Maternal Deprivation Research

There have been numerous studies regarding Maternal Deprivation, with a large source of information coming from Bowlby, based on Spitz and Goldfarb, and also from unethical animal experimentation. Overwhelmingly, research shows that severing this natural bond between a mother and child causes severe emotional and behavioral problems, such as depression and psychosis. The phrase maternal deprivation is the terminology used in the early work of psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, John Bowlby on the effects of separating infants and young children from their mother. Some of the research was previously used to discourage mothers from working or using childcare, but it seems important to revive these studies as children are being deprived of their mothers intentionally by abusive men who claim to be “parentally alienated” in an ongoing scandal that rivals that of the Catholic Priest sexual abuse cover up.  

Maternal Deprivation Abuse (MDA), has been identified as occurring with great frequency in legal proceedings, with specific unethical lawyers, psychologists, and judges perpetrating the the same scam on mother after mother with similar horrific results for the children. There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.

Based on Bolwby’s theories, Maternally Deprivation affects children as follows:

• Complete or almost complete deprivation could “entirely cripple the capacity to make relationships.”
• Partial deprivation could result in acute anxiety, depression, neediness and powerful emotions which the child could not regulate.
• The end product of such psychic disturbance could be neurosis and instability of character.(Bowlby J. (1951) pps. 11–12)

 

“Mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.” (Bowlby, 1953.)  Child psychoanalyst John Bowlby (1907–1990). 

 

Maternal Deprivation Abuse

Maternal Deprivation, or Motherlessness, is occurring with alarming frequency due to the unethical treatment of women and children in family court. Maternal Deprivation is inflicting abuse by severing the mother-child bond. It is a form of abuse that men inflict on both the mother and children, especially men who claim they are “parentally alienated” from their children when there are complaints of abusive treatment by the father.

Maternal Deprivation occurs when men seek to keep their children from being raised by their mothers who are the children’s natural caretakers. Some men murder the mothers of their own children. Others seek to sever the maternal bonds by making false allegations of fictitious psychological syndromes in a deliberate effort to change custody and/or keep the child from having contact with their mother when there are legal proceedings. A twisted form of Maternal Deprivation is to kill the children, so that the mother will be left to suffer. Sometimes there are family annihilation murders where the father kills the children and himself (or dies by cop), but the mother is not killed because she has received protective orders and her children have not as in the case of Jessica Gonzales.  

In seeking to define this form of abuse certain common elements are found in the Maternal Deprivation scenario as follows:

• History of domestic abuse that could be physical, psychological, sexual, and/or social abuse occurring on or off again, occasionally, or chronically which could be mild, moderate, or severe, including homicidal and/or suicidal threats. 
• Legal proceedings relating to abuse
• Hiring of “Fathers Rights” attorney
• Use of “Hired Gun” mental health professionals to make accusations of psychological disorder against the mother and children in deliberate effort to excuse abuse and change custody or grant visitation that is contrary to safety concerns. Another name for these unethical professionals are “Whores of the Courts“
• Raising claims of “psychological disorders” against the mother such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, Malicious Mother Syndrome, Lying Litigant Syndrome, Hostile Aggressive Parenting or any other mother-blaming psychological disorder that can be used by the unethical professional to re-victimize the victims.
• Infliction of “Legal Abuse” by continually and excessively filing motions so that the mother continually has to defend herself and her child(ren) causing financial and emotional devastation.
• Can occur in response to child support legal proceedings as retaliation.

The intent of “Maternal Deprivation” is to punish the mother and the child for revealing the abuse and to falsely claim that they are not abusive. This very commonly occurs as there are more and more “abuse-excuse” parental alienation accusing professionals who use this scientifically invalid theory over and over to achieve specific goals of the person paying them. Maternal Deprivation can also occur in response to child support legal proceedings. When occurring in this manner, Maternal Deprivation is a response to the financial demands as retaliation. Suddenly the father who had little prior involvement wants to take the kids half the time to avoid child support obligations, etc. When the men are really abusive, they ask for sole custody and demand the mother of the child pay them.

Although some people call this “Maternal Alienation”, a distinction needs to be made as the pro-pedophilia “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and the use of the word “Alienation” are most often used AGAINST battered women and abused children. There needs to be a distinction between the phony psychological syndrome and the intentional infliction of abuse on a mother and child by intentionally severing their natural bond. This distinction can best be made by NOT using the label of “Alienation” which will always be associated with the pro-pedophilia monster Doctor Richard Gardner.

Some of the characteristics of the especially heinous abusers who inflict Maternal Deprivation include but are not limited to the following:

• Angry
• Abusive
• Violent
• Coercive
• Controlling
• Threatening
• Intimidating
• Demanding
• Domineering
• Harassing
• Stalking
• Tyrannical
• Oppressive
• Forceful
• Manipulative
• Deceptive
• Unethical
• Un-empathetic (Lacks Empathy)
• Entitled
• Immature
• Self-centered
• Neglectful
• Guilt inducing
• Pushy
• Intentionally tries to humiliate mother and/or child
• Harsh, rigid and punitive parenting style
• Outrage at child’s challenge of authority
• May use force to reassert parental position
• Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes
• Vents rage, blames mother for “brainwashing” child and takes no responsibility
• Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise
• Inept and unempathic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits 

There is a distinct overlap of the intimate terrorist type domestic violence abuser with the Maternal Deprivation abusers as follows:

 

• Coercion and threats
• Intimidation
• Emotional abuse
• Isolation
• Minimizing, denying and blaming (Hallmarks of PAS)
• Using children
• Economic abuse
• Male privilege

The people who most often engage in Maternal Deprivation Abuse are most often: 

• Abusive men
• Vindictive second wives who don’t want to deal with the real mother of the children
• Paternal grandparents who raised dysfunctional children (abusers)

The effects of Maternal Deprivation often cause the children to become psychotic, depressed, and sometimes suicidal or to have suicidal ideations. Another terrible reaction is when the child retaliates against the parent who accuses Parental Alienation Syndrome as in a Texas case where the child killed his father. Other times when the Maternal Deprivation abuser completely takes over the will of the child by using brainwashing techniques similar to those used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to force ideological changes in captives, these children often have a sort of trauma-bonding with the abuser and model their behavior. Sometimes these children will also abuse the mother in the same manner as the father. Another generation is created to carry on the abuse, and will likely do the same to their own spouse and children.

 

 

 

For more articles involving Maternal Deprivation:

Failure of Family Court System Leads To Death and Devastation

Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster

Child in imminent fear shoots father – vindicated in appeal – PAS fraud nightmare

Cincinatti PAS

VAWnet Joan Meier on PAS-Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews

And many more articles throughout Battered Mothers Lose Children to Abusers and all the links on the sidebar.

Maternal Deprivation Abuse will be featured on BMLCTA Blog in an effort to wipe out this heinous crime against mothers and children.

 

Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster

This Dr. Harry Harlow was not just unsympathetic, but a monster just like the unethical doctors who forcefully remove children from loving mothers by claiming parental alienation to give them to their abusers. Why do they do this? Because they get paid by the abuser to do this! It’s a fraud on the courts that needs to end!

From the Top Ten Unethical Psychological Experiments
The Well of Despair 1960

     Dr. Harry Harlow was an unsympathetic person, using terms like the rape rack and iron maiden in his experiments. He is most well-known for the experiments he conducted on rhesus monkeys concerning social isolation. Dr. Harlow took infant rhesus monkeys who had already bonded with their mothers and placed them in a stainless steel vertical chamber device alone with no contact in order to sever those bonds. They were kept in the chambers for up to one year. Many of these monkeys came out of the chamber psychotic, and many did not recover. Dr. Harlow concluded that even a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression, while science writer Deborah Blum called these, common sense results.
     Gene Sackett of the University of Washington in Seattle, one of Harlows doctoral students, stated he believes the animal liberation movement in the U.S. was born as a result of Harlows experiments. William Mason, one of Harlows students, said that Harlow kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. Its as if he sat down and said, Im only going to be around another ten years. What Id like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind. If that was his aim, he did a perfect job.

Any doctor removing a child from their mother using the fraudulent theory of parental alienation or other phony psychobabble BS needs to be exposed for the monsters they are. They come up with phony rhetoric and say it in a convincing manner, much like they did back in Salem when they accused women of witchcraft.  

This Parental Alienation Custody Change Fraud is going to go down in history as one of the most unethical psychological social engineering experiments of all time. The scandal is on the same level as the cover up of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church. It’s time people start to wake up and recognize that these doctors are covering up for all types of domestic abuse against women and children for PROFIT.

If you click on the links regarding Dr. Harry Harlow, you will find out that he received awards from psychological associations. Maybe this will start to get people thinking that there are groups of people doing unethical experiments and they do support each other on their theories and cover up for each other. The APA also published the Rind Study which tried to justify child sexual abuse as being acceptable and not that harmful to children. There is a common thread between all of these sick studies that push quack theories to justify unacceptable behavior. Only with Parental Alienation Theory, the whole idea is to call the victims liars which re-victimizes them. All that is needed to do this is to pay an unethical doctor to testify who will ignore real evidence and substitute in their fraudulent rhetoric.

When people realized the horrible treatment of animals that Harlow inflicted, the result was an animal liberation movement. What needs to happen as a result of these unethical parental alienation scams is for children to have a liberation movement and demand to have rights to be heard and to make their own decisions.

And Intentionally Scaring Monkeys

Pennsylvania Mom loses custody to abuser-

Although the federal judge is critical of the fees, the trial court has taken more children away from a protective mother. Judge Lawrence J. Stengel gives children to father suspected of child abuse. Forensic psychologist, Anthony Pisa, excused away the abuse.

Does this psychologist have any way of knowing the truth? The answer is no. Only the child knows for sure what happened. Since there appears to be a major lack of concern for children’s well-being, this trend will continue unless something is done about it.

I don’t believe that it is appropriate for protective parents to be placed on supervised visitation when they are only acting in a normal manner for someone who believes that their child has been mistreated.

Link to the opinion on the trial case: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/08D0579P.pdf

Federal Judge Critical of Firm’s Fee Petition in Custody Case

Case Shannon P. Duffy
12-15-2008
A federal judge has sharply rebuked a team of lawyers from Fox Rothschild for filing an “excessive” fee petition after winning an international custody case, saying their bill of more than $163,000 in fees and expenses was simply too large for a “garden variety” custody battle.

“I simply cannot accept or justify an attorneys’ fee award of this size in a case of this nature,” U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel wrote in his 11-page opinion in Clarke v. Clarke.

Stengel said the fee petition from Fox Rothschild “provides no real discussion of why five attorneys were necessary to present this case.”

Although the firm argued that each of the five lawyers handled “an integral and necessary part” of the case, Stengel was unimpressed, saying: “We might add ‘excessive and overwrought’ to ‘integral and necessary’ as adjectives used to describe the ‘management’ of this case.”

Fox Rothschild partner Judy McIntire Springer said in an interview that she “respectfully disagrees” with the judge’s characterization of the case, and that the fees “were not excessive and we stand by them.”

Springer led a team that filed suit under the Hague Convention on behalf of Michael Clarke of Australia, alleging that his wife, Kristen Clarke, had taken their two children, Nathan, 5; and Grace, 2, to the United States and refused to return.

Kristen Clarke, who was born in the United States, responded by claiming in court papers that the children would be in “grave danger” if returned to Australia because, she alleged, Michael Clarke had sexually abused his son.

In May, Stengel ruled in favor of Michael Clarke, concluding that the allegations of sexual abuse had not been proven and had stemmed from the “overtly suggestive” techniques of a Pennsylvania psychologist whose practices “were designed to lead [Nathan] to say that his father abused him.”

The psychologist, Joanne Cohen Hamilton, had testified that “play therapy” in which Nathan would draw pictures, act and play games, revealed evidence of sexual abuse.

TESTIMONY ‘NOT CREDIBLE’

But Stengel flatly rejected Hamilton’s testimony, finding that she “began with a conclusion and worked backward in an effort to build a supporting record.” As a result, Stengel said, “I found her testimony not worthy of credibility.”

Stengel ordered that both children be returned to Australia within 20 days.

Kristen Clarke initially appealed Stengel’s ruling, but later dropped the appeal. A court in Australia later awarded Michael Clarke full custody of both children and ordered that Kristen Clarke’s visits with them must be supervised.

As the prevailing party, Michael Clarke was entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act.

But when his lawyers at Fox Rothschild filed their fee petition, Kristen Clarke’s newly retained lawyers from Dechert cried foul, arguing that the fees were excessive and far beyond what their client is able to pay.

Dechert attorneys Thomas K. Johnson II and John S. Ghose argued that Fox Rothschild overstaffed the case, sending four lawyers to attend the three-day hearing before Stengel in April. Johnson and Ghose also said the Fox Rothschild lawyers duplicated each other’s work, resulting in unnecessary fees.

Now Stengel has sided with Dechert, finding that the fees charged by Fox Rothschild were simply too high for a case that ultimately came down to just a handful of legal and factual disputes.

“Michael Clarke certainly incurred attorneys’ fees,” Stengel wrote, “but it is hard to believe that $163,505.89 in fees and expenses was ‘necessary.’”

The Fox Rothschild team billed for the services of five attorneys to prepare and present their case in a 2 1/2-day hearing, Stengel noted, as well as for research, telephone conferences and the preparation and filing of a petition and a memorandum of law.

“There was no discovery, no significant motions and the legal and factual issues were not highly complicated,” Stengel wrote.

The hearing involved testimony from just six witnesses, Stengel noted, including both parents, a psychologist for each side and two witnesses from Australia.

“This trial involved issues that were no more complicated than a garden variety custody case. In fact, two of the three main elements of Mr. Clarke’s case were not contested: there was no question that Mrs. Clarke wrongfully (i.e. without Mr. Clarke’s consent) retained the children in Berks County when they should have been returned to Australia, and there was no question that Mr. Clarke had every right to seek their return,” Stengel wrote.

“The only contested issue was whether the return of these children to Australia would result in harm to the older child,” Stengel wrote.

‘REMARKABLE ENTRIES’

Stengel found that the Fox Rothschild bill included “some remarkable entries,” including more than $9,500 for audiovisual specialists.

But the “truly disturbing aspect” of the bill, Stengel said, was the $128,983.50 claimed for time spent on the case by the Fox Rothschild attorneys.

As lead counsel, Stengel said, Springer billed 196.5 hours at $345 per hour, and was assisted by four “supporting counsel” who billed at rates ranging from $235 to $485 per hour.

“One wonders why, in a straightforward case, where the credibility of the parents was not in serious dispute and the focus of the case was on the credibility and weight to be given to the experts (not exactly a novel theory), it was necessary for ‘Lead Counsel’ to employ in excess of $60,000 worth of support,” Stengel wrote.

Instead, Stengel said, “what was ‘necessary’ was one well-prepared attorney to represent Mr. Clarke in the Hague Convention hearing. The other attorneys may have been helpful, but Mrs. Clarke should not bear the cost of the excessive approach taken by Mr. Clarke’s attorneys.”

Under the law, Stengel said, the court’s task was too decide what fees are “clearly inappropriate” — an inquiry that requires a consideration of Kristen Clarke’s financial circumstances as well as her motivation in creating the need for a Hague Convention petition.

Stengel found that Kristen Clarke’s decision to keep the children in Pennsylvania “was not proper,” but that she had “acted in the belief that she was doing the right thing.”

That belief, Stengel said, “could have been affected by any number of factors including stress … the influence of family in Pennsylvania, a misinterpretation of her son Nathan’s behavior and misplaced accusations against Mr. Clarke, to name a few.”

And Kristen Clarke’s financial circumstances “appear to be dire,” Stengel said, because she is not currently employed.

But the Fox Rothschild lawyers argued in their brief that any analysis of Kristen Clarke’s financial status must take into account the fact that the couple is in divorce proceedings and that she stands to be awarded half of a marital estate worth more than $700,000 in Australian dollars, or about $525,000 in U.S. dollars.

“It would be unfair to [Michael Clarke] to have to pay his counsel fees out of his share of the assets, while [Kristen Clarke] would enjoy the full share of the equity when this litigation resulted from her conduct,” they wrote.

In an interview, Springer said she disagrees with Stengel’s description of the case as “garden variety” because it involved cross-border custody issues and “serious allegations of child sexual abuse.”

Springer said she and her team had a “complete victory” in which their client secured a “complete exoneration” from “the ugliest allegations imaginable.”

Proving Michael Clarke’s innocence, she said, requiring poring over hours of audiotapes of Nathan Clarke’s therapy sessions, as well as working with an expert and a lawyer in Australia.

The case was “properly staffed” with partners, associates and technical staff, Springer said, and the bills “reflect the proper amount.”

But Springer said she intends to abide by Stengel’s order and submit a new and reduced bill that responds to the judge’s concerns.