Does Judge Peter J. McBrien’s Sacramento County Have a Pet PAS Mediator?

Judge Peter J. McBrien was featured in a previous post: California Courtroom Where “Money Talks, Bullshit Walks” 

where it seems that this judges decisions have more to do with which party is paying the most, regardless of the facts of the case.

There was recent disciplinary action against a Minnesota Judge, Timothy Blakely, for having an unethical relationship with a mediator: Minnesota Judge Blakely Faces Possible Sanctions for Unethical Relationship With Lawyer It seems like many judges, lawyers, and psychologists have a recurring relationships with the same outcomes in case after case. It is alleged that Judge Peter J. McBrien, and other judges in Sacramento County California have ordered mothers to use a mediator named Janelle Burrill, with the same results over and over of mother’s losing custody of their children, or being forced to have shared custody with an abuser. Is it the judge behind this, the father’s lawyer, or the mediator, Janelle Burrill, or is it similar to the GAL racket in Florida, where a particular Guardian Ad Litem manipulates the case claiming Parental Alienation against mothers over and over. There seems to be any number of scenarios perpetrated by the purveyors of Parental Alienation Syndrome. It can be done by getting a PAS accusing expert, PAS accusing evaluator, PAS accusing Guardian Ad Litem, or PAS accusing Mediator. Any of these scenarios will result in the same nightmare for an abused mother and/or child to defend against legal abuse and FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF FICTITIOUS SYNDROMES. The ultimate result will be Maternal Deprivation abuse inflicted on the children and the mother with these PAS Purveyors Profiteering off the case.

To read the full story please click on the Mothers, Interrupted link:

Mothers, Interrupted

From NewsReview.com of Sacramento

These women entered mediation in family court thinking they would retain primary custody of their children. Mediator Janelle Burrill thought otherwise.

By Chrisanne Beckner

This article was published on 03.21.02.

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

California Courtroom Where “Money Talks, Bullshit Walks”

More stories of family court fiascos where the person with the most money seems to get all the breaks. This Judge Peter J. McBrien seems to make favorable decisions for the person who can pay the most money for attorneys and experts. This article includes a story of child abuse where the mom/protective parent is accused of the discredited “parental alienation syndrome”, and another child abuse case where the GAL helps the abuser despite ample evidence of the abuser’s guilt. Note how the moms are bashed by the psychologists – more twisted testimony for sale.

Down by law

Beaten by the system, four fearless Sacramentans coulda been contenders

By R.V. Scheide
rvscheide@newsreview.com
More stories by this author…

PHOTO BY DAVID JAYNE

Related stories this week: Brawl in the Family Tony “The Tiger” Lopez et al. take on the family-law system. Tiger by the tail The toughest match Tony “The Tiger” Lopez ever fought is outside the ring. The fighting Swede Ulf Carlsson won’t back down to Judge McBrien.

No gladiator in the local family-law arena is feared more than Judge Peter J. McBrien. Since SN&R began covering the judge’s tactics in Ulf Carlsson’s divorce case two years ago (see “The fighting Swede”), more than a score of individuals who’ve endured similar thrashings in McBrien’s courtroom have come forward. For many of them, McBrien personifies a broken system. A common thread runs through their stories: Faced with an inexplicable decision by the court, each took on the system and got clobbered. Following are a few of the more memorable bouts held at the William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse.

Tim “The Contractor” Maxwell
Age: 57
Date: 1998-2001
Judge: Peter J. McBrien
Children: 1 daughter, 1 son
Attorneys: 4
Cost, including lost assets: $1 million

Tim Maxwell knew he was in trouble the second he stepped in the ring with McBrien. The judge’s uncanny ability to render litigants invisible caught him off guard.

“He just ignored you,” Maxwell says, recalling the 1998 child-custody bout. “I went before him countless times and never got a positive judgment. He didn’t want anything to do with me or my attorney.”

Maxwell and his ex-wife lived with their son and daughter and his ex-wife’s daughter from a previous marriage. They separated shortly after he’d built a new home for the family. In the trial, every decision save one went against him.

“My ex-wife got to move into the $300,000 house I built with her boyfriend,” he says. “I had close to $1 million in assets, and when it was done, I had a 40-foot trailer and my son. My son moving in with me saved my life.”

PHOTO BY DAVID JAYNE

“Kid” Kim Perotti
Age: 36
Date: 2006-present
Judge: Peter J. McBrien
Children: 1 daughter
Attorneys: 2
Cost: $120,000

Hire your kid an attorney. In the brutal arena of family law, it sounds like a good idea. Not so, says Kim Perotti. According to court documents, Perotti’s troubles began in 2005, when her 5-year-old daughter alleged her father had sexually abused her. The court granted her soul custody of their daughter; her ex-husband was allowed supervised visits only. That’s when the kid’s attorney got involved.

Questioning the validity of the daughter’s allegations, and Perotti’s support for those allegations, both her ex-husband’s attorney and her daughter’s attorney argued that the custody order should be reversed, granting the father sole custody and Perotti supervised visits.

The day before the 2006 trial, Perotti’s attorney was disqualified because of a conflict of interest. McBrien refused to grant a continuance, forcing Perotti to represent herself. Her ex-husband’s attorney disputed that the alleged abuse occurred. A court-ordered psychological evaluation of Perotti consisting of two fill-in-the-bubble personality tests, some inkblots and a 45-minute interview found she was borderline paranoid and delusional. The trial lasted six hours. When it was over, McBrien awarded primary custody to her ex-husband, reducing her to supervised visitations only.

Perotti filed a motion for a new trial, presenting evidence directly refuting the findings in the first go-round. The psychologist who had been treating her for attention deficit disorder the past four years testified that other than being under a lot of stress, she was perfectly stable. Meanwhile, Child Protective Services social workers who investigated the alleged abuse substantiated the abuse allegations, as well as the case’s original custody evaluator, a pediatrician child-abuse specialist and her daughter’s therapist.

Nevertheless, McBrien denied her a new trial.

“There is cited evidence that would support a finding of molest, quite frankly,” McBrien said. However, “The evidence that was present was somewhat to the contrary, so I am a little concerned about what actually was the state of affairs.”

As it stands now, Perotti gets eight hours of supervised visitation with her daughter per week. She has filed for appeal in the 3rd District Court of Appeals.

PHOTO BY DAVID JAYNE

Mary “The Cruncher” Kravitz
Age: 52
Date: 1995-present
Judge: Peter J. McBrien
Children: 2 sons
Attorneys: 1
Cost: $128,000

“Money talks, bullshit walks,” says Mary Kravitz, explaining how the family-law system works. When big bucks are involved, it doesn’t matter what’s in the child’s best interest. The team with the most money wins, as Kravitz knows firsthand.

In 1993, she divorced her husband of 22 years. The couple had two school-age sons and had become moderately wealthy over the course of their marriage. Her husband’s parents, whom Kravitz describes as a prominent Sacramento family, launched an expensive legal battle seeking custody rights for both the father and the paternal grandparents. Backed with superior financial resources, she believes her husband and paternal grandparents proceeded to use her as a punching bag.

Kravitz says the opposing attorneys first passed pre-emptory challenges to ensure the case was tried before Judge Peter J. McBrien. They then argued that Kravitz was suffering from “parental alienation syndrome,” a discredited, pseudoscientific malady.

McBrien used it as reason to order a separate attorney for Kravitz’s sons. Then the attorneys for her ex-husband, her former in-laws and her children physically separated Kravitz from both her sons and her money.

The kids were not all right about this. Court documents show they wrote dozens of letters to their court-appointed attorney and even Judge McBrien, pleading to be allowed to stay with their mother in the summer, since their father worked all the time and left them home alone.

“Dear Judge McBrien,” wrote one son. “My attorney has threatened my brother and I many times. A couple of them were in court. He pulled me off to the side and said if you lie you will go to jail.”

By 1998, Kravitz had exhausted all her assets and was forced to represent herself in pro per. She estimates she’s spent $128,000 on the fight. While researching her case, she discovered she wasn’t alone. A chance conversation between two attorneys proved to be a turning point.

“I’m standing outside court,” she recalls, “and I hear one attorney say to the other, ‘I got this mother really stressed out. If I pull some shit on her, we should be able to get the house.”

Kravitz remains convinced the attorney wasn’t speaking metaphorically. She crunched the numbers on six years worth of pro per family-law cases and confirmed her hunch. “If you have assets under $100,000, you get shoved through the system,” she says. “If you have assets over $100,000, you can guarantee the fight will be perpetuated.”

Today, Kravitz belongs to the California Protective Parents Association, which lobbies the state Legislature and Congress on family-law issues. The group is currently attempting to advocate for a full audit of the financial activities at the William R. Ridgeway Family Relations Courthouse.

PHOTO BY DAVID JAYNE

David “DIY” Aragon
Age: 45
Date: 1999-present
Judge: Peter J. McBrien
Children: 1 daughter
Attorneys: 10
Cost: $300,000

In 1998, the mother of David Aragon’s now 10-year-old daughter informed him she was pregnant. After a paternity test determined he was the father, he told the mother he wanted to share custody of the child. She vanished shortly after that, still seven months pregnant.

Aragon located her after the child was born, and the pair visited a Sacramento County mediator to arrange custody in 1999. Unable to afford an attorney, he relied on a McGeorge School of Law student to help fill out the paperwork. Aragon was granted 50 percent custody, but the student neglected to send him the report before Aragon stepped into the ring with McBrien.

The judge went straight for the knockout, Aragon recalls. Upon learning the litigant was unprepared due to no fault of his own, McBrien grinned and ordered him to “go to the first floor and do your homework!” The judge cut Aragon’s time with his daughter from 50 percent to every other weekend.

A year later, Aragon returned with an attorney, seeking to enforce the existing court order and modify the custody agreement. During the interim, the mother had denied him any visitation at all, violating the court order 15 times, he said. When McBrien refused to alter the custody arrangement, Aragon couldn’t help thinking the fix was in.

That hasn’t stopped him from fighting the system, though.

“I’m on my 10th attorney,” says Aragon, who estimates he’s spent $300,000 in attorney and legal fees on the battle. “My eighth attorney told me there was no way I was going to win in McBrien’s courtroom.”

Still, he’s had his moments in the bout. Representing himself pro per, he’s even managed to win a round or two. But he knows he’s up against a determined, wily adversary in Judge Peter J. “Chainsaw” McBrien.

“I tried to get him kicked off my case,” he says. “He fought it and won.”