No matter how good of a mother, or how bad of a father, an unethical psychologist can make a positive trait, such as being protective, into a reason to give custody to an abuser in a parental alienation custody change scam. It probably sounds ludicrous to imagine someone who is supposed to be helpful, such as a licensed psychologist, doing this to children, but the truth of the matter is that it is going on every day. It also creates more work for the psych industry, to force the child to have “reunification therapy” and family therapy, etc. This makes this “therapy” more like torture than treatment.
Here are some examples of ludicrous reasons that mothers lose custody taken from Custody Prep for Moms:
Ludicrous Reasons Why Good & Fit Mothers Have Lost Custody
Sadly, we must report that if you have a guardian ad litem (GAL) or child custody evaluator assigned or appointed to your case that is unscrupulous, ill-trained, incompetent or biased either toward a father or a form of custody, there is virtually no way for a mother to truly “prepare” for a child custody evaluator. If you have been unfortunate enough to have this type of evaluator, be very prepared to find other documentation, evidence, witnesses, and experts with superior credentials to refute the report and offer alternate views to the court. You can not let these sorts of evaluations stand. Here are some of the more ludicrous documented reasons given by evaluators or judges in numerous cases where good and fit mothers lost custody:
Breastfeeding–the mothers either wanted to and it was determined an alienating behavior, or they did not choose to breastfeed and it was termed child neglect or indifference
Children got head lice during a period of mother’s care.
Too many people (all relatives) living in one home (i.e. mom had to return home to family to gain economic and emotional support)
Father remarried and married family deemed superior to single motherhood
Father’s job and education deemed superior–sometimes even though mom sacrificed her goals and dreams so father could obtain same.
Not desiring 50/50 custody or other joint custodial arrangements
Not desiring to give up the marital home
Leaving the marital home while fleeing from abuse, especially if she left the children behind.
Going to church
Going to church too often
Not going to church
Having a different religion than the father
Having a different religion than the children
Home schooling your children
Being poor or less well-off than the father and his extended family
Having unprotected sex although no longer living with or married to your former mate
Believing your children when they tell of abuse
Being depressed or sad
Having been diagnosed with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) caused by the battery/abuse in your relationship with your child’s father and having that used to term the mother “unstable”
Crying in front of any court personnel
Being anxious or “hyper-vigilant”, even when abuse to self and children are an issue
Dating on occasion and leaving your child with a trusted sitter
Dating someone of another race
Not dating
Having a boyfriend
Not having a boyfriend
Living with a boyfriend
Refusing to marry your boyfriend
Having a social life–women have been penalized for taking occasional evening breaks away from the children for meetings, to meet friends, etc.
Not having a social life–women were penalized for being “wrapped up” in the kids and not having other interests.
Having a career
Not having a career
Working too much
Not working enough
Using daycare or before/after-school care so you can work to support your kids
Being non-white: a Native American, Black, Asian, etc.
Having your child learn your native language–mothers have been deemed more of a “flight risk” for teaching their child their heritage and language, or deemed to be alienating the child from the father by teaching the child a language the father does not know.
Being white-fathers ethnicity given greater accord because mother supposedly could not provide a racial/ethnic identity for the child.
Being involved in your children’s education/volunteering-deemed “over-involved” or enmeshed with her children
Having a close, loving relationship with your child – court personnel seem to love pathologizing mother/child bonds as “enmeshed”, “unhealthy”
Wishing to move
Being disorganized
Having a messy home
Being too neat & orderly
Being a lesbian
Being a good role model for your child–a female child in one case was noted by the judge as being “alienated” by the mother because the child looked up to her mother and wanted to follow in her same career path when she grew up.
Not liking your ex
Having been hospitalized for a physical ailment or injury
Thinking negative thoughts about your ex (doesn’t matter whether you verbalize them or not)
Being an “unconscious alienator”, termed as having the likelihood of alienating sometime in the future
Going back to school and using daycare
Not using daycare–mother deemed too “enmeshed” and “over-involved” with her preschool aged children because she worked at home and used her maternal relatives for occasional childcare and did not want to put her toddler into daycare/preschool.
Being disabled at the hands of your child’s father
Being blind or deaf, although adequately being the primary parent of your child for numerous years
Photographing injuries found on your child and identified by the child as having been caused by their father
The evaluator didn’t like the mother because she reminded her of someone–in one case, a woman was told she wasn’t liked because she reminded the evaluator of her mother
Being protective of your children
Taking your children to the doctor – termed “anxious” parenting, or pathologized further into Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy
Using your computer
Computer dating
Staying up too late at night to get work done
Sending the kids to summer camp – termed “farming them out”
Following doctors orders in administering prescribed medications
Taking your children to counseling
Children’s grades are not high enough
Children missed too much school due to illness
You’re not a father
“It is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the
perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the
universal desire to see, hear and speak no evil. The victim, on the
contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim
demands action, engagement and remembering.”
–Judy Herman
_________________________________________________________
Twisted testimony for sale is not limited to just family court. Unethical psychologists will twist facts and present them as if they were real with no corroboration or thought of how their testimony afflicts those people who they lie about. Margaret Hagen, Ph.D calls these unethical mental health professionals ”Whores of the Court” in her book that should be required reading for every judge. the book exposes the fraud of psychological testimony as a retreat into fantasy and hearsay, when it is not based on evidence.
In a case with Dalia Saffa Biller, in a lawsuit against the school board of Collier County, the twisted testimony was suspect. There were many psychologists available in the area, but somehow this psychologist, who was located on the other side of the state, who did not witness events, gave testimony on an effort to distort reality in exchange for payment. Fortunately the school board had resources to defend the physical therapist under attack in that case.
K.P., Individually and on behalf of M.P., a minor,
On May 6 and May 12, 2005, Dr. Saffa-Biller evaluated M.P. (Pet. Ex. C-5-1; Saffa-Biller
Depo., 6:1-13). M.P. reported that “Miss Tracy was mean, that Miss Tracy yelled and hit the other
kids, that Miss Tracy threw a ball at either her legs or her feet.” (Saffa-Biller Depo., 9:19-21 &
10:14-19). Dr. Saffa-Biller observed increased anxiety with M.P. whenever a school topic was
discussed. (Saffa-Biller Depo., 11:2-3). Dr. Saffa-Biller opined that based upon her initial
assessment of M.P. and a review of her medical records provided to her by the parents, that it is
evident that the past relationship/therapy experience needs to be further evaluated and explored, and
that M.P. needs to be placed with a different physical therapist at this time. (Pet. Ex. C-5-1 & C-5-2).
Dr. Saffa-Biller also noted that there is a medical necessity for M.P. to immediately resume physical
therapy services with a different therapist and that M.P. should participate in weekly short term
individual therapy in order to better help clarify/understand the reason for M.P.’s distress associated
with her past physical therapist/therapy experience and to help her to benefit from needed future
On May 10, 2005, Dr. Ross examined M.P. and noted that M.P. was losing weight. (Ross
Depo., 7:14-21). On May 13, 2005, Dr. Saffa-Biller issued a report of her evaluation which K.P.
hand delivered to Lonneman on May 16, 2005. (T-3, 120:5-9; T-3, 119:3-19; Pet. Ex. C-5-1, C-5-2).
K.P. told Dr. Ross that M.P. was complaining of abdominal pain, was refusing to eat or drink, had
an increased cough, spitting up, with symptoms occurring as M.P. got ready to go to school. (Ross
Depo., 20:15 – 21:10). No objective tests were performed on M.P.(Ross Depo., 21: 20-22).
…
Further, it is clear that the School Board
provided the child with a physical therapist who is qualified and possesses the skills necessary to
provide the services required by her disability.
…
M.P.s Parents were allowed to sit in on a physical therapy session …
More info on the case is available by following this link: K.P. v Collier School Board
The statement that “…Miss Tracy threw a ball at either her legs or her feet.” seems to be an intentional distortion of reality. The physical therapy that was performed involved rolling a ball at the child.
This is just one example of how a “Hired Gun” expert will attempt to distort reality and submit these distortions to a judge. Fortunately in this case, the person under attack was not the child’s parent. Imagine a parent trying to defend against these attacks who doesn’t have all the financial resources available in this case.
Amazingly in family court cases, when a child has anxiety over child abuse inflicted by a parent, such as saying that a parent is mean, and that they yelled at and hit them or worse, these psychologists have forced children to be “reunified” with their abusers, and then accuse the protective parent of parental alienation, frequently removing them from the child’s life. Theses parental alienation accusers intentionally give testimony in direct effects to discredit a child’s concerns over the behavior of a parent, using the same type of distorting and intentionally misleading testimony with blatant disregard of facts and evidence to the contrary. In fact, these evaluators will force children to undergo torturous and unethical evaluations in order to discredit them. This is psychological torture to a child who has already stated that they have been mistreated.
Also, notice that the evaluator almost always recommends further therapy so that the experiences can be further evaluated and explored. These people seem to want to keep any person unfortunate enough to be in contact with them to be subjected to further therapy under duress. If it is truly therapy, than it should be optional if a person wants to do it. The “Whores of the Courts” force people to undergo expensive, time-consuming, torturous and ineffective so-called therapy by having the court order them to participate. People get forced to go to a specific therapist against their will and forced to pay whatever they charge. If they don’t comply they can be charged with contempt. This entire practice needs to be outlawed. It’s court ordered extortion!
