Why did you call me a pig fucker? Because you are a pig fucker.
Re-posted from another blog…..and I thought Canada had their shit together…..my bad….even with the “fancy” spelling of BEHAVIOR it’s still BULLSHIT!
January 25, 2009 — batteredmomslosecus tody | Edit
In another appalling case based on the never accepted, scientifically discredited theories of Pro-Pedophilia, three children are being psychologically tortured, kidnapped, and deprived of their mother in another fraudulent custody change involving the fictitious .
The father sounds like a difficult, demanding, controlling person who is subjecting these children to torture. One can only hope that the children will escape from their captors and alert the media. Absolute total torturous control has been placed on these children, and it is believed that they are likely being sent to a facility similar to the PAS facility, The Rachel Foundation which has already been the subject of a lawsuit for unlawful imprisonment and the psychological torture of children. That facilityemploys “therapists” of dubious character who have been the subject of Psychology Board complaints, and other legal complaints. Since they specialize in “treating” a non-accepted hypothetical syndrome, one wonders what sick minds came up with the propaganda for allowing “programming” of children against their will to obey the demands of the parent who spends the most money in court and has the most unethical expert “whores of the courts” doing their bidding. The court ruling named numerous so-called doctors, all of whom should be very closely watched as anyone pushing parental alienation theories is showing a scientific bias to using the same theory over and over, and in the case of PAS, they are using a fictitious theory that has been rejected by all ethical scientific groups as being invalid and full of flaws.
Here is the story from a Canadian Paper – they seem to exalt fatherhood and malign motherhood and dismiss any complaints against this father (as there are experts who will testify against moms all over the place – just google the terms and see how many hits there are for father’s rights, parental alienation and similar terms. There are no people advertising to validate claims of abuse, so anyone claiming abuse anymore appears to be subjected to horrible treatment – re-victimizing the victims.):
by Scott Gilbreath ~ January 25th, 2009
A Toronto man and woman had three daughters during a relationship that lasted about five years. After they separated (and later divorced), the children remained in the custody of the mother, while the father was supposed to have regular access and time alone with them.
Ten years later, Justice Faye McWatt has ordered the girls, now aged 9 to 14, given to the father’s sole custody because of the mother’s relentless campaign to alienate them from him. Despite repeated warnings, she refused to change her behaviour, leading to this decision.
The mother’s “consistent and overwhelming” campaign to brainwash the children into thinking their father was a bad person was nothing short of emotional abuse, Justice Faye McWatt of the Superior Court of Justice wrote in her decision.
The three girls, ages 9 to 14, were brought to a downtown courthouse last Friday and turned over to their father, a vascular surgeon identified only as A.L.
Their mother, a chiropodist identified as K.D., was ordered to stay away from the building during the transfer and to have her daughters’ clothing and possessions sent to their father’s house.
McWattstipulated that K.D. is to have no access to the children except in conjunction with counselling, including a special intensive therapy program for children affected by “parental alienation syndrome.” The mother must bear the costs.
K.D. ignored several court orders, shut the door in A.L.’s face when he came to collect the children, and refused to answer the phone when he called to say good night. She would send police to his home when he had a child for an overnight visit. Ultimately, she cut off all contact between A.L. and his children.
Justice McWatt heard that, as long as eight years ago, an expert had predicted that the girls would become alienated from their father unless the mother stopped brainwashing them.
Kudos to the judge for ordering this bold, if belated, change in custody. One hopes that the relationship between the daughters and their father will be restored.
The full text of the court ruling is posted here. The campaign to alienate the children from A.L. began while they were still married. It seems clear to me that K.D.’s child-rearing behaviour was, shall we say, inappropriate from the get-go.
And the decision, written to make the facts fit the theory – nevermind that the theory is not accepted by any ethical scientific organization, it is not in the DSM and is the sick philosophy of Pro-Pedophilia Dr. Richard Gardner.
Click on the lick below to read this bogus decision that one can only hope will be overturned on appeal for being based on a fictitious syndrome.
Justice Faye McWatt , the father’s lawyers, Harold Niman / Donna Wowk, the child’s lawyer, Elizabeth McCarty, andDr. Barbara Fidler, all are being listed in the Hall of Shame. These other people named in the ruling are all apparently engaging in some cross referral PAS network: Dr. Randy Rand and Dr. Yvonne Parnell, who apparently have something against being a favored parent, unless of course the favored parent is the father – in that case it would go right along with the “dad as king” theory that appears to be so prevalent among the fatherhood exalters.
When reading the opinion, this list of behaviors of the person who the child does not want to associate is listed. Please note the backward thinking on this one. This is a list of ABUSIVE behaviors. – at the very least they would be indicators of bad parenting. This theory glorifies and excuses and blames the protective parent. There is not enough being done to stop this Orwellian nightmare.
List of bad/abusive parenting traits, yet mother and child are still blamed and punished. There needs to be outrage over this decision. Unfortunately with women traditionally being passive, there will be less people condemning while the fatherhood fanatics will be applauding this subjugation of the children to the father’s will and reveling in the punishment of the mother.
Parental Behaviours that Make Rejection or Alienation More Likely:
➢ Harsh, rigid and punitive
➢ Outrage at child’s challenge to his/her authority
➢ Passivity or withdrawal in face of conflict
➢ Immature, self-centred in relation to child
➢ Loses temper, angry, demanding, intimidating character traits, but not to level of abuse
➢ Counter-rejecting behaviour
➢ Lacks empathic connection to child
➢ Inept and unempathic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits
➢ Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise
➢ Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes
➢ Induces guilt
➢ May use force to reassert parental position
➢ Vents rage, blames alienating parent for brainwashing child and takes no responsibility
Excerpt from the ruling:
The Applicant may, in his discretion, utilize the services of Dr. Randy Rand including participation in the Family Workshop for Alienated Children program created by Dr. Randy Rand (“Family Workshop”). For these purposes, the Applicant may transfer the children outside of Canada for treatment and may retain the services of Bill Lane, or any other transport agents, to assist in the transport of the children to the location at which the Family Workshop will be conducted. He is to advise the Respondent of the dates the children will be attending the Family Workshop, but does not have to advise her of the location.
6. The Applicant, the children and the Respondent shall participate in follow-up counseling, commencing no sooner than three months from the date of this order (i.e. and to occur after the Family Workshop component including participation by the Respondent in the Family Workshop program for “favoured” parents) with Dr. Yvonne Parnell or, if Dr. Parnell is unable or unwilling to provide counseling for any or all of the Applicant, the Respondent or the children, the parties shall agree on such other person(s) to provide counseling for each of them, and failing agreement, this court may appoint the person(s) upon special appointment.
7. The Applicant and the Respondent shall ask Dr. Randy Rand and Dr. Yvonne Parnell, or such other person(s) as is engaged or appointed to conduct follow-up counseling, to provide this court with a written report concerning their intervention as described above with the costs of their intervention, and the reports shall be delivered to the parties, through their counsel, and this court on a date to be fixed by April 1, 2009.