possibly can over the next 24 to 48 months.'
— T.J. Burke, justice ministerThe Access to Family Justice Task Force report said families are facing unacceptable delays in seeing their cases resolved because the system is overwhelmed by paperwork and by procedure.
Burke said he is striking a committee which will look at how to implement the recommendations from the report. As well, a pilot project will start this fall intended to ease the pressure on the family court division.
"I have no doubt in my mind that we are make our best efforts to adopt as many of them as we possibly can over the next 24 to 48 months," Burke said.
Burke said he accepts the report's main point that spending a bit more on alternatives at the outset will cost the system less overall.
Justice Raymond Guerette, the task force's chairman, said in the report —which was released Tuesday and includes 50 recommendations — that the family justice system has deteriorated over the last 15 years.
The report attributed the worsening state of the system to a variety of factors, including an almost 50 per cent jump in people without lawyers, an escalation in the number and complexity of hearings in child protection cases, and "perceived procedural requirements."
"The object is to keep the case moving through the system, because right now it takes too long to get anything done," Guerette told reporters.
Court workers spend too much time on paperwork
The report said court workers, including social workers, spend most of their time on paperwork, rather than resolving family disputes.
'Being a single parent is bad enough as it is, without this family court adding to their problems.'
— Judge Raymond GueretteThe best interests of children are secondary to what the report calls "excessive procedural demands."
The report proposed a triage model that would divert some cases to mediation or to other services to lower the court's caseload.
Guerette said that recommendation will save money in the long run.
"Our finding is that the longer a case remains in the judicial system, the more it costs," he said.
However, the province recently cut some of the very services in the recent budget that the task force report says are needed, such as mediators.
With the problems facing the court process, Guerette said the system is insensitive to what families are going through.
"It's insensitive, because it doesn't take into account the anguish and the anxiety of single parents who have to go through the system to obtain a remedy or some relief. Being a single parent is bad enough as it is, without this family court adding to their problems."
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/06/03/nb-burke-family-justice-959.html
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Marriage Breakdown Costs Taxpayers at Least $112 Billion a Year
First-Time Research Reveals Staggering Annual Taxpayer Costs for Divorce and Unwed Childbearing
WASH. D.C. In first-ever research, a new report quantifies a minimum $112 billion annual taxpayer cost from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. It identifies national, state and local costs which account for more than $1 trillion in the last decade. This landmark scholarly study, entitled “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States,” was released on April 15th at the National Press Club by four renowned policy and research groups—Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest.
“This study documents for the first time, that divorce and unwed childbearing—besides being bad for children—are also costing taxpayers a ton of money,” said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. “Even a small improvement in the health of marriage in America would result in enormous savings to taxpayers,” he continued. “For example, a 1 percent reduction in rates of family fragmentation would save taxpayers $1.1 billion.”
“These costs are due to increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation,” said principal investigator Ben Scafidi, Ph.D., economics professor at Georgia College & State University.
“Prior research shows that marriage lifts single mothers out of poverty and therefore reduces the need for costly social benefits,” said Scafidi. “This new report shows that public concern about the decline of marriage need not be based only on ‘moral’ concerns, but that reducing high taxpayer costs of family fragmentation is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators, as well as community reformers and faith communities.”
“This report now provides the basis for a national consensus that strengthening marriage is a legitimate policy concern,” said Blankenhorn. “The report’s numbers represent an extremely cautious estimate, a lower-bound figure, and have been vetted by a group of distinguished scholars and economists who have attached their names as advisors to this report.”
“These numbers represent real people and real suffering,” said Randy Hicks, president of Georgia Family Council. “Both economic and human costs make family fragmentation a legitimate public concern. Historically, Americans have resisted the impulse to surrender to negative and hurtful trends. We fight problems like racism, poverty and domestic violence because we understand that the stakes are high. And while we’ll never eliminate divorce and unwed childbearing entirely, we can certainly be doing more to help marriages and families succeed.”
Fact Sheet
The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing
First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States *
Long-standing Research Shows:
• Over the last forty years, marriage has become less common and more fragile. Between 1970 and 2005, the proportion of children living with two married parents dropped from 85 percent to 68 percent, according to Census data. (page 7*)
• More than a third of all U.S. children are now born outside of wedlock, including 25 percent of non- Hispanic white babies, 46 percent of Hispanic babies, and 69 percent of African American babies. (page 7*)
• Potential risks to children raised in fragmented families have been identified to include poverty, mental illness, physical illness, infant mortality, lower educational attainment, juvenile delinquency, conduct disorders, adult criminality and early unwed parenthood. (page 9*)
• To the extent that family fragmentation causes negative outcomes for children and adults, it also leads to higher costs to taxpayers through higher spending on antipoverty programs and throughout the justice and educational systems, as well as losses to government coffers in foregone tax revenues. (page 9*)
• Marriage can help to reduce poverty because there are two potential wage earners in the home, because of economics of scale in the household, and possibly also because of changes in habits, values, and mores that occur when they get married. (page 10*)
• The idea that family fragmentation contributes to child poverty has been studied extensively and is widely accepted. (page 10*)
• Earlier studies conclude that marriage would reduce poverty among single mothers substantially, between 65 to 80 percent. (page 10-11*)
Calculating the Taxpayer Costs
• This report adopts the simplifying and extremely cautious assumption that all of the taxpayer costs of divorce and unmarried childbearing stem solely from the negative effects family fragmentation has on poverty in female-headed households. (page 12*)
• Several calculations are used to estimate the taxpayer costs—foregone tax revenue in income taxes, FICA (commonly called social security) taxes, and state and local taxes as a result of family fragmentation, as well as direct costs to the taxpayers from increased expenditures on local, state, and federal taxpayer-financed programs, driven by increases in poverty, (page 12*), and costs to the justice system (page 16*).
• Assumption 1: Marriage lifts zero households headed by a single male out of poverty.
These assumptions err on the side of caution, derived from earlier studies (among others, the Thomas and Sawhill study “For Richer or For Poorer.”) These assumptions are more likely to lead to an underestimate than an overestimate of actual taxpayer costs of family fragmentation. Details, footnotes, and graphs are located on pages 13-14 of the report.
• Family fragmentation costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion each year, or over $1 trillion
dollars per decade. This estimate includes the costs of federal, state, and local government
programs and foregone tax revenues at all level of government as seen itemized in Table 7.
(pages 17*)
Report Conclusions
• Public concern about the decline of marriage need not be based only on the important
negative consequences for child well-being or on moral concerns, as important as these
concerns may be. High rates of family fragmentation impose extraordinary costs on
taxpayers. Reducing these costs is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers, and
legislators, as well as civic leaders and faith communities. (page 20*)
• Even very small increases in stable marriage rates would result in very large returns to taxpayers. For example, a mere 1 percent reduction in rates of family fragmentation would save taxpayers $1.1 billion annually. (page 20*)
• Texas, for example, recently appropriated $15 million over two years for marriage education and other programs to increase stable marriage rates. If such a program succeeded in increasing stably married families by just three-tenths of 1 percent, it would still save Texas taxpayers almost $9 million per year. (page 20*)
• Because of the very large taxpayer costs associated with high rates of divorce and unwed
childbearing, and the modest price tags associated with most marriage-strengthening initiatives, state and federal marriage-strengthening programs with even very modest success rates will be costeffective for taxpayers. (page 21*)
• For total poverty, child poverty, family structure and cost estimates by State (see Report* pages 39, 40 and 41).
Source: The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All Fifty States.
WASH. D.C. In first-ever research, a new report quantifies a minimum $112 billion annual taxpayer cost from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. It identifies national, state and local costs which account for more than $1 trillion in the last decade. This landmark scholarly study, entitled “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States,” was released on April 15th at the National Press Club by four renowned policy and research groups—Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest.
“This study documents for the first time, that divorce and unwed childbearing—besides being bad for children—are also costing taxpayers a ton of money,” said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. “Even a small improvement in the health of marriage in America would result in enormous savings to taxpayers,” he continued. “For example, a 1 percent reduction in rates of family fragmentation would save taxpayers $1.1 billion.”
“These costs are due to increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation,” said principal investigator Ben Scafidi, Ph.D., economics professor at Georgia College & State University.
“Prior research shows that marriage lifts single mothers out of poverty and therefore reduces the need for costly social benefits,” said Scafidi. “This new report shows that public concern about the decline of marriage need not be based only on ‘moral’ concerns, but that reducing high taxpayer costs of family fragmentation is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators, as well as community reformers and faith communities.”
“This report now provides the basis for a national consensus that strengthening marriage is a legitimate policy concern,” said Blankenhorn. “The report’s numbers represent an extremely cautious estimate, a lower-bound figure, and have been vetted by a group of distinguished scholars and economists who have attached their names as advisors to this report.”
“These numbers represent real people and real suffering,” said Randy Hicks, president of Georgia Family Council. “Both economic and human costs make family fragmentation a legitimate public concern. Historically, Americans have resisted the impulse to surrender to negative and hurtful trends. We fight problems like racism, poverty and domestic violence because we understand that the stakes are high. And while we’ll never eliminate divorce and unwed childbearing entirely, we can certainly be doing more to help marriages and families succeed.”
Fact Sheet
The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing
First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States *
Long-standing Research Shows:
• Over the last forty years, marriage has become less common and more fragile. Between 1970 and 2005, the proportion of children living with two married parents dropped from 85 percent to 68 percent, according to Census data. (page 7*)
• More than a third of all U.S. children are now born outside of wedlock, including 25 percent of non- Hispanic white babies, 46 percent of Hispanic babies, and 69 percent of African American babies. (page 7*)
• Potential risks to children raised in fragmented families have been identified to include poverty, mental illness, physical illness, infant mortality, lower educational attainment, juvenile delinquency, conduct disorders, adult criminality and early unwed parenthood. (page 9*)
• To the extent that family fragmentation causes negative outcomes for children and adults, it also leads to higher costs to taxpayers through higher spending on antipoverty programs and throughout the justice and educational systems, as well as losses to government coffers in foregone tax revenues. (page 9*)
• Marriage can help to reduce poverty because there are two potential wage earners in the home, because of economics of scale in the household, and possibly also because of changes in habits, values, and mores that occur when they get married. (page 10*)
• The idea that family fragmentation contributes to child poverty has been studied extensively and is widely accepted. (page 10*)
• Earlier studies conclude that marriage would reduce poverty among single mothers substantially, between 65 to 80 percent. (page 10-11*)
Calculating the Taxpayer Costs
• This report adopts the simplifying and extremely cautious assumption that all of the taxpayer costs of divorce and unmarried childbearing stem solely from the negative effects family fragmentation has on poverty in female-headed households. (page 12*)
• Several calculations are used to estimate the taxpayer costs—foregone tax revenue in income taxes, FICA (commonly called social security) taxes, and state and local taxes as a result of family fragmentation, as well as direct costs to the taxpayers from increased expenditures on local, state, and federal taxpayer-financed programs, driven by increases in poverty, (page 12*), and costs to the justice system (page 16*).
• Assumption 1: Marriage lifts zero households headed by a single male out of poverty.
Assumption 2: Marriage lifts 60 percent of households headed by a single female out of poverty.
Assumption 3: The share of expenditures on government antipoverty programs that is due to family fragmentation is equal to the percent of poverty that results from family fragmentation. (page 13*)
These assumptions err on the side of caution, derived from earlier studies (among others, the Thomas and Sawhill study “For Richer or For Poorer.”) These assumptions are more likely to lead to an underestimate than an overestimate of actual taxpayer costs of family fragmentation. Details, footnotes, and graphs are located on pages 13-14 of the report.
• Family fragmentation costs U.S. taxpayers at least $112 billion each year, or over $1 trillion
dollars per decade. This estimate includes the costs of federal, state, and local government
programs and foregone tax revenues at all level of government as seen itemized in Table 7.
(pages 17*)
Report Conclusions
• Public concern about the decline of marriage need not be based only on the important
negative consequences for child well-being or on moral concerns, as important as these
concerns may be. High rates of family fragmentation impose extraordinary costs on
taxpayers. Reducing these costs is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers, and
legislators, as well as civic leaders and faith communities. (page 20*)
• Even very small increases in stable marriage rates would result in very large returns to taxpayers. For example, a mere 1 percent reduction in rates of family fragmentation would save taxpayers $1.1 billion annually. (page 20*)
• Texas, for example, recently appropriated $15 million over two years for marriage education and other programs to increase stable marriage rates. If such a program succeeded in increasing stably married families by just three-tenths of 1 percent, it would still save Texas taxpayers almost $9 million per year. (page 20*)
• Because of the very large taxpayer costs associated with high rates of divorce and unwed
childbearing, and the modest price tags associated with most marriage-strengthening initiatives, state and federal marriage-strengthening programs with even very modest success rates will be costeffective for taxpayers. (page 21*)
• For total poverty, child poverty, family structure and cost estimates by State (see Report* pages 39, 40 and 41).
Source: The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All Fifty States.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Parental Alienation Syndrome: How to Detect It and What to Do About It
THE FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL, VOL. 73, No. 3, MARCH 1999, p 44-48
by J. Michael Bone and Michael R. Walsh
Although parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a familiar term, there is still a great deal of confusion and unclarity about its nature, dimensions, and, therefore, its detection.(1) Its presence, however, is unmistakable. In a longitudinal study of 700 "high conflict" divorce cases followed over 12 years, it was concluded that elements of PAS are present in the vast majority of the samples.(2) Diagnosis of PAS is reserved for mental health professionals who come to the court in the form of expert witnesses. Diagnostic hallmarks usually are couched in clinical terms that remain vague and open to interpretation and, therefore. susceptible to argument pro and con by opposing experts. The phenomenon of one parent turning the child against the other parent is not a complicated concept, but historically it has been difficult to identify clearly. Consequently, cases involving PAS are heavily litigated, filled with accusations and counter accusations, and thus leave the court with an endless search for details that eventually evaporate into nothing other than rank hearsay. It is our experience that the PAS phenomenon leaves a trail that can be identified more effectively by removing the accusation hysteria, and looking ahead in another positive direction.
For the purpose of this article the authors are assuming a fair degree of familiarity with parental alienation syndrome on the part of the reader.(3) There are many good writings on PAS which the reader may wish to consult now or in the future for general information. Our focus here is much more narrow. Specifically, the goal is twofold. First we will describe four very specific criteria that can be used to identify potential PAS. In most instances, these criteria can be identified through the facts of the case, but also can be revealed by deposition or court testimony. Secondly, we wish to introduce the concept of "attempted" PAS; that is when the criteria of PAS are present, but the child is not successfully alienated from the absent parent. This phenomenon is still quite harmful and the fact of children not being alienated should not be viewed as neutral by the court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The criteria described below are fairly easy to identify separate and apart from the court file. When there is uncertainty about any of them, these criteria can be used to guide the attorney in the deposing of witnesses as well as in their examination in court.
Criteria I: Access and Contact Blocking
Criteria I involves the active blocking of access or contact between the child and the absent parent. The rationale used to justify it may well take many different forms. One of the most common is that of protection. It may be argued that the absent parent's parental judgment is inferior and, therefore, the child is much worse off from the visit. In extreme cases, this will take the form of allegations of child abuse, quite often sexual abuse. This will be addressed in more detail in Criteria II, but suffice it to say that often this is heard as a reason for visitation to be suspended or even terminated. On a more subtle and common level, an argument heard for the blocking of visitation is that seeing the absent parent is "unsettling" to the child, and that they need time "to adjust." The message here is that the absent parent is treated less like a key family member and more like an annoying acquaintance that the child must see at times. Over time, this pattern can have a seriously erosive effect on the child's relationship with the absent parent. An even more subtle expression of this is that the visitation is "inconvenient," thereby relegating it to the status of an errand or chore. Again the result is the erosion of the relationship between the child and the absent or "target" parent. One phenomenon often seen in this context is that any deviation from the schedule is used as a reason to cancel visitation entirely.
The common thread to all of these tactics is that one parent is superior and the other is not and, therefore, should be peripheral to the child's life. The alienating parent in these circumstances is acting inappropriately as a gatekeeper for the child to see the absent parent. When this occurs for periods of substantial time, the child is given the unspoken but clear message that one parent is senior to the other. Younger children are more vulnerable to this message and tend to take it uncritically; however, one can always detect elements of it echoed even into the teenage years. The important concept here is that each parent is given the responsibility to promote a positive relationship with the other parent. When this principle is violated in the context of blocking access on a consistent basis, one can assume that Criteria I has been, unmistakably identified.
Criteria II: Unfounded Abuse Allegations
The second criteria is related to false or unfounded accusations of abuse against the absent parent. The most strident expression of this is the false accusation of sexual abuse.(4) It has been well studied that the incident of false allegations of sexual abuse account for over half of those reported, when the parents are divorcing or are in conflict over some post dissolution issue.(5) This is especially the situation with small children who are more vulnerable to the manipulations implied by such false allegations. When the record shows that even one report of such abuse is ruled as unfounded, the interviewer is well advised to look for other expressions of false accusations.
Other examples of this might be found in allegations of physical abuse that investigators later rule as being unfounded. Interestingly our experience has been that there are fewer false allegations of physical abuse than of other forms of abuse, presumably because physical abuse leaves visible evidence. It is, of course, much easier to falsely accuse someone of something that leaves no physical sign and has no third party witnesses.
A much more common expression of this pattern would be that of what would be termed emotional abuse. When false allegations of emotional abuse are leveled, one often finds that what is present is actually differing parental judgment that is being framed as "abusive" by the absent parent. For example, one parent may let a child stay up later at night than the other parent would, and this scheduling might be termed as being "abusive" or "detrimental" to the child. Or one parent might introduce a new "significant other" to the child before the other parent believes that they should and this might also be called "abusive" to the child. Alternatively one parent might enroll a child in an activity with which the other parent disagrees and this activity is, in actuality, a difference of parental opinion that is now described as being abusive in nature. These examples, as trivial as they seem individually, may be suggestive of a theme of treating parental difference in inappropriately subjective judgmental terms. If this theme is present, all manner of things can be described in ways that convey the message of abuse, either directly or indirectly. When this phenomenon occurs in literally thousands of different ways and times, each of which seems insignificant on its own, the emotional atmosphere that it creates carries a clearly alienating effect on the child.
Obviously, this type of acrimony is very common in dissolution actions but such conflict should not necessarily be mistaken or be taken as illustrative of the PAS syndrome; however, the criteria is clearly present and identifiable when the parent is eager to hurl abuse allegations, rather than being cautious, careful. and even reluctant to do so. This latter stance is more in keeping with the parent's responsibility to encourage and affirmatively support a relationship with the other parent. The responsible parent will only allege abuse after he or she has tried and failed to rationalize why the issue at hand is not abusive. Simply put, the responsible parent will give the other parent the benefit of the doubt when such allegations arise. He or she will, if anything, err on the side of denial, whereas the alienating parent will not miss an opportunity to accuse the other parent. When this theme is present in a clear and consistent way, this criteria for PAS is met.
Criteria III: Deterioration in Relationship Since Separation
The third of the criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is probably the least described or identified, but critically is one of the most important. It has to do with the existence of a positive relationship between the minor children and the now absent or nonresidential parent, prior to the marital separation; and a substantial deterioration, of it since then. Such a recognized decline does not occur on its own. It is, therefore, one of the most important indicators of the presence of alienation as well. as a full measure of its relative "success." By way of example, if a father had a good and involved relationship with the children prior to the separation, and a very distant one since, then one can only assume without explicit proof to the contrary that something caused it to change. If this father is clearly trying to maintain a positive relationship with the children through observance of visitation and other activities and the children do not want to see him or have him involved in their lives, then one can only speculate that an alienation process may have been in operation. Children do not naturally lose interest in and become distant from their nonresidential parent simply by virtue of the absence of that parent. Also, healthy and established parental relationships do not erode naturally of their own accord. They must be attacked. Therefore, any dramatic change in this area is virtually always an indicator of an alienation process that has had some success in the past.
Most notably, if a careful evaluation of the pre-separation parental relationship is not made, its omission creates an impression that the troubled or even alienated status that exists since is more or lees an accurate summary of what existed previously. Note that nothing could be further from the truth! An alienated or even partially or intermittently alienated relationship with the nonresidential parent and the children after the separation is more accurately a distortion of the real parental relationship in question. Its follow-through is often overlooked in the hysterical atmosphere that is often present in these cases. A careful practitioner well knows that a close examination is warranted and that it must be conducted with the utmost detail and scrutiny.
If this piece of the puzzle is left out, the consequences can be quite devastating for the survival of this relationship. Also, without this component, the court can be easily swayed into premature closure or fooled into thinking that the turmoil of the separation environment is representative of the true parent-child relationship. Once this ruling is made by the court, it is an exacting challenge to correct its perception.
In a separate but related issue, a word should be said about the use of experts. First, it must be understood that all mental health professionals are not aware of nor know how to treat the PAS phenomenon. In fact, when a mental health professional unfamiliar with PAS is called upon to make a recommendation about custody, access, or related issues, he or she potentially can do more harm than good. For example, if the psychologist fails to investigate the pre-separation relationship of the nonresidential parent and the children, he or she may very easily mistake the current acrimony in that relationship to be representative of it, and recommend that the children should have less visitation with that parent, obviously supporting the undiagnosed PAS that is still in progress. If that expert also fails to evaluate critically the abuse claims or the agenda of the claimant, they may be taken at face value and again potentially support the undiagnosed PAS. If that professional is not also sensitive to the subtleties of access and contact blocking as its motivator, he or she may potentially support it, thereby contributing to the PAS process. When these things occur, the mental health professional expert has actually become part of the PAS, albeit unwittingly. Alarmingly, this happens often. Suffice it to say, if PAS is suspected, the attorney should closely and carefully evaluate the mental health professional's investigation and conclusion. Failure to do so can cause irreparable harm to the case, and, ultimately to the children.
Criteria IV: Intense Fear Reaction by Children
The fourth criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is admittedly more psychological than the first three. It refers to an obvious fear reaction on the part of the children, of displeasing or disagreeing with the potentially alienating parent in regard to the absent or potential target parent. Simply put, an alienating parent operates by the adage, "My way or the highway." If the children disobey this directive, especially in expressing positive approval of the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious. It is not uncommon for an alienating parent to reject the child(ren), often telling him or her that they should go live with the target parent. When this does occur one often sees that this threat is not carried out, yet it operates more as a message of constant warning. The child, in effect, is put into a position of being the alienating parent's "agent'' and is continually being put through various loyalty tests. The important issue here is that the alienating patent thus forces the child to choose parents. This, of course, is in direct opposition to a child's emotional well being.
In order to fully appreciate this scenario, one must realize that the PAS process operates in a "fear based" environment. It is the installation of fear by the alienating parent to the minor children that is the fuel by which this pattern is driven; this fear taps into what psychoanalysis tell us is the most basic emotion inherent in human nature--the fear of abandonment. Children under these conditions live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal. When the child does dare to defy the alienating parent, they quickly learn that there is a serious price to pay. Consequently, children who live such lives develop an acute sense of vigilance over displeasing the alienating parent. The sensitized observer can see this in visitation plans that suddenly change for no apparent reason. For example, when the appointed time approaches, the child suddenly changes his or her tune and begins to loudly protest a visit that was not previously complained about. It is in these instances that a court, once suspecting PAS must enforce in strict terms the visitation schedule which otherwise would not have occurred or would have been ignored.
The alienating parent can most often be found posturing bewilderment regarding the sudden change in their child's feelings about the visit. In fact, the alienating parent often will appear to be the one supporting visitation. This scenario is a very common one in PAS families. It is standard because it encapsulates and exposes, if only for an instant, the fear-based core of the alienation process. Another way to express this concept would be that whenever the child is given any significant choice in the visitation, he or she is put in the position to act out a loyalty to the alienating parent's wishes by refusing to have the visitation at all with the absent parent. Failure to do so opens the door for that child's being abandoned by the parent with whom the child lives the vast majority of the time. Children, under these circumstances, will simply not opt on their own far a free choice. The court must thus act expeditiously to protect them and employ a host of specific and available remedies.(6)
As a consequence of the foregoing, these children learn to manipulate. Children often play one parent against the other in an effort to gain some advantage. In the case of PAS, the same dynamic operates at more desperate level. No longer manipulating to gain advantage, these children learn to manipulate just to survive. They become expert beyond their years at reading the emotional environment, telling partial truths, and then telling out-and-out lies. One must, however, remember that these are survival strategies that they were forced to learn in order to keep peace at home and avoid emotional attack by the residential parent. Given this understanding, it is perhaps easier to see why children, in an effort to cope with this situation, often find it easier if they begin to internalize the alienating parent's perceptions of the absent parent and begin to echo these feelings. This is one of the most compelling and dramatic effects of PAS, that is, hearing a child vilifying the absent parent and joining the alienating parent in such attacks. If one is not sensitive to the "fear-based" core at the heart of this, it is difficult not to take the child's protests at face value. This, of course, is compounded when the expert is also not sensitive to this powerful fear component, and believes that the child is voicing his or her own inner feelings in endorsing the "no visitation" plan.
Conclusion
All the criteria listed above can be found independent of each other in highly contested dissolutions, but remember that the appearance of some of them does not always constitute PAS. When all four are clearly present, however, add the possibility of real abuse has been reasonably ruled out, the parental alienation process is operative. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is succeeding in that the children are being successfully alienated from the target parent. The best predictor of successful alienation is directly related to the success of the alienating parent at keeping the children from the target parent. When there are substantial periods in which they do not see the other parent, the children are more likely to be poisoned by the process. Another variable that predicts success is the child's age. Younger children generally are more vulnerable than older ones. Also, another variable is the depth and degree of involvement of the pre-separation parent-child relationship. The longer and more involved that relationship, the less vulnerable will be the children to successful alienation. The final predictor is the parental tenacity of the target parent. A targeted parent often gives up and walks away, thus greatly increasing the chances of successful alienation.
The question remains: What if all four criteria are present, but the children are not successfully alienated? Should this failure at alienation be seen as nullifying the attempt at alienation? The answer to that should be a resounding "No!" It should be, but often it is not. It is very common to read a psychological evaluation or a GAL's report that identified PAS but then notes that since it was not successful, it should not be taken very seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood, which is to promote and encourage a positive and loving relationship with the other parent, and the concept of shared parental responsibility.
It is our feeling that when attempted PAS has been identified, successful or not, it must be dealt with swiftly by the court. If it is not, it will contaminate and quietly control all other parenting issues and then lead only to unhappiness, frustration, and, lastly, parental estrangement.
1 PAS syndrome applies and relates equally to the nonresidential, as well as the residential parent. D.C. Rand, The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome. 15 Am. J. Forensic Psychol. No. 3 (1997).
2 S.S. Clawar and B.V. Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children, A.B.A. (1991).
3 M. Walsh and J.M. Bone. Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Age-Old Custody Problem, 71 Fla. B.J. 93 (June 1997).
4 N. Theonnee and P.G. Tjaden, The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Visitation Disputes, 12 Child Abuse and Neglect 151-63 (1990).
5 National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, 2998, Contract 105-85-1702.
6 The appointment of a guardian ad litem, the appointment of an expert to conduct a psychological evaluation of the child and the parents, the employment of make-up or substitute access and contact, or an enlargement of same to the nonresidential parent, and as previously suggested by the authors in their last article, a consideration for entry of a multidirectional order. Walsh and Bone, supra note .3
J. Michael Bone, Ph.D., is a sole practice psychotherapist and certified family law mediator in Maitland. He concentrates in divorce and post-divorce issues involving minor children, and has a special interest in PAS. He has served as on expert witness on these and related topics and has been appointed by the court to make recommendations involving PAS and families.
Michael R. Walsh is a sole practitioner in Orlando. He is a board certified marital and family law lawyer, certified mediator and arbitrator, and a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. For more than 20 years, he has been a frequent lecturer and author for The Florida Bar.
This column is submitted on behalf of the Family Law Section, Jane L. Estreicher, chair, and Sharon O. Taylor, editor.
by J. Michael Bone and Michael R. Walsh
Although parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a familiar term, there is still a great deal of confusion and unclarity about its nature, dimensions, and, therefore, its detection.(1) Its presence, however, is unmistakable. In a longitudinal study of 700 "high conflict" divorce cases followed over 12 years, it was concluded that elements of PAS are present in the vast majority of the samples.(2) Diagnosis of PAS is reserved for mental health professionals who come to the court in the form of expert witnesses. Diagnostic hallmarks usually are couched in clinical terms that remain vague and open to interpretation and, therefore. susceptible to argument pro and con by opposing experts. The phenomenon of one parent turning the child against the other parent is not a complicated concept, but historically it has been difficult to identify clearly. Consequently, cases involving PAS are heavily litigated, filled with accusations and counter accusations, and thus leave the court with an endless search for details that eventually evaporate into nothing other than rank hearsay. It is our experience that the PAS phenomenon leaves a trail that can be identified more effectively by removing the accusation hysteria, and looking ahead in another positive direction.
For the purpose of this article the authors are assuming a fair degree of familiarity with parental alienation syndrome on the part of the reader.(3) There are many good writings on PAS which the reader may wish to consult now or in the future for general information. Our focus here is much more narrow. Specifically, the goal is twofold. First we will describe four very specific criteria that can be used to identify potential PAS. In most instances, these criteria can be identified through the facts of the case, but also can be revealed by deposition or court testimony. Secondly, we wish to introduce the concept of "attempted" PAS; that is when the criteria of PAS are present, but the child is not successfully alienated from the absent parent. This phenomenon is still quite harmful and the fact of children not being alienated should not be viewed as neutral by the court.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The criteria described below are fairly easy to identify separate and apart from the court file. When there is uncertainty about any of them, these criteria can be used to guide the attorney in the deposing of witnesses as well as in their examination in court.
Criteria I: Access and Contact Blocking
Criteria I involves the active blocking of access or contact between the child and the absent parent. The rationale used to justify it may well take many different forms. One of the most common is that of protection. It may be argued that the absent parent's parental judgment is inferior and, therefore, the child is much worse off from the visit. In extreme cases, this will take the form of allegations of child abuse, quite often sexual abuse. This will be addressed in more detail in Criteria II, but suffice it to say that often this is heard as a reason for visitation to be suspended or even terminated. On a more subtle and common level, an argument heard for the blocking of visitation is that seeing the absent parent is "unsettling" to the child, and that they need time "to adjust." The message here is that the absent parent is treated less like a key family member and more like an annoying acquaintance that the child must see at times. Over time, this pattern can have a seriously erosive effect on the child's relationship with the absent parent. An even more subtle expression of this is that the visitation is "inconvenient," thereby relegating it to the status of an errand or chore. Again the result is the erosion of the relationship between the child and the absent or "target" parent. One phenomenon often seen in this context is that any deviation from the schedule is used as a reason to cancel visitation entirely.
The common thread to all of these tactics is that one parent is superior and the other is not and, therefore, should be peripheral to the child's life. The alienating parent in these circumstances is acting inappropriately as a gatekeeper for the child to see the absent parent. When this occurs for periods of substantial time, the child is given the unspoken but clear message that one parent is senior to the other. Younger children are more vulnerable to this message and tend to take it uncritically; however, one can always detect elements of it echoed even into the teenage years. The important concept here is that each parent is given the responsibility to promote a positive relationship with the other parent. When this principle is violated in the context of blocking access on a consistent basis, one can assume that Criteria I has been, unmistakably identified.
Criteria II: Unfounded Abuse Allegations
The second criteria is related to false or unfounded accusations of abuse against the absent parent. The most strident expression of this is the false accusation of sexual abuse.(4) It has been well studied that the incident of false allegations of sexual abuse account for over half of those reported, when the parents are divorcing or are in conflict over some post dissolution issue.(5) This is especially the situation with small children who are more vulnerable to the manipulations implied by such false allegations. When the record shows that even one report of such abuse is ruled as unfounded, the interviewer is well advised to look for other expressions of false accusations.
Other examples of this might be found in allegations of physical abuse that investigators later rule as being unfounded. Interestingly our experience has been that there are fewer false allegations of physical abuse than of other forms of abuse, presumably because physical abuse leaves visible evidence. It is, of course, much easier to falsely accuse someone of something that leaves no physical sign and has no third party witnesses.
A much more common expression of this pattern would be that of what would be termed emotional abuse. When false allegations of emotional abuse are leveled, one often finds that what is present is actually differing parental judgment that is being framed as "abusive" by the absent parent. For example, one parent may let a child stay up later at night than the other parent would, and this scheduling might be termed as being "abusive" or "detrimental" to the child. Or one parent might introduce a new "significant other" to the child before the other parent believes that they should and this might also be called "abusive" to the child. Alternatively one parent might enroll a child in an activity with which the other parent disagrees and this activity is, in actuality, a difference of parental opinion that is now described as being abusive in nature. These examples, as trivial as they seem individually, may be suggestive of a theme of treating parental difference in inappropriately subjective judgmental terms. If this theme is present, all manner of things can be described in ways that convey the message of abuse, either directly or indirectly. When this phenomenon occurs in literally thousands of different ways and times, each of which seems insignificant on its own, the emotional atmosphere that it creates carries a clearly alienating effect on the child.
Obviously, this type of acrimony is very common in dissolution actions but such conflict should not necessarily be mistaken or be taken as illustrative of the PAS syndrome; however, the criteria is clearly present and identifiable when the parent is eager to hurl abuse allegations, rather than being cautious, careful. and even reluctant to do so. This latter stance is more in keeping with the parent's responsibility to encourage and affirmatively support a relationship with the other parent. The responsible parent will only allege abuse after he or she has tried and failed to rationalize why the issue at hand is not abusive. Simply put, the responsible parent will give the other parent the benefit of the doubt when such allegations arise. He or she will, if anything, err on the side of denial, whereas the alienating parent will not miss an opportunity to accuse the other parent. When this theme is present in a clear and consistent way, this criteria for PAS is met.
Criteria III: Deterioration in Relationship Since Separation
The third of the criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is probably the least described or identified, but critically is one of the most important. It has to do with the existence of a positive relationship between the minor children and the now absent or nonresidential parent, prior to the marital separation; and a substantial deterioration, of it since then. Such a recognized decline does not occur on its own. It is, therefore, one of the most important indicators of the presence of alienation as well. as a full measure of its relative "success." By way of example, if a father had a good and involved relationship with the children prior to the separation, and a very distant one since, then one can only assume without explicit proof to the contrary that something caused it to change. If this father is clearly trying to maintain a positive relationship with the children through observance of visitation and other activities and the children do not want to see him or have him involved in their lives, then one can only speculate that an alienation process may have been in operation. Children do not naturally lose interest in and become distant from their nonresidential parent simply by virtue of the absence of that parent. Also, healthy and established parental relationships do not erode naturally of their own accord. They must be attacked. Therefore, any dramatic change in this area is virtually always an indicator of an alienation process that has had some success in the past.
Most notably, if a careful evaluation of the pre-separation parental relationship is not made, its omission creates an impression that the troubled or even alienated status that exists since is more or lees an accurate summary of what existed previously. Note that nothing could be further from the truth! An alienated or even partially or intermittently alienated relationship with the nonresidential parent and the children after the separation is more accurately a distortion of the real parental relationship in question. Its follow-through is often overlooked in the hysterical atmosphere that is often present in these cases. A careful practitioner well knows that a close examination is warranted and that it must be conducted with the utmost detail and scrutiny.
If this piece of the puzzle is left out, the consequences can be quite devastating for the survival of this relationship. Also, without this component, the court can be easily swayed into premature closure or fooled into thinking that the turmoil of the separation environment is representative of the true parent-child relationship. Once this ruling is made by the court, it is an exacting challenge to correct its perception.
In a separate but related issue, a word should be said about the use of experts. First, it must be understood that all mental health professionals are not aware of nor know how to treat the PAS phenomenon. In fact, when a mental health professional unfamiliar with PAS is called upon to make a recommendation about custody, access, or related issues, he or she potentially can do more harm than good. For example, if the psychologist fails to investigate the pre-separation relationship of the nonresidential parent and the children, he or she may very easily mistake the current acrimony in that relationship to be representative of it, and recommend that the children should have less visitation with that parent, obviously supporting the undiagnosed PAS that is still in progress. If that expert also fails to evaluate critically the abuse claims or the agenda of the claimant, they may be taken at face value and again potentially support the undiagnosed PAS. If that professional is not also sensitive to the subtleties of access and contact blocking as its motivator, he or she may potentially support it, thereby contributing to the PAS process. When these things occur, the mental health professional expert has actually become part of the PAS, albeit unwittingly. Alarmingly, this happens often. Suffice it to say, if PAS is suspected, the attorney should closely and carefully evaluate the mental health professional's investigation and conclusion. Failure to do so can cause irreparable harm to the case, and, ultimately to the children.
Criteria IV: Intense Fear Reaction by Children
The fourth criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is admittedly more psychological than the first three. It refers to an obvious fear reaction on the part of the children, of displeasing or disagreeing with the potentially alienating parent in regard to the absent or potential target parent. Simply put, an alienating parent operates by the adage, "My way or the highway." If the children disobey this directive, especially in expressing positive approval of the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious. It is not uncommon for an alienating parent to reject the child(ren), often telling him or her that they should go live with the target parent. When this does occur one often sees that this threat is not carried out, yet it operates more as a message of constant warning. The child, in effect, is put into a position of being the alienating parent's "agent'' and is continually being put through various loyalty tests. The important issue here is that the alienating patent thus forces the child to choose parents. This, of course, is in direct opposition to a child's emotional well being.
In order to fully appreciate this scenario, one must realize that the PAS process operates in a "fear based" environment. It is the installation of fear by the alienating parent to the minor children that is the fuel by which this pattern is driven; this fear taps into what psychoanalysis tell us is the most basic emotion inherent in human nature--the fear of abandonment. Children under these conditions live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal. When the child does dare to defy the alienating parent, they quickly learn that there is a serious price to pay. Consequently, children who live such lives develop an acute sense of vigilance over displeasing the alienating parent. The sensitized observer can see this in visitation plans that suddenly change for no apparent reason. For example, when the appointed time approaches, the child suddenly changes his or her tune and begins to loudly protest a visit that was not previously complained about. It is in these instances that a court, once suspecting PAS must enforce in strict terms the visitation schedule which otherwise would not have occurred or would have been ignored.
The alienating parent can most often be found posturing bewilderment regarding the sudden change in their child's feelings about the visit. In fact, the alienating parent often will appear to be the one supporting visitation. This scenario is a very common one in PAS families. It is standard because it encapsulates and exposes, if only for an instant, the fear-based core of the alienation process. Another way to express this concept would be that whenever the child is given any significant choice in the visitation, he or she is put in the position to act out a loyalty to the alienating parent's wishes by refusing to have the visitation at all with the absent parent. Failure to do so opens the door for that child's being abandoned by the parent with whom the child lives the vast majority of the time. Children, under these circumstances, will simply not opt on their own far a free choice. The court must thus act expeditiously to protect them and employ a host of specific and available remedies.(6)
As a consequence of the foregoing, these children learn to manipulate. Children often play one parent against the other in an effort to gain some advantage. In the case of PAS, the same dynamic operates at more desperate level. No longer manipulating to gain advantage, these children learn to manipulate just to survive. They become expert beyond their years at reading the emotional environment, telling partial truths, and then telling out-and-out lies. One must, however, remember that these are survival strategies that they were forced to learn in order to keep peace at home and avoid emotional attack by the residential parent. Given this understanding, it is perhaps easier to see why children, in an effort to cope with this situation, often find it easier if they begin to internalize the alienating parent's perceptions of the absent parent and begin to echo these feelings. This is one of the most compelling and dramatic effects of PAS, that is, hearing a child vilifying the absent parent and joining the alienating parent in such attacks. If one is not sensitive to the "fear-based" core at the heart of this, it is difficult not to take the child's protests at face value. This, of course, is compounded when the expert is also not sensitive to this powerful fear component, and believes that the child is voicing his or her own inner feelings in endorsing the "no visitation" plan.
Conclusion
All the criteria listed above can be found independent of each other in highly contested dissolutions, but remember that the appearance of some of them does not always constitute PAS. When all four are clearly present, however, add the possibility of real abuse has been reasonably ruled out, the parental alienation process is operative. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is succeeding in that the children are being successfully alienated from the target parent. The best predictor of successful alienation is directly related to the success of the alienating parent at keeping the children from the target parent. When there are substantial periods in which they do not see the other parent, the children are more likely to be poisoned by the process. Another variable that predicts success is the child's age. Younger children generally are more vulnerable than older ones. Also, another variable is the depth and degree of involvement of the pre-separation parent-child relationship. The longer and more involved that relationship, the less vulnerable will be the children to successful alienation. The final predictor is the parental tenacity of the target parent. A targeted parent often gives up and walks away, thus greatly increasing the chances of successful alienation.
The question remains: What if all four criteria are present, but the children are not successfully alienated? Should this failure at alienation be seen as nullifying the attempt at alienation? The answer to that should be a resounding "No!" It should be, but often it is not. It is very common to read a psychological evaluation or a GAL's report that identified PAS but then notes that since it was not successful, it should not be taken very seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood, which is to promote and encourage a positive and loving relationship with the other parent, and the concept of shared parental responsibility.
It is our feeling that when attempted PAS has been identified, successful or not, it must be dealt with swiftly by the court. If it is not, it will contaminate and quietly control all other parenting issues and then lead only to unhappiness, frustration, and, lastly, parental estrangement.
1 PAS syndrome applies and relates equally to the nonresidential, as well as the residential parent. D.C. Rand, The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome. 15 Am. J. Forensic Psychol. No. 3 (1997).
2 S.S. Clawar and B.V. Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children, A.B.A. (1991).
3 M. Walsh and J.M. Bone. Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Age-Old Custody Problem, 71 Fla. B.J. 93 (June 1997).
4 N. Theonnee and P.G. Tjaden, The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Visitation Disputes, 12 Child Abuse and Neglect 151-63 (1990).
5 National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, 2998, Contract 105-85-1702.
6 The appointment of a guardian ad litem, the appointment of an expert to conduct a psychological evaluation of the child and the parents, the employment of make-up or substitute access and contact, or an enlargement of same to the nonresidential parent, and as previously suggested by the authors in their last article, a consideration for entry of a multidirectional order. Walsh and Bone, supra note .3
J. Michael Bone, Ph.D., is a sole practice psychotherapist and certified family law mediator in Maitland. He concentrates in divorce and post-divorce issues involving minor children, and has a special interest in PAS. He has served as on expert witness on these and related topics and has been appointed by the court to make recommendations involving PAS and families.
Michael R. Walsh is a sole practitioner in Orlando. He is a board certified marital and family law lawyer, certified mediator and arbitrator, and a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. For more than 20 years, he has been a frequent lecturer and author for The Florida Bar.
This column is submitted on behalf of the Family Law Section, Jane L. Estreicher, chair, and Sharon O. Taylor, editor.
How to Divorce & Not Wreck the Kids
How to Divorce & Not Wreck the Kids takes viewers inside one of life's most devastating transitions as three Canadian couples, determined to keep the needs of their children first, work through their separations on camera.
The "divorce from hell" stories grab headlines: couples who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars destroying each other and, incidentally, their children. But in this country, there is another reality. Grassroots Canadians are at the heart of a quiet revolution - couples working on "good" divorces, which acknowledge that the end of a marriage isn't the end of a family. Because research says: separating parents who co-operate can raise children who are as emotionally healthy as kids from intact families.
Lionel and Sally with children Rhys and and Gareth As filming begins, the split between Sally and Lionel is still fresh and raw. And cooperating will be a challenge for Sally since she didn't want the marriage to end. Sally and Lionel were married for 17 years and are parents to three boys, from 11 to 4 years old. They agree to a new and controversial process called Collaborative Divorce, because they believe it will help them focus on what's best for their children. If only anger and bitterness don't derail the process.
Roland and Carolye were married for 13 years and have two kids. They transitioned out of their marriage into something of a friendship -- but that friendship will be tested as Roland seeks 50-50 custody of their children. Carolye and Roland will try to hammer out an agreement without professional help, using a do-it-yourself divorce kit.
Friday February 27, 2009 at 10 pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld
Mike and Melissa with their twins.
After five years of marriage and three-year-old twins, Mike and Melissa split shortly after Christmas, the busiest time in the divorce world. They're each passionate about being there for all the important moments in the children's lives, even though it's uncomfortable being in the same room together. When they reach an impasse in their separation negotiations, Mike and Melissa turn to a mediator to break the deadlock.
Three courageous Canadian couples invite you to witness the end of their marriages...as they struggle to overcome their anger and fear and stay focused on How to Divorce & Not Wreck the Kids.
How to Divorce & Not Wreck the Kids is produced by Bountiful Films Inc. in association with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The "divorce from hell" stories grab headlines: couples who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars destroying each other and, incidentally, their children. But in this country, there is another reality. Grassroots Canadians are at the heart of a quiet revolution - couples working on "good" divorces, which acknowledge that the end of a marriage isn't the end of a family. Because research says: separating parents who co-operate can raise children who are as emotionally healthy as kids from intact families.
Lionel and Sally with children Rhys and and Gareth As filming begins, the split between Sally and Lionel is still fresh and raw. And cooperating will be a challenge for Sally since she didn't want the marriage to end. Sally and Lionel were married for 17 years and are parents to three boys, from 11 to 4 years old. They agree to a new and controversial process called Collaborative Divorce, because they believe it will help them focus on what's best for their children. If only anger and bitterness don't derail the process.
Roland and Carolye were married for 13 years and have two kids. They transitioned out of their marriage into something of a friendship -- but that friendship will be tested as Roland seeks 50-50 custody of their children. Carolye and Roland will try to hammer out an agreement without professional help, using a do-it-yourself divorce kit.
Friday February 27, 2009 at 10 pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld
Mike and Melissa with their twins.
After five years of marriage and three-year-old twins, Mike and Melissa split shortly after Christmas, the busiest time in the divorce world. They're each passionate about being there for all the important moments in the children's lives, even though it's uncomfortable being in the same room together. When they reach an impasse in their separation negotiations, Mike and Melissa turn to a mediator to break the deadlock.
Three courageous Canadian couples invite you to witness the end of their marriages...as they struggle to overcome their anger and fear and stay focused on How to Divorce & Not Wreck the Kids.
How to Divorce & Not Wreck the Kids is produced by Bountiful Films Inc. in association with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
