Justice For Children WARNING: Don’t Fall for discredited “Parental alienation syndrome day”

For Immediate Release                                                                       Contact: John Hrabe

March 27, 2009                                                                                   (562) 276-5898                      

 

Justice FOr Children WARNING: DOn’t Fall for discredited “Parental alienation syndrome day”

 

(Houston, TX) – Justice for Children, one of the country’s leading child advocacy organizations, issued a warning to all 50 Governors and state legislatures against the latest attempt to legitimize a dangerous pseudoscientific theory by designating April 25^th as “Parental Alienation Syndrome Awareness Day.” Judges, prosecutors, psychologists and child advocates agree that parental alienation syndrome is “junk science” that abusive parents commonly use to shift attention away from their abuse.  

 

“Parental alienation syndrome has been debunked, disproven and discredited by every major group and association involved with child abuse cases,” said Tom Burton, General Counsel of Justice for Children. “Even with nearly unanimous agreement, defense attorneys continue to propagate this bogus theory in order to protect abusive parents.”

 

Seventeen US states have issued proclamations honoring April 25^th as “Parental Alienation Awareness Day.” This year, PAS radicals have targeted Texas Governor Rick Perry with an online petition. Child advocates like Justice for Children warn that such honorary proclamations give dangerous legal legitimacy to this debunked pseudoscientific theory.

 

The Children’s Protection Alliance shares on its website the story of Alanna Krause, one child affected by this bogus theory.

 

“Finally, one day my father threw me into a stone wall at school and a teacher called Child Protective Services. He’s never said as much, but my father panicked. He had worked so hard to build a delicate set of lies and twisted truths to present himself as the well-meaning parent whose “unstable” ex-wife had given his troubled daughter “alienating parent syndrome,” resulting in abuse “delusions.” The truth was his worst fear.”

 

The public can learn more about parental alienation syndrome from the attached fact sheet or by visiting the Justice for Children website at www.justiceforchildren.org.

 

For over two decades, Justice for Children has been the country’s leading voice for abused and neglected children. JFC provides free legal support for abused children, sponsors legislation to increase children’s right, and exposes the systemic failures of bureaucratic child welfare agencies.

 

###

 

 

Parental Alienation Syndrome: Debunked, Disproven and Dangerous Theory   

Abusive Parents Commonly Use PAS to Shift Attention Away from their Abusive Actions

 

National District Attorneys Association: Parental Alienation Syndrome is “Unproven Theory That Can Threaten the Safety of Abused Children”

“PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. It is not capable of lending itself to hard data or inclusion in the forthcoming DSM-V.  In short, PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law. Prosecutors and other child abuse professionals should educate themselves, their colleagues and clients when confronting PAS in the legal realm.” (Source: National District Attorneys Association, Update – Volume 16, Number 6 & 7, 2003 “Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know”)

 

 Parental Alienation Syndrome: “Unscientific Piece of Garbage,” “Not Research Based” & “A Great Injustice to the Family”

“Probably the most unscientific piece of garbage I’ve seen in the field in all my time. To base social policy on something as flimsy as this is exceedingly dangerous. PAS is not research-based, and it has done a great injustice to the family and the justice system.  The criteria that Dr. Gardner has developed are virtually useless. He operates on the premise that if you say a lie often enough, people will believe it.” (Source: Dr. Jon Conte, a psychologist at the University of Washington, “Has Psychiatry Gone Psycho” April 26, 1999, Insight on the News)

 

Past President of American Psychiatric Association: “Junk Science Used Nationwide by Batterers as a Courtroom Tactic to Silence Abused Children”

“Parental Alienation Syndrome has been used nationwide by batterers as a courtroom tactic to silence abused children by attempting to discredit their disclosures of abuse. This theory is not recognized as valid by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association. Parental Alienation Syndrome is not accepted as a psychiatric diagnosis, and has been rejected by the mainstream psychological community. Parental Alienation Syndrome is junk science; there is no valid research or empirical data to support this unproven theory.” (Source: Dr. Paul J. Fink, past president of the American Psychiatric Association, and Hon. Sol Gothard, retired judge and former faculty member for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Los Angeles Daily Journal, November 1, 2005)

 

Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family: Parental Alienation Can Be Used by Violent Parent Against Victim

“Noting that custody and visitation disputes appear to occur more frequently when there is a history of domestic violence.  Family courts often do not consider the history of violence between the parents in making custody and visitation decisions.  In this context, the nonviolent parent may be at a disadvantage, and behavior that would seem reasonable as a protection from abuse may be misinterpreted as a sign of instability. Psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence may contribute to this process by ignoring or minimizing the violence and by giving inappropriate pathological labels to women’s responses to chronic victimization.  Terms such as `parental alienation’ may be used to blame the women for the children’s reasonable fear or anger toward their violent father.” (Source: American Psychological Association, “Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family” 1996)  

 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: Parental Alienation Syndrome “Discredited by Scientific Community,” Should Be “Inadmissible in Court” & “Diverts Attention Away from the Behaviors of the Abusive Parent”

“The theory positing the existence of “PAS” has been discredited by the scientific community. In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case. “Parental Alienation Syndrome” does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible. The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent..” (Source: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006). Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide, 2nd edition Page 24)

 

Professor of Pediatrics and Child Abuse Expert: Parental Alienation Syndrome is an “Atrocious Theory with No Science to Back It Up”

“Dr. Eli Newberger, a Harvard University Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, states, “This [parental alienation syndrome] is an atrocious theory with no science to back it up.” Harvard’s Dr. Eli Newberger, an assistant professor of pediatrics and an expert on child abuse, said he’s been called on by state child protection agencies to evaluate ambiguous disclosures of abuse in divorce cases and believes that PAS deflects any real investigation into such allegations.” (Source: Talan, J.  Richard Gardner and Parental Alienation Syndrome: In Death, Can He Survive? Psychiatrist Richard Gardner’s theory Used by Parents in Child Custody Battles Gained Prominence — And Critics. Newsday, 07/01/03.)

 

American Medical Association Does Not Recognize Parental Alienation Syndrome

“PAS is not listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) as a psychiatric disorder and is not recognized as a valid medical syndrome by the American Medical Association, or the American Psychological Association.” (Source: Dr. Jon Conte, a psychologist at the University of Washington, “Has Psychiatry Gone Psycho” April 26, 1999, Insight on the News)

 

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.

 

Ethical Scientific Experts Denounce “PAS” Reprogramming

From the Leadership Council

Experts Warn About Dangers of Deprogramming Treatment 

February 10, 2009: Specialists in childhood trauma and therapy from the Leadership Council have grave concerns about the ethics of deprogramming treatment described in a recent article published in the Globe and Mail (see: Judge Blocks Sending Teen for Deprogramming Treatment, Feb 7, 2009).

We support the decision of the judge who refused to court-order deprogramming treatment (sometime called Reunification Therapy) overturning a 2008 arbitrator’s order that the 14-year-old boy be coercively treated. The controversial treatment is designed to “deprogram” children who are “alienated” from one of their parents during divorce.

Various forms of this type of “treatment” have sprung up over the last decade. The therapy usually involves confining the child in a location away from home, and isolating the child from the parent to whom the child is most attached. The attachment to the favored parent is challenged, while encouraging the child with intensive sessions to re-accept the rejected parent.

Some children have reported receiving treatment involving threats and coercion. The child may be told that he or she may not return home until they have accepted a more favorable view of the denigrated parent. One child the LC has interviewed described recurrent nightmares of the de-programming episodes that were used on him. In addition, there have been several lawsuits related to this type of approach. (see: http://rachel-foundation-lawsuit.com)   

This so-called “therapy” is reminiscent of the kind of brainwashing techniques used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to coerce false confessions and to force ideological changes in captives.   While these techniques can produce changes in belief and in behavior, we are concerned that these techniques are harmful to the mental health of children.

We are also concerned that deprogramming treatments may violate basic ethical principles that guide practice. According to the American Psychological Association’s ethical standards, the goals of psychologists are the welfare and protection of individuals. We question whether deprogramming treatment protects the welfare of the children involved. We have listed some of our concerns at the end of this release. (see: Concerns)

Deprogramming treatment raises philosophical and legal questions which remain unresolved in our approach to children. Are children simply the property of adults whose legal interests can control what children think and believe? In what sense does the child’s intellectual and emotional freedom have precedence over these legal interests? While these complex issues are not yet resolved, the controversial nature of this deprogramming treatment would argue for caution in safeguarding the mental health of children while we wrestle with these complex questions.

One of the concrete dangers of this type of therapy is that it has been used to force children into reunification with adults that have committed violent crimes against them, thus putting the children at risk of further victimization.

The Leadership Council has spoken with several victims of this type of therapy who were traumatized by the treatment. One young man says he continues to have flashbacks from his forced isolation from his mother and from continually being confronted by a therapist who told him his beliefs were wrong. After reunification with the parent he had been coerced to accept (in this case his father), he discovered that this parent was indeed abusive, his previous beliefs had been correct, and he felt betrayed and maltreated by the courts that had ordered this therapy. This case clearly illustrates that therapy that stems from the agenda of an interested legal party may be detrimental to the autonomy and welfare of the child for whom it is ordered.

Sometimes reunification therapy does not involve confinement and separation from the primary parent, but involves forced therapy sessions with a rejected parent. Many of the same ethical questions apply to this type of therapy as well, as the child is often forced to attend these sessions against his/her will.  If the child is being forced to reunify with a parent he has clearly stated was abusive to him or her, the child may react with increased symptoms, suicidal ideation, or even suicide attempts.

Does this mean that children shouldn’t receive therapy in situations where a child is estranged from one of their parents? No.

There are respectful and accepted techniques available that do not involve coercion or confinement that can help children in these situations. For example, one technique involves listening to children and helping them sort through their often conflicted feelings about their parents. This form of therapy, when done with a neutral therapist who is committed to safeguarding the interests of the child, is a more humane and appropriate approach. In addition, this is the approach that is most likely to be effective.

For all of these reasons, the LC strongly supports the judge’s decision described in the Globe and Mail article, and advises parents seeking remedies for children from whom they are estranged to seek less coercive and more ethical forms of treatment. Also, courts should resist ordering children into any treatment that is coercive and experimental. Instead, any court-ordered treatment should abide by APA ethical guidelines and be based on empirical evidence.

Children have a right to their thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and opinions. The legal interests of warring adults should not be the agenda that drives the mental health approach used for vulnerable children.

Our Concerns Regarding “Deprogramming” Therapy

1. Being Confined and Isolated from Family and Friends in an unfamiliar Setting May be a Traumatic Experience for Children Leading Them to Feel Trapped, Helpless, and Powerless.

Isolating a child from everyone they are familiar with and attempting to force a new view of their parents, especially by strangers who know little about the child’s experiences with their parents can be traumatic. This is of particular concern as many children being exposed to these techniques have reported a history of abuse from the very individuals they are being forced to reunify with. 

One girl subjected to this treatment was placed in a treatment facility by her father. The therapists adopted the father’’s viewpoint and the child was repeatedly told that her father who had abused her on a numerous occasions, hadn’t. She finally parroted what she was told to say in order to get out the facility where she was being held. When returned to her father, she ran away from home and lived on the streets until she was able to get a judge to listen to listen to her. She was finally allowed to return to her mother after a hearing in which the young teen’s concerns were finally listened to.

Coercive and punitive “therapies” are especially inappropriate when used on children who have already been traumatized. These children may find this kind of setting a “trigger” for further post-traumatic reactions. Forced reunification against a child’s will and without taking into consideration the child’s point of view and emotional well-being, can be expected to reinforce a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in an already vulnerable child. Such “treatment” can be expected to do more harm than good, and could potentially cause lasting emotional harm. 

2. According to APA Ethical Standards, Psychologists Respect and Protect Civil and Human Rights (Preamble to the APA Ethical Guidelines)

The right to one’s belief system is considered the most basic of human rights. The confinement of a child who has committed no wrong doing away from parents and friends in unfamiliar surroundings in order to force them to adopt a new belief system may violate a child’s basic civil rights.

3. According to APA Ethical Principles, Individuals have a Basic Right to Self-Determination (Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity)

Being forced to change one’s belief system may violate the principle of self-determination.

4.  According to APA Ethical Principles, Psychologists Avoid Multiple Relationships to Avoid Conflicts of Interest (APA Ethics code: 3.05) 

According to ethical standards set forth by the APA, “a psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.”

A psychologist who has contracted with a parent to force a child against his will into a relationship is engaged in a dual relationship. One with the contracting parent and one with the client-child. The child’s goals and interests may be in direct conflict to those of the parent that has engaged the therapist. This dual role presents an unavoidable conflict that would keep the child’s feelings, beliefs, and desires from being central during treatment.  

5. According to APA Ethical Principles, Psychologists Must Engage in Therapeutic Services Only After Obtaining Informed Consent – Even when a Client is Not Legally Capable of Giving Informed Consent, The Psycologist Still Must Explain the Procedures, Consider the Individual’s Preferences and Gain Their Assent Prior to Treatment. (APA Ethics code: 3.10).

According to ethical standards set forth by the APA, “For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an appropriate explanation, (2) seek the individual’s assent, (3) consider such persons’ preferences and best interests..”

It is not possible to obtain meaningful informed consent from children who are isolated from family and friends, confined in a facility and subjected to coercive treatment.

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

Alaska: Palin’s Ex-Brother-in-law in New Child Custody Dispute

Wooten in child custody dispute

By MARY PEMBERTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_ak_troopergate_trooper.html

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Michael Wooten, the Alaska State Trooper at the center of the Troopergate scandal over whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, is now embroiled in a power struggle of his own – a custody dispute with an ex-wife.

His 12-year-old son did not return to his mother’s home in Washington state as planned at the end of the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, and Wooten’s ex-wife is threatening legal action.

Cynthia Allocco of Vancouver, Wash., was married to Wooten for 4 1/2 years. The couple, who only have the one child, divorced in 1999.

Allocco said if she can’t get the court to issue an emergency order for the return of her son, she will ask the FBI to investigate this as a kidnapping.

“Michael Wooten thinks he is above the law,” Allocco said Monday, after arriving at her lawyer’s office in Anchorage. “What I can’t fathom is why this man is allowed to get away with so much.”

Allocco said her lawyer planned to seek an emergency court order to get the boy returned to his mother.

Wooten told The Associated Press on Monday that the last custody order gave him primary physical custody of the boy, and his son wants to live with him, Wooten said.

“I would really appreciate it if you would let me be a father and raise my kids,” he said, before declining to comment further.

Wooten and Allocco have equal legal custody of the child. According to a court document, Wooten was granted temporary physical custody in January with the arrangement to be re-evaluated in six months “based on the desires” of the child.

In June, Allocco said the boy decided to return to her in Washington.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, the boy was supposed to spend eight days in Alaska with his father but did not return as planned on Saturday, Allocco said.

“In my opinion, he has basically kidnapped my child,” she said.

Wooten gained notoriety during heightened scrutiny of Palin, who was the vice presidential candidate for the Republican party this year. Investigators sought to determine whether the governor abused her power when firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

Monegan had said his dismissal was tied to his refusal to fire Wooten, who was involved in a bitter divorce and custody battle with another ex-wife, Palin’s sister Molly McCann.

Palin said her displeasure with Monegan was over budget disputes.

Two investigations were conducted but came to different conclusions. One found that she had abused her power in allowing her family and staff to pressure Monegan; the other found there was no probable cause to believe she or any other state official violated the state’s code of ethics.

During the investigations, it was revealed that Wooten had been disciplined under a different public safety commissioner for certain violations, like drinking a beer in his patrol car and demonstrating a Taser on a 10-year-old stepson.

In 2006, Palin told the state trooper security detail that Wooten had threatened to kill her father, Chuck Heath, the previous year because he offered to hire a divorce lawyer for her sister.

Wooten admitted using the Taser on his stepson but denied drinking in his patrol car. He also denied ever being a threat to Heath or the Palin family.

Allocco said she discovered Friday, the day before her son was to return to Washington, that Wooten was seeking to have $933 a month in child support payments stopped.