The following excerpt is from an Appeal filed in the Third Circuit Court of California. It was affirmed that the mother could move in order to work. The infamous Dr. Burrill advocated for the father in an attempt to change custody. Please note that this father is NOT being denied visitation, yet these PAS cult followers will use any opportunity to take custody away from a mother. The word “alienation” was not used in this written appeal, instead these “very tricky” PAS purveyors have special rhetoric that they use over and over as follows:
“…she failed to promote frequent contact between Danny and his father.”
But then a contradictory statement is made:
“Dr. Burrill recommended Tom be awarded primary physical custody of Danny because (1) he has a strong bond with Danny…”
This next quote at the end of the written decision clearly says that the concerns of detriment were “overstated” by Burrill and “illusory” in nature. (Sounds like the judge is saying these claims by Burrill were exaggerated and fabricated). Dr. Burrill, PhD., J.D., bashes the mother in her testimony and written report, but thankfully there are intelligent judges who do not fall for this overstated load of illusory crap. As with all of the followers of Richard Gardner’s theories, these false claims made in court are for the specific purpose of facilitating custody changes for bogus reasons.
“Burrill’s section 3111 report (and apparently her testimony) had expressed concerns with possible disruption of the relationships between Daniel and his father, half-siblings and relatives, mother’s possible unwillingness to promote these relationships, and mother’s possible alcoholism. On the last point, the court concluded, on the basis of Hill-Sokol’s testimony, that this was not an issue. With respect to the issue of mother’s perceived unwillingness to promote contact between Daniel and his father and relatives, the court’s proposed visitation schedule provided for substantial contact, so as to minimize any disruption. Those relationships were already disrupted simply because father and mother resided in different households. The court’s proposed plan provided for visits of a substantial nature that were not inconsistent with the existing visitation schedule prior to mother’s relocation. In light of these facts, the court properly could conclude that Burrill’s concerns were overstated and that the alleged detriment to Daniel was more illusory than real. The record presented for our review does not persuade us to conclude otherwise.”
Read the entire appellate decision here: J.O. v. T.L. C042956 Sup.Ct.No.PFL20010563
This case, and many like them are good reasons that custody evaluators should be abolished and evidence should just be directly presented to a judge. Any cases involving the cult followers of Richard Gardner who are listed as contributors to the International Handbook on Parental Alienation Syndrome, should be looked at with scepticism, as all of these true believers in the philosophies of Richard Gardner have bias.
