Federal Representatives to State Courts: Improve Adjudications

From The Center for Judicial Excellence:

Guess what?

It’s August Recess — and federal lawmakers are home in their Districts until Labor Day!

Now is your chance to get your House Rep signed on
as a co-sponsor of H Con Res 72 to prioritize child safety in family courts!

Join us for a one-hour advocacy training with Kathleen Russell, Executive Director of the Center for Judicial Excellence, and Connie Valentine, the Founder of the California Protective Parents Association to learn:

  • What does H Con Res 72 say?
  • What happens when it passes the House of Representatives?
  • How do I schedule a meeting, and with whom? house concurrent res 72 8 2018
  • Who and what should I bring to the meeting?
  • What should I say there?
  • How should I follow up?
  • What is most effective? (hint: good legislators supporting good laws!)

To RSVP for the ZOOM call, send your: name, county, state, phone number and email address to: gettraining@yahoo.com

You will receive a personal invitation via email after speaking with us to ensure that this call is a good fit for you! Together, we will do this!!

child safety days dc september 9 to 12 2018

Also, join us this September 9, 10, 11 and 12 in Washington DC! We will train protective parents on Sunday afternoon to lobby for child safety in family courts and then fan out for three days of meetings to seek even more H Con Res 72 co-sponsors and supporters.

If you can get yourselves to DC, we can put you to work for child safety!

Let’s Do This!


Current list: Cosponsors: H.Con.Res.72 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)


To find an upcoming screening, visit: divorcecorp.com

Dr. Drew: Get This Conversation Going

“What bothers me more than anything as a physician,

if this sort of chummy relationship existed

between doctors

and any other providers of services, 

there would be outrage.”

                                                                                                                        – Dr. Drew Pinsky

And so, the public conversation begins.  . . . 

@Sbuden1Buden Outrageous lack of accountability in the family court system, “the players” ie judges, appointees know it! #divorcecorpchat
— Kathleen Russell (@MarinKat) January 8, 2014 
#divorcecorpchat#divorcecorpchat CT AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation of Courts) chapter is headed by 3 Superior Court Judges
— Scott Buden (@Sbuden1Buden) January 8, 2014 
@drdrew@DoctorKarin Fulton court is asked to consider the needs of a child making outcries #DivorceCorpChatpic.twitter.com/s77YR4ibI1
— My Advocate Center (@MyAdvocateCentr) January 8, 2014 
#divorcecorpchat Fooling yourselves. Nothing can be done. Judges in league w/ guardians and lawyers, all about $. Ex parte de rigueur.
— stacey_hudson (@stacey_hudson) January 8, 2014 
IN AMERICA!! “@drdrew: .@divorcecorp one father ended up in prison for 5 yrs for simply criticizing the judge on his blog. #divorcecorpchat
— Michael Brigante (@MichaelBrigante) January 8, 2014 
@divorcecorp anyone thinking about marriage or divorce needs to educate themselves about the realities of family courts #divorcecorpchat
— Dr Drew (@drdrew) January 8, 2014 

#DivorceCorpChat on Twitter . . . 

Attention: Protective Parents in Family Courts

photo: dwinslow

photo: dwinslow

December 20, 2013

by Diana Winslow 

Concerned parents were elated this week when a much awaited segue for them to speak came forward as an invitation from the federal government, asking for clarifications on identified problems with child human rights in court, family rights in court and the lack of a uniform structure to respond to child sex abuse investigations, child abuse investigations and placement of children with a parent who is not known to them, has committed crimes against the other parent or is convicted of crimes that put the child at risk in their care.

Following a march on Washington DC and a Congressional Briefing this Summer members of Congress heard and were concerned about the severity and frequency with which child custody issues are mishandled, to the point of injury to the child or protesting parent.  It is remarkable that BOTH events happened despite the sequester, AND that these actions generated interest and an invitation.

Some cases are so problematic, as with the classic case illustrated in the October 2012 Documentary of Holly Collins, called “No Way Out But One“, that the parent is forced to flee the situation, due to deafness in authorities, investigators, systems system law and policy, court law and policy, and court systems. Succinctly, the definition of being run into the ground by such system based problems is called “Systems Induced Trauma.” Beyond victimization in a specific social or family situation, the family, one or all members are further agitated, abused or traumatized by the applied services and policies of systems that interlock without oversight, basically trapping the persons perpetuating a complaint without safety and resolutions.

The US Department of Justice is ready now to consider cases of chaos caused by State child and family courts. USDOJ is calling for child custody outlines in a format. The purpose of providing the outline is for the writer to simply and systematically give structured information regarding the problem case in question.

The US Department of Justice wants timelines of these outrageous cases.

Just complete and send your case in this format to: Mary Seguin atricourtcon@gmail.com by January 15, 2014 so she can provide them to the DOJ. The USDOJ invitation was issued to the representing group at the Summer March and Congressional Briefing: The California Protective Parents Association.

(Update 1/6/14: The original notice regarding requested timelines is from the California Protective Parents Association November 2013 Newsletter  which says: “Please send the timeline to cppa001@aol.com so we can forward them in a group to DOJ.” Some parents are sending copies of the case timelines – first received and time stamped at local DOJ offices – via certified mail to: U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001.

The email address “atricourtcon@gmail.com” noted in the Examiner article above is for those interested in joining a complaint filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. Please see the CPPA November 2013 newsletter for more information. –  Julia )


Format for the Letter to the USDOJ

Who you are

 1. Contact information:

 2. Background:

3. Education:

4. Former employment:

5. Criminal record (arrests and convictions):


Who your former partner/husband/wife is

1. Background:

2. Education:

3. Former employment:

4. Criminal record (arrests and convictions):


Reports of physical or sexual assault/battery and/or incest

1.  Law enforcement (give name of office and address):

Date, Name and title of officer, Outcome of investigation and report:Child Protective Services (give name of office and address):

2. Social worker/Counselor/Other:

Date, Name and title of worker, Outcome (including not reporting to criminal authorities to investigate):

 3. Court personnel (give title and address):

Date, Name and title of professional, Outcome(including not reporting to criminal authorities to investigate):

4. Other offices/individuals:

Date, Name and title of professional, Outcome (including not reporting to criminal authorities to investigate):


Intimidation against you that deterred you from reporting

1. Who intimidated you:

2. How were you intimidated:


Gag orders

1. Who gave you a gag order (name, title, date, place):

2. Rationale given for gag order to not talk about these recurring crimes of incest and assault and battery:

3. Removal of child(ren) from you after you reported criminal physical or sexual assault/battery and/or incest:


Response from Social Services

1. Name and title of person(s), recommendations for investigation/ removal/ supervision:

2. Date of recommendation and where recommendation was filed:

3. Name and title of person ordering removal of children (if removal was ordered) :

4. Date of order and where order was filed:


Supervised visitation

1. Name and title of person recommending supervised visits:

2. Reason given for recommendation:

3. Name and title of person who ordered supervised visits:

4. Date and place order was made:

5. Name of specific visitation center you were ordered to attend:

6. Amount of fees:

7. Dates and times you were ordered to attend:

8. If you were not ordered to a specific visitation center, name of visitation center you chose:

9. Was this center paid by the county:


Motions you filed for relief

1. Date and place filed:

2. Who filed the motion:

3. What lawyers were involved:

4. Outcome of the motion:

*At the end of the time line, please provide note: Supporting evidence is being compiled in exhibits.”

Parents in and out of CPS courts and family/divorce courts face a hamster wheel of demands, which beyond the direct trauma to the family, often exhaust financial and emotional resources, cost jobs and personal assets. Most everyone knows at least ONE case like this. Please pass this article along to others who might be affected.

Task Force Member: Might be a Year-Long Thing

Connecticut Task Force 12 10 13

Click on above link for Connecticut Task Force December 10, 2013 video

For the last two months, Connecticut has held open meetings to find better ways protect children in that state’s family courts.

Although the original plan was to have the study done by January, task force member Ms. Jennifer Verraneault says, “It might be a year-long thing.” 

As Ms. Verraneault spoke those words, most task force members probably dreaded the thought of volunteering their time for an extended period. Yet every few weeks, the task force meets, and another can of worms opens – with reasons to continue the study for as long as it takes. 

According to Connecticut Special Act No. 13-24, the task force is to study: 

(1) the role of a guardian ad litem and the attorney for a minor child in any action involving parenting responsibilities and the custody and care of a child,

(2) the extent of noncompliance with the provisions of subdivision (6) of subsection (c) of section 46b-56 of the general statutes and the role of the court in enforcing compliance with said subdivision, and

(3) whether the state should adopt a presumption that shared custody is in the best interest of a minor child in any action involving the custody, care and upbringing of a child.

Such study shall include, but not be limited to, an examination of state statutes applicable to an action involving the custody, care and upbringing of a child, and the costs associated with contested divorce actions, including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees including the fees of guardians ad litem and attorneys for the minor children. Such study may include recommendations for legislation on matters studied by the task force.

Another can opened this past Tuesday, when Co-Chair Sharon Wicks Dornfeld spoke about her knowledge of  the use of “Private Special Masters” to hide tax fraud in Connecticut family courts.

She told the group:

 “There are some individuals — I can think of several retired judges — who are, make themselves available to serve as private Special Masters, but it is not a volunteer thing. It is a program in which the parties pay them and whatever their agreed upon hourly rate is.

Uh, there have also been circumstances in which I can recall that there are lawyers who will say that, for whatever reason — and I will give you a classic example of a reason — where it becomes apparent that one or both of the parties have been engaged in essentially tax fraud that would be very adverse to their clients’ interest if it were to come  before a judge who would be required to make a referral to the state’s attorney or to the IRS for example. There are circumstances in which the attorneys will say, “Let’s try and get this out of the judicial system. Let’s hire a Special Master — not necessarily a retired judge, sometimes it’s very experienced family attorneys — and see if we can, you know, make it happen that way.”

Since the filmed meetings are available for public viewing online, there’s now public knowledge of a credible witness who knows about Connecticut’s attorneys and retired judges hiding tax fraud in child custody cases.

Judgments in those cases will need to be set aside, federal authorities will need to investigate, and Ms. Verraneault will have been proven right about how long all of this is going to take.

An  AP article in the Wall Street Journal last May might explain why Ms. Wicks Dornfeld speaks so comfortably about her colleagues hiding tax fraud.

According to the author of the article, Connecticut lawyers:

are shielded from fraud lawsuits under absolute immunity, a doctrine dating back to medieval England. The doctrine was intended to promote people speaking freely at judicial proceedings without fear of being sued and to avoid hindering an attorney’s advocacy for his or her client.” 

The task force is obliged to take its time – and as many task forces and committees it takes – to protect Connecticut’s children and families from what looks like a lawless system. Considering the disclosure noted above, Connecticut legislators should form another task force or allow the current task force to form an ad hoc committee. The new task force or ad hoc committee can be called something like, “Committee to Study Types of Fraud Currently Allowed in Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children in Connecticut”.

Thousands of victims of various kinds of fraud in Connecticut’s family court system would appreciate the opportunity to participate in such a study.   

Family Court in Denmark


On Thursday transmitter TV 2 | ØSTJYLLAND documentary “The secret network”.

About 450 women in Denmark are fighting to protect their children from the children’s fathers. One of the key figures behind the network is Sidsel Lyster, the now former pastor of Tirstrup in Jutland.

The women are ready to go underground or move abroad and go to jail to avoid disclosure of their children to the fathers, they either suspect or have evidence of violent, pedophiles or abusers. For, according to women and more experts, the new Parental Responsibility laws have made it virtually impossible to stop socializing with parents who are either violent, drug addicts or sex offenders.

Instead, the Act requires that parents must cooperate and make sure that the child has the opportunity to see both parents. And if the anxious parent does not cooperate, he or she risks losing custody of the child. Conditions under sharp criticism from the EU.

TV 2 | ØSTJYLLAND the past year followed the struggle of women inside the secret network and followed with when they go underground.

Join us on Thursday on TV 2 | ØSTJYLLAND pm. 19.50.

“… the leading country in the world …”

From Mothers of Lost Children:

Congressional Briefing October 2, 2013 (Part One)

Congressional Briefing October 2, 2013 (Part Two)  (Part Three)  (Part Four)

“I hope all Family Court judges listen.”

by Julia Fletcher

There are plenty of victims – more than in the Penn State scandal. There’s plenty of evidence – more than in the Catholic Church scandal. Plenty of studies have already been done and in place of hundreds of mainstream news reporters is deafening silence.

Except for the news reporters in one mainstream news station. The FOX 11 news team in Los Angeles, California is single-handedly investigating and reporting the national family court crisis. When children are finally protected in our family courts, it might be because FOX News LA reported the holocaust when no other mainstream news stations would.

From FOX News LA:

“A father just ax murdered his son.”

This email  appeared in my inbox last February. The email’s author had been warning me about judges in custody cases. She said they refused to listen to  parents and children – even when they had evidence they were in danger. Sometimes, she said, the judges were even taking kids away from moms – just for trying to protecting their kids.

Unbelievable?  I thought so , too. She said if I didn’t do something, more kids would die. Then 9-year-old Matthew Hernandez was murdered. Yes, with an axe. While he slept on the couch. His father is charged with the murder.

“I told you,” my email friend wrote. “Why don’t you believe me?”

By then, I did believe her. I had read the clippings she sent, particularly the ones about the murder of Baby Wyatt. That father had posted his death threats all over the internet. 

The mother warned judge, who did nothing. The father later shot Wyatt. Then himself. 

I read about case after case in Family Court: Judges warned. Mother’s desperate pleas – ignored. Children murdered. Two fathers are on trial right now for murdering their kids in these kind of cases.

So when I heard about the funeral for the ax-murdered boy – 9-year-old Matthew Hernandez — I got in my car and headed north. When I arrived, gospel music filled the large, empty Sacramento church. Matthew’s grandmother was draped over Matthew’s casket, sobbing right next to his Teddy bear. Soon hundreds of friends, relatives and community members filled the pews. It was standing room only. Matthew’s young mother, Jessica, looked shattered. She says  she warned the judge her ex was dangerous.  But he didn’t listen. The family says he didn’t even investigate. Matthew paid the price.

I was so moved by Matthew’s funeral, I wanted to find out how many other judges were warned before they handed over children to dangerous men. I talked to several moms. Many were too devastated to come on television. But not Andrea Gallegos. 

Andrea was brave enough to sit in front of our cameras and re-live the horror of having her 2-year-old son, Isaac, murdered. She pleaded with the judge, John M. Pacheco, to look at the photos of Isaac’s bruised body – proof that the father was abusing him.

The family says the Pacheco just tossed them aside. Then turned to her, according to court transcripts, and told her she was “over reacting.” Then they say,  he threatened to take her son away from her if she kept it up. It must be confusing to be a judge.  Especially in these emotional custody cases. But threatening to take away the son of  a 23-year-old mother who is begging for help?

“That’s what we do,” Judge Pacheco said, according to the court transcript.

In context, it seems he meant that courts give the child to the parent who is most willing to cooperate with the court. The next time little Isaac came home with bruises from his dad, the family told me they didn’t know what to do – or who to turn to for help.

That’s what this judge did.  Silenced a family.  And a child died. I hope Judge Pacheco listens to Andrea this time. I hope all Family Court judges listen.

Written by: Martin Burns, Investigative Producer

Skeptical of Mother’s Worries, Believing Father’s Claims


We have sent information before about the horrible tragedy of the murder of Prince Rams— the toddler who died while in his father’s unsupervised custody.  Prince’s mother, Hera McLeod, had begged the courts to continue supervision of the visits.  Instead the court lifted that supervision and Prince died.  We write to let our followers know that Joaquin Rams has now been charged with premeditated murder of his own toddler. Rams had taken out three life insurance policies on Prince, totaling approximately $500,000. Our hearts go out to Hera, all those who fear a similar outcome in their own cases, and, of course, to those like Amy Castillo, who have already gone through the same horror.

photo: http://www.cappuccinoqueen.com/

“This was the last time he fell asleep on my lap.” Hera McLeod

Click here for the Washington Post’s most recent editorial following the father’s arrest.  We applaud the Post for keeping on this story and seeking to hold the courts accountable.  This was a murder that the mother predicted and the court made possible.

 The family court judge made a common mistake: Demanding proof of a crime before restricting a father’s access.  Yet, custody and visitation determinations do not require absolute proof of past violence.  These decisions are supposed to further a child’s “best interests.” This is different from criminal proceedings where the accused will lose his liberty if found “guilty.” Determining a child’s best interests means, as any responsible parent knows, that one has  to assess risk, not proof.  If the risks are there, i.e.  if there’s reasonable concern, that should be more than enough to ensure that a child is protected during visits.

“Real Problems” in Third Branch of Government

From the Congressional Testimony of Daniel Severson to Bill Windsor of Lawless America:

“At first I kind of discounted it as some people who have just, you know, fallen on some bad times and been in the grinder – but the more I began to research and the more I began to look at the statutes in what was going on in our judicial branch, I began to see that there were some real problems that we have in our third branch of government, the judiciary.” 

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them. 

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, email:  Nobodies@att.net


“I have the court transcripts…”

From the transcript of the Business Meeting of the Judicial Council of California for October 25, 2012:

Yupa Assawasuksant: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me today to give my testimony. Please bear with me. I come from Thailand and I try to express my concern, reasonable concern in another language.

My name is Yupa Assawasuksant, I am a registered nurse who received award from the medical school. I receive the daisy pin for being an extraordinary nurse at Kaiser. I am also a divorced mother of 15 years old boy and I have been through Marin family court for the past 12 years. I am asking you today please make sure the mediation working fine and not destroyed.

Please listen to my story from my heart to yours.

Please imagine if you have a medical problem and your doctor destroy all your medical history. When you — medical exam is pending. It will be a crime, wouldn’t it be?

My son came home from an explanation private genital — private genital. Nobody no why. My ex-husband was claimed that he put something at my son private genital. My son came home and talking about pornography that he was seeing at his father house. My son was exposed to the violent video game of his father at age of 6 years old.

In 2006 while we were taking our son to the doctor appointment, the father was whispered to our minor son that I’m going to be killed or died. My son told me, told the police, and told a judge in court. My request was — my request for a restraining order was denied. We went through to custody trial in 2005 and 2007, I documented everything in my pleading. I was forced to go to the mediation, with the Court mediator, Gary Wool. During my first interview with my son, my son told her his father was hitting him. She did not include in her report to the Court. Filed in her handwritten notes that my son had informed her that his father was hitting him. She also testified during cross examination that she did not read the court file or any of my pleading, not one.

I won that trial with the 26 days a month with my son. Then Judge came into the family bench in 2007. My ex-husband file another custody motion. I ask for a different mediator. My request was denied. I challenged her, Dr. Wu sent another recommendation that I lost all the custody of my minor son and placed me on to supervised visitation per week, no holiday, no vacation, and the father did not ask any of that. During the second trial she testified again,

Dr. Wu testified again during cross-examination, she did not read the file, but she head all the father’s pleadings. She testified during cross-examination she did not know the local rule and the State law.

Even following the court mediation proceeding and procedure, I document everything I got all the transcript and I present all my information transcript to the legislature in support of the state audit of Marine family Court. Which is include my son pictures of — explanation, bruises as big as a fist side. Medical report, dental report, school report cards, and especially the note that the Court mediator, handwritten note that my son was telling her that his father hitting him. And all was destroyed before the audit could take place. Anyway, I just would like to say this before I go that we need the court reporter and the video in the Court. In the courtroom to be — retaliation by the judge and organized crime by the court mediator.


Thank you for having me today.


Congressional Testimony of  Yupa Assawasuksant to Bill Windsor of Lawless America:

You can forgive, but you still have to have justice.

From Lawless America:

Interview: Gregory Rose with Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them. 

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, email:  Nobodies@att.net

“I had lost everything…”

From OC Weekly:

You might assume – – wrongly, it turns out – – that lying to a juvenile court commissioner so a woman’s two daughters would be taken away from her for years would cost two County of Orange social workers their jobs. 

Even if you didn’t believe those workers lied after the first court judgment, surely you’d see the light after the highest court in the land agreed with previous court rulings and the $4.9 million judgment in favor of Seal Beach mom Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick, right? Wrong.

One worker was even promoted and now trains other Orange County social workers. Read more …

From Lawless America:

Interview: Deanna Fogarty to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them. 

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, email:  Nobodies@att.net

“On that tragic day, I kissed my children goodbye…”

From Lawless America:

Congressional Testimony: Yevgenia Shockome to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them. 

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, email:  Nobodies@att.net

Richard Gardner’s Smoking Guns and Elephants

Revised: January 4, 2014

by Julia Fletcher

The only time children aren’t protected in family court is when no one knows how to protect them and no one wants to talk about it.  

Ever since Dr. Richard Gardner started marketing his ideas in lectures, “expert witness” courtroom testimony and self-published books, proverbial elephants in the room have stood in the middle of courtrooms, feeding at the troughs of hundreds of thousands of child custody cases with their backs facing abused children.  Those elephants have been in the middle of courtrooms all over the country and all over the world for about the last four decades. They’ve been risking lives,  ruining lives and taking lives.

It’s time for the elephants to leave.

Richard Gardner’s elephants are big, but they’re not complicated. In fact, as soon as everyone realized how twisted Richard Gardner’s theories were, the elephants should have been out the door.

Perhaps the first step is to ask this: Since those in authority must have known how disturbed Dr. Gardner was , why were the elephants allowed to stay? Was it because he earned a degree in psychiatry or because he invented a new “syndrome”?

He called the new creation, “The Parental Alienation Syndrome” — except it wasn’t a syndrome. It was a strategy.

The National District Attorneys Association knew it was a strategy and published the article,  Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 and Part 2 in November 2003. 

They wrote:

PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Prosecutors should educate themselves about PAS and be prepared to argue against its admission in court. In cases where PAS testimony is admitted, it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to educate the judge and jury about the shortfalls of this theory. As more criminal courts refuse to admit PAS evidence, more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system.

What have the authorities done since then to protect us from the “PAS” scam?

One way to measure the progress would be to count the cases in which attorneys, Guardians ad litem, Attorneys for Minor Children, custody evaluators, mediators, visit supervisors, parenting coordinators and judges feed the elephants every Monday through Friday.

Another would be to count the cases in the headlines each week about “high-conflict custody battles” ending in tragedy.  

Meanwhile, travelling from case to case and show to show all over the country, those peddling Gardner’s theories, his vocabulary and Gardner-like vocabulary, fuel the fires of lucrative “high conflict” custody cases. Long lines of mothers and fathers accompanied by attorneys who have hired evaluators, who recommend mediators and reunifiers to be followed up by social workers, Guardians ad Litem and/or Attorneys for Minor Children who bring with them witnesses and experts  –  form long lines, walking one by one through courthouse metal detectors, past security guards and into family courtrooms where judges who manage these cases drag entire childhoods into the ground until the children “age out of the system”. 

Most everyone working in family court sees what’s happening in case after case — and most pretend they don’t.

It’s that lack of honest discussion for the last four decades which has purchased shiny new things for those who set up and use the PAS scam in family courts. One attorney representing a protective mother in Italy spoke about the use of PAS in the Italian courts, aptly called it GAS:


I do not maintain that, in the name of the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) supposing that this pathology exists – and I am among those who firmly do not believe in it – that one can take children away from mothers or that it is possible to place children in foster homes for an indeterminate period of time – as happens for those poor mad offenders who violate the law and go to the criminal asylums (which are next to close down). 

On the contrary, those who have serious mental problems are treated in a better way. They receive TSO (Involuntary Mental Health Treatment) and after fifteen days they are set free. The disease which surely exists in Italy and which is becoming more and more widespread is the GAS, acronym of the “Sindrome di Alienazione Giudiziaria” (Judiciary Alienation Syndrome).

This is one that actually exists: The citizens’ distrust of the Italian Judicial System is at it’s peak and there is no sign of improvement despite the experts’ government we have.

So I would ask psychologists and social workers to deal with from now on, the GAS instead of the PAS, and we will see who they suggest to be placed in the foster homes instead of the children.”

Rome 17th October 2012

Attorney Giuseppe Lipera

The PAS scam is wherever Gardner’s theories were spread and and wherever family court attorneys, child custody evaluators, parental coordinators and judges don’t talk about or care about whether or not child abuse occurred. Here’s why: According to Dr. Gardner’s theories, “inducing parental alienation in a child” is far worse than emotionally, physically and/or sexually abusing a child.

It should be no surprise to anyone that most child custody cases in which Dr. Gardner’s twisted theories reign drag on for the entire childhood of a child who is the subject of it all. Various attorneys, custody evaluators and  parenting coordinators come and go, joining and leaving and joining the same circus year after year. Sometimes three or four elephants are needed to carry them all by the time the children “age out of the system”.

The attorney’s statement above and Gardner’s lecture below show what a nightmare of a spectacle it’s been ever since Dr. Gardner first began to spread his theories throughout the United States and other countries.

Maybe there’s enough of a smoking gun in the following transcript to show those with the power to do something where those elephants are so they can spoken about and removed from every family court.

The transcript is of Gardner’s lecture in The Netherlands in 1999. He’s speaking at a conference called “The Child’s Best Interest Conference”. He tells his audience about the “medical syndrome” he invented and named “The Parental Alienation Syndrome”. He recites his definition of “medical syndrome”. He lists the physiological and psychological symptoms of Down Syndrome and expects his audience will make the leap to believe “The Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) is a “medical syndrome” too. At least one man in the audience who laughs the loudest at Dr. Gardner’s jokes seems happy to make that leap.

One problem that isn’t talked about is that physiological and psychological signs and symptoms found in syndromes like Down Syndrome are not found in Richard Gardner’s “PAS”. There are no outward physical characteristics of “PAS”. No genetic difference, hormonal imbalance or vitamin deficiency. There are no weak or excessive nerve impulse patterns. No abnormal change in any bodily fluid, tissue or function.

Lacking a scientifically definitive list, Dr. Gardner appears confused, interrupting and contradicting himself throughout his lecture. He tells his audience the following:

  •  Mild, Moderate and Severe “PAS” is “a disease” found only in the context of child custody disputes.
  •  Mothers acquire this “disease” from the family court process – fathers, not so much.
  •  There are two components of the “PAS”: 
  1. The moth parent  brainwashes the child in “a campaign of denigration” against the other parent; and, 
  2. The child’s own contributions to the “campaign of denigration”.
  • Although Dr. Gardner doesn’t mention it during his lecture, one should apparently also look for certain speech patterns in infected mot  parents. Specific inflections of a mother’s voice might include: anxious, angry, impatient, flustered, fearful, terrified, inconsiderate, rude, and/or obnoxious.
  • In addition, the clinician should be able to hear all of the parents’ telephone conversations  – which requires certification in Phone Tap 101.

In place of talking about behavioral data showing the difference between symptoms of malicious alienation and symptoms of emotionally, physically and sexually abused children, Dr. Gardner acts out short skits.

Instead of comparing and contrasting reliable and scientifically valid  therapeutic responses to malicious alienation with the reliable and scientifically valid therapeutic responses to emotionally, physically and sexually abused children, Dr. Gardner tells jokes.

He displaces actual child abuse statistics and data which provide plausible reasons for paternal abuse and maternal abuse with this theory:

“The women were the primary caretakers primarily, and the children wanted to be bonded more with the mothers because they want the mothers to have more availability, more access and the children wanted to stay with their mothers, they were more strongly bonded with their mothers.”

Using examples of his “own personal experiences” to support his theory, Gardner plays the roles of mothers, fathers and  children – mostly anxious, angry, impatient, flustered, fearful, terrified, inconsiderate, rude, and/or obnoxious mothers and children who don’t sound very alienated at all.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Dr. Gardner’s lecture is that the behaviors he describes are common behaviors seen in mothers and children who have actually witnessed and/or endured emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse. Each scenario dramatized could easily be a typical day in the life of an abused mother and child. The words are there and the behaviors are there, but Gardner’s mocking impersonation of  mothers and children trivializes those same words and behaviors – leading an unsuspecting audience to believe that red flags of possible abuse should instead be automatically suspect. (See FOX NEWS interview: Retired California Family Court Judge DeAnn Salcido , Lost in the System

Gardner places behaviors actually seen in abused children in his category of: “Absurd Justifications” and speaks the words that would be cries for help in variations of the same mocking voice. He says the cases he dramatizes are cases from his office practice – in which he apparently mocked, challenged and ignored children if they:

– did not immediately disclose abuse

–  used multisyllabic words

– became angry and/or emotionally shut down when their disclosures of abuse were challenged, and/or

– if they stopped disclosing abuse after being isolated with their named abuser.

Instead of saying how we can differentiate between symptoms of real abuse and symptoms of “induced” alienation he warns, “…bringing in the child protection people in it can destroy the father’s life in one telephone call.”

He does say in passing: In cases of real abuse, “the PAS diagnosis” doesn’t apply. If you sneeze, you’ll miss that part. If you miss it, you might think alienating a child is worse than any other kind of abuse anyway – because Dr. Gardner says that too. (That part is a “must see” because it’s when he feeds the elephants.) 

Playing a teen who says his father “used to beat” his mother and threaten to hit him, Dr. Gardner morphs from the teen to a young child, using a sing-song voice  and the term “mommy”. Then he turns himself back into a teen, explaining as Gardner the Teen to Gardner the Clinician that his father threatened to hit him if he didn’t smile for a photo. He says his father makes him watch videos he “hates”. Notice the total lack of follow-up questions to clarify why he “hates” the videos. There is no “What happened before that?” or “What happened next?” Instead, after a question or two, Gardner the Clinician confronts Gardner the Teen with the allegedly abusive father’s denials of abuse – something abusers can usually do for themselves.

He mocks a hypothetical mother who complains of becoming financially destitute after divorce  – as though irreparable physical, emotional and financial damage could never leave a single parent – mother or father – without the funds to pay for food, clothes and bills.

That which Gardner says isn’t science, social theory or common sense. It’s entertainment – complete with someone in the audience laughing more loudly than the others like he’s planted in the audience to prompt others to laugh when he laughs. 

He tells a joke with a punch line about a mother in labor. He questions a four-year-old girl about her use of the word “penetrated” and sounds like he’s struggling to keep a serious look on his face. Gardner the Clinician doesn’t ask the questions most good clinicians would ask. Instead, he explains to Gardner the Hypothetical Four-Year-Old Girl that the definition of the word “penetrated” is “sexual intercourse”.

Listening to the audio of this lecture and/or reading the transcript, most should wonder how Dr. Gardner’s twisted ways became such an integral part of the family court process.

After his gig in The Netherlands, Gardner toured the world for the next four years – marketing PAS and selling his books until he died from what was said to be a suicide. The FBI should probably investigate that too.


Transcript: June 24 , 1999, Open University, Breda, The Netherlands. A One Day Symposium led by Richard A. Gardner M.D. on The Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Um… When I was a student in high school, and a, my teacher, one of my teachers, was giving me guidelines for writing a… an article, book review, or just any kind of an article. The guideline was this: Tell them what you’re going to say, say it, and then tell ‘em what you’ve said. And that helped increase my grades. It’s a very good principle.

So I’m going to tell you what I’m going to say first. And that is, that the legislators have power to give judges power to cure the disease Parental Alienation Syndrome. I repeat, the ju…the legislators have the power to empower judges, to cure, to prevent The Parental Alienation Syndrome. If the legislators do not give the judges the power to cure this disease, it will continue to grow and (unintelligible) and get worse and worse.

Now, um… You people in Europe have certain advantage over us in the United States, in that you can, you can sometimes learn from the errors that we make.

I have lived in Europe for two years, from 1960 to 1962, when I lived in Germany I was in the, a, military service. And then I’ve been back and forth many times. I’ve lectured in many countries in Europe. And uh, I was a visiting professor for a couple of years at The University of Leuven.  I was a visiting professor at the University of St. Petersburg, uh, formerly uh, Leningrad, and I have lectured in various cities throughout uh Europe (unintelligible).

And I have been back and forth and I have seen certain trends. You take on our bad habits and you take on our good habits. Kind of what Oppenheimer once said, uh, “The United States is the greatest country in Europe.”

And I think there’s a lot of truth to that.  But, we may be very bright, but we also have made mistakes. And bad habits start and you people pick them up a few years later.

So I’m going to tell you something about what’s going on in the United States and give you some advice, the same advice I’m giving in the United States. You’ll see how this all falls into place as I progress.

Let me first talk about the Parental Alienation Syndrome and elaborate what I mean by it. You have in your handout materials in the doc… this document, which I strongly recommend you look at as I talk. It’s an outline of my presentation. There are two pages. The diagnosis of The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the treatment, oh … I’m very sorry. There’s been an error! The um… this one sheet should have been diagnosis and one sheet should have been treatment. It was reproduced incorrectly.

So I’ll talk about the diagnosis and I’m going to just verbally tell you about the treatment. It’s unfortunate that… that error was made.

Okay let’s talk about the diagnosis. It is a syndrome. What is the definition of a syndrome? A syndrome in medicine is a collection of symptoms that justify being put together because they occur together and they may have a common cause. A good example of a syndrome would be Down Syndrome, uh in which you have a combination of uh mental retardation, um.. you have a uh, a drooping lip. You have a facial expression that is… is similar to Asian people. And it was because of that, that in… in the, in the last century, it was called “Mongolian Idiocy” because the facial expression was similar to Asians and of the mental retardation. Of course today, we would not… we’d find that offensive and we would not name a disorder uh, in that manner. Uh, but that was the original name. In addition, the children had certain uh, abnormal creases of the palms of the hands and uh… uh a shortening of the fifth finger. Now when you look at all those symptoms, why do they fit together? We now know that there’s a certain genetic abnormality that explains that.

And so it’s a cluster of symptoms that appear together in uh, and that warrant a uh, a that cluster is given the name “a syndrome” and… uh… you may or may not know the cause. I observe the syndrome and I will describe it to you and then I will give you some of my ideas as to the cause of this syndrome and um, what can be done about it – going back to the legislators and going back to the judges.

Now I have been involved in doing child psychiatry uh since my training days in the late 1950s, over forty years ago.  And I have been involved in… in… in child custody litigation uh since the early 1960s – a period of about thirty-five years and I’ve observed certain… the evolution of certain developments. I did not see the Parental Alienation Syndrome until about 15 years ago. Uh, so from the late 50s and early 60s until the early 1980s I never saw this disorder.  And yet I began to see it in the early 1980s, wrote my first article on it in the mid 1980s – 1985 – and it is still growing and uh, increasingly become a problem.

Now, what are the symptoms of this disorder? Let me define it first. The Parental Alienation Syndrome is a disorder that arises almost exclusively, if not completely, in the context of a child custody dispute. I have not yet seen a case in which it was not a child custody dispute. So most often it’s the mother and father. On occasion, I’ve seen it in grandparents and a, and a step-daughter or a step-son or, or some other relatives who are fighting with the parent for the child. But it’s still a child custody dispute.

There are two components. The first is a programming or brainwashing by one parent where they brainwash into the child a campaign of denigration against the other parent. And the second component, and this is most important, is the child’s own contributions. So it’s the two together that are present when one justifies the term, um, Parental Alienation Syndrome. Um, if it were merely a question of programming or brainwashing, I would have called it that. But there was this other ingredient, the element of the child’s own contribution, that led me to the conclusion that I should provide it a… a different name and then to encompass that other component.

Now, it generally does not start until a programming parent uh, decides to program the child in order to strengthen his or her position in a child custody dispute. The hope being that the children, in the context of this campaign of… of… of denigration and hatred will then speak to the court, speak to the judges and… and the lawyers, whomever, and convince them that they should not go with the other parent because they hate him or her because that parent has been so abusive, so neglectful that complete rejection is justified and that any court or any judge that would… would put the children with this other parent would be making a serious error. And so that there is a campaign that goes on every single day in order to keep it going, to keep the… the scenarios in the memory of the children, so that they can, they can uh, give their little speeches, uh to the proper people at the proper time in order to strengthen the programmings [sic] parent’s uh position in the custody lawsuit.

Now, if I will now address myself to the eight major symptoms of The PAS, Parental Alienation Syndrome. And the term PAS is… is… is very common and it is the one that is often referred to. Uh, now the first is the campaign of denigration. The, the other parent who we call “the victimized parent”, “the victim parent”, “the alienated parent”, these are the terms that are… are coming into use uh, in the United States.

Um, it’s usually not a parent who has been an abuser. If the parent has been an abuser, then The Parental Alienation Syndrome diagnosis is not applicable. It’s only in the situation where that parent has been a reasonably  good, devoted and loving parent and then suddenly finds himself the, the target, the victim, the word “targeted parent” is also used, “the target parent”, “the victim parent” uh, to be the target of this campaign of hatred.

Uh and it’s a, it… it… it… it’s divided, you’ll see mild, moderate and severe forms. There are three categories, and the categories are very important in deciding what to do. So in the mild category, the campaign is… is a is mild, it may be uh just uh… uh maybe five ten percent of the time. It often, uh in the presence of the programmer, it will be most intense, but once the programmer is not available, not there. It’s at the transition points when the child is being transferred from one parent to the other that a, the children will come forth with these little speeches of hatred in order to demonstrate to the programmer that they are uh, saying these things that they have been programmed and brainwashed to say. Uh, and the children will uh use violent profanities, uh, spit in the face of the uh, victimized parent, uh, the most terrible names that they can think of, uh they will use uh, against their parent. And the programming parent just stands there, says nothing.

Uh, if I were to say, you know, “What do you think about uh, what he’s saying to his father? It’s very disrespectful.”

It’s… (Feminine voice, nonchalantly.)  “He’s just expressing himself. I encourage him to say how he feels. It’s important for him to express himself.”

With none of the traditional, “That’s no way to speak to your father.” You know, “If you say that again you’re going to be punished, you’ll go to your room.” No disciplinary measures uh, are uh, are imposed and that’s the way of programming the child and encourage, encouraging the child to uh, continue in this way.

Uh, the next, uh the second, there’s a weak, frivolous or absurd rationalizations for the deprecation.

So uh, you’ll say to the child, um, “Why do you hate your father so much? Why?”

He’ll say. (Voice of older child, hesitating, nervous.) “Uh, well, I,I, I can’t remember now, I’ll tell you next time.”

(Kindly.) “We have time. Please, please tell me, why?”

“Um, well, he used to chew too loud when we eat at the table.” Or, “He chews very loud.”

“Is that a reason never to see him again? “

“Yeah. Yeah. Well uh, that’s a reason.”

You’ll say to the mother, ”What do you think about that?”

(Feminine voice, flippantly.) “Well I respect his feelings and if he thinks it’s a good reason, it’s good enough for me.”

There is that support again. That’s more of the programming process. Um, some of these are very absurd. Every example I give, that I will give you today, and every example that I’ve written in any of my books and articles come from my own personal experience with these… patients. I have created none of them.  I don’t have a creative enough mind to think of these things. Every one is a true clinical experience.

“Um, well, uh, why else don’t you want to see him?”

“Um, Well, uh um, he used to belch when he eats.”

“He used to belch.” he says. “Is that the reason not to see him? He used to hiccup, or belch or burp?”

“Yeah, yeah, that’s the reason.”

“Uh, any other reason?”

“He used to hit my mother.”

(In disbelief.) “Did you ever see him hit your mother?”

(Changing his voice to a sing-song younger child’s voice.) “No, but my mommy says he… she… he used to hit her…”  >

“Did you ever…”

“…used to beat her.”

“Did you ever hear him beat your mother?”


“No? Well, how do you know? Your father says, he says he never did that. He says that your mother is lying and that he not once in his life has he ever hit her.”

(Deeper voice, talking loudly, sounding agitated .)  “He’s a liar!”

(Calmly.) “Your mother [sic]…  your father says that your mother is a liar.”

“My mother would never lie to me.”

“And my…”

“My father always lies to me.”

(Calmly). “Wha, wha.. give me another example of the time your father lies.”

“I can’t think of it now. I’ll tell you next time.”

 So, it’s… it’s… that the excuses, they have no basis in reality. Um the um…

“I never had a good time with him.  I always hated every minute of it.”

“Well. There’s a picture here, and it’s from Disney World, and your mom and your dad and you and your sister. There’s Donald Duck, and Mickey Mouse and you have a big smile on your face. You seem to be having a good time.”

“I hated every minute of it.”

“Then why are you smiling?”

“He made me smile, he said if I didn’t smile, he would beat me.”

Or uh, “He said if I didn’t say “Cheese” like this, “Say cheese”, to make believe I was smiling, that he would hit me.”

So you have these absurd justifications for the campaign, uh maybe ludicrous, but uh, the child that doesn’t appreciate how absurd they are but it’s part of the child’s campaign.

Uh, the next is lack of ambivalence. All human relationships have mixed feelings. So you , you say to a child. “Okay, I want to write down the things you like about your… mother, the things you don’t like about your mother,  things you like about your father and things you don’t like about your father.”

So when you get to the…preferred parent, everything is positive. Everything is wonderful. Anything negative? Nothing negative. And the opposite with the hated parent. Only negatives. So it, let us say it’s the mother who is the uh the target. And I’m going to come to that later. It’s an important point about the gender differences. There’s been a change, where now it’s shifting where more and more fathers are now becoming programmers and the mothers victims. That’s a recent development in the United States which I’m going to elaborate on a little later.

Um, so um…do…You’ll say, let’s say the father has programmed the child.

“I hate my mother. Uh, I can’t stand her.”

“Something positive. Something good.”

“Nothing good.”

“And in your whole life, she never did one good thing?”


And then a list all of the bad things. “What’s the bad things?”

“She makes me turn off the television and go to sleep. She makes me…she says I can’t even watch television until I finish my homework. Uh, she says uh, uh, I…, I…, I can’t go out and play with my friends until I do my homework.”

Something like that. The opposites – all positives or all negatives – nothing’s a mixture. And you see that in PAS.

Uh, then the next is the “independent thinker” phenomenon where the child claims that all these ideas are his or her own and that it has nothing to do with the influence of the programming parent.

Now, the programming parent wants the child to say that because the programming parent is often accused by the father and by others of being a programmer, of being a brainwasher. So the child says, “It’s all my own ideas and she had nothing to do with it.”

Uh and the that, the programmer says,

(Feminine voice, harshly.) “It’s your opinion, right? It’s your own opinion, right? And it’s nobody elses’ opinion, right?”

(Weakly, resigned.) “That’s my own opinion.”

Uh, and I remember one mother said, “Now you tell him, do you want to see… if you don’t want to see your father, you don’t have to see your father. I respect your right not to see your father. I respect your right. If I have to get a lawyer to protect you from seeing your father, I will do so. If I have to go to the Supreme Court of the United States to protect you from seeing your father, I will do that because I respect your right not to see your father. Now, do you want to see your father?”

(Laughter from some in audience – one laughing louder than others.)

“No, no, no.”

“See Doc? He doesn’t want to see his father.”

And then the child says, “I don’t want to see my father.”

And the (Unintelligible) will say, “It’s my idea.”

“That’s your own opinion, isn’t it?”

“Yes, that’s my opinion.” (Sounding bored, resigned.)

(Seriously at first, Gardner then changes to a lighter tone, sounding like he’s smiling. He provides no background for the case or details of what “danger” prompted the mother to approach the Supreme Court for protection. He elicits more chuckles from a few in the audience.And you see the programming. There is also the message that he is so dangerous, so dangerous that we’re going to have to get a lawyer to protect the child and that if we have to go the… the Supreme Court of the United States to hear this case, uh, on this child to see his father. Uh, but you see the programming.  And you see the child being programmed, brainwashed to profess that these opinions are his own.

Uh, the next is the reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict. Uh, no matter how strong the evidence, that the victimized parent  is… is… is in the right, has done nothing, and that the programming parent is being deceitful, the child reflexively supports the position of the programmer.

So uh the mother says, “He’s not giving us any money. He’s not sending us the money. Uh, uh, I don’t know where we’re gonna get food. We may starve. We may have to leave the house, freeze in the winter and things like that. We won’t have enough clothing to buy.”

And, and, and she… she creates in the children the… the idea that they’re going to be naked in the streets in the middle of the winter, frozen in the snow, starving to death, and it’s all because of the father because he’s not paying the money.

And, and, and the father, um says,

(Calmly, authoritatively.) “That’s a lie. That’s not true. I have checks here. Every week I give her this check and s..he shows the child, and she signs her name, that’s her name, and that means that she took that money”.

(Note: This was Gardner’s “therapy” in which the alleged abuser directly – and sometimes forcefully – confronts the child’s allegations with the “therapist” present in the room. Gardner recommended using this same confrontation in cases of child sexual abuse.)

The child looks at him and says, “That’s a forgery. You’re lying. That isn’t her s… that isn’t her signature.”

There’s no way to get the child to be convinced that perhaps that the… the programmer is lying. Uh, and, um, so there’s always support.

Uhm. The next is the absence of guilt.

The child I mentioned will spit in the face of the victimized parent. Uh, use the most vile profanities, the most hateful statements without any guilt, without any feeling of embarrassment, without feeling any… any sense of sympathy or empathy for the victimized parent. (Note to reader: It is important to know that this behavior is frequently seen in children who are forced to visit with a parent who has emotionally, physically or sexually abused them. Later in this lecture, Gardner tells his audience that parental “alienation” is worse for a child than physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse. This might be the reason, in all of these scenarios, Gardner dismisses all presented variations of alleged abuse as absurd or irrelevant.)

Uh, so I’ll say to the child, “Now, let me understand this. You say you never want to see your father again in your whole life, even if you live a thousand years.”

“Yeah, that’s right.” (Unconvincing.)

“And, uh, you say you want him to pay for all the expenses from your school, private school and private college uh, no matter how far you want to go.”

“Uh, Yeah, that’s right.” (Again, unconvincing.)

“Do you think that’s fair to him? That you never see him and that all he should do is pay them money?”

(Sounding annoyed.) “Yeah, that’s fair, that’s fair.”

“Uh, don’t you feel a little embarrassed with yourself?”

“No, I’m not embarrassed at all. I’m not guilty, no, it’s right.”

“But why?”

“Because of all those things he did.”

“All what things?”

“He’s mean. He’s always very mean to me. He made me go to Disney World. Uh, he, he, he made me uh go to movies I didn’t want to see. He… he got these video tapes that I hated.”

And… and… and all these, all these preposterous reasons.

Uh, but there’s no guilt because the programming parent is not inducing guilt, is not teaching the child good manners, respectful behavior, not reprimanding the child when the child is disrespectful and… and providing a healthy environment which teaches the child respect for the other parent. It’s the healthy parent says, “We’re divorced, I’ve had my problems with him, but he’s your father and you’re not going to speak to him that way. And you’re going to respect him and I want you to apologize to him for using those words. And if you don’t, then you’re gonna, no television.” Something like that.

Um, so you… you don’t get the parent teaching the child proper behavior, proper morals, proper ethics, proper values when it comes to the father…  uh… uh… the… the victimized parent.

The next is the borrowed scenarios. The children incorporate into their campaign, words, terms that are not age appropriate.

Uh the… the child could not possibly have that in his or her vocabulary.

A, uh, a…a…a father calls.

(Authoritatively.) “Let me speak to the children.”

(Glibly.) “They just came home from school, and they’re changing their clothes, and they’re ready to go out and play, and they’re too busy to talk to you. Call back later.”

Call back later.

“Uh, uh… oh they’re ready, they’re just ready to have supper. You can’t talk to them now.”

And hangs up and he calls again.

“It they’re they’re just finishing their dessert. You can’t talk. And stop harassing us. Stop this harassment. “

And then uh, calls again.

“They’re doing their homework. They can’t be bothered. Stop harassing us. Stop the harassment.”

“They’re watching television”

Hang up.

“They’re re, they’re reading bedtime stories. Stop this harassment.”

Hang up.

“They’re asleep.”

Hang up.

 (After somehow listening in on all of the phone conversations, Gardner moves the scene to his office.)

“Why don’t you want to see your father?”

“ He..” A four-year-old… “He harasses us.”

“Harrass? That’s a big word for a child your age. What… what does harassment mean?”

“Ask my mommy, she knows.”

That kind of thing. So you, you see where it came from. Um.

A, a sex abuse accusation is often a spin-off or a derivative in… in maybe 10 or 15 percent of the cases. And bringing in the child protection people in it can destroy the father’s life in one telephone call.

Uh, a four-year-old girl.

Uh, “Why don’t you want to see your father?”

Uh, (Young female voice.) “He penetrated me.”

“Penetrated. That’s a big word for a four-year-old girl. It means se, sexual intercourse…but…”

“He penetrated me.”

Says, “What does that mean, he penetrated you?”

“I don’t know. Ask my mommy. She said he penetrated me.”

So you see the incorporation of… of terminology that could not possibly be uh, appropriate to the child that comes into the scenarios of denigration.  

Um, the uh, last is the spread of the animosity to the extended parent… extended family of the alienated parent. Um, the um previously, uh the grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins had good relationship with the child. Now almost overnight, the child doesn’t want to speak to the grandparents or the uncles. The grandmother calls,

“I hate you Grandma. I never want to speak to you again.” Hangs up.

Uh, and uh, the grandmother of course is very pained by this, or the grandfather, uh, uncles aunts, they call up, they send presents for certain uh… events, cards, birthday cards, birthday presents, Christmas cards, Christmas presents, they’re returned, they’re thrown in the basket and there’s a sudden cut-off of all the extended family. And uh, uh… uh… and and these people may be in deep grief and pain over the loss of this child, but the alienating parent um… uh feels no sense of loss.

“I hated to go over there. I only acted as if I wanted to go but I really hated it.”

Now, as you can see from the chart, uh…these symptoms are in three categories uh, mild, moderate, uh and severe. Uh now, um, the differentiation is extremely important. And uh, if we go to the bottom part of this chart where it says “The transitional difficulties uh and the behavior”, that gives you a good idea often uh, as to which category it’s in. And so in uh transitional time, when the child is going from one parent to the other, um, you have limited or minimal problem in the mild. The moderate may be a significant problem. Uh the children refuse to go, uh, the… the father is begging, he’s trying to talk them into it, says to the programming parent, uh,

“Would you please tell them to cooperate?”

(Slightly higher-pitched voice.) “Can’t you see they don’t want to see you? Can’t you see they hate you? Don’t you get the message? What’s wrong with you? Are you blind? They hate you. Can’t you see they hate you? Why are you pushing them? Why don’t you respect their right not to see you if they don’t want to see you. What kind of a father are you?”

Those are the kinds of things which often serve to support… (Interrupting his own sentence.)

“Don’t you respect their wishes? Can’t ya see that they don’t want to go?”

And ah, or “Go to your father, we, I’ll get in trouble with the judge if you don’t go.”

Implication being that there’s no reason to go, but I’ll get in trouble, so go.”

And the children in the moderate, sometimes the visit is possible. Most often it is.  Once the children are outside of the view of the programming parent, usually they will quiet down and then they’ll be alright, …but then periodically, they catch themselves and will then start in with the campaign. Um, they um, often an older sibling will be the assistant programmer to the younger one so that you’ll have the ten or eleven-year-old girl uh, you know, who’ll watch the younger ones. And uh, uh intermittently, periodically say,

“I gotta watch, you gotta be careful of him, make sure everything’s alright….watch over you.” And then,

“I’m going to tell mommy you were nice to Daddy.”

“Daddy, I hate you, I hate you, I hate you.” And then,

So then child will go back, and go back to the mommy and say, “I told him I hated him.”

It’s traditionally, they only say bad things to the programmer. They say nothing good happened, that they were there for the whole weekend, they hated every minute of it and they couldn’t, kept look, looking at their watches to see when the time would be over and couldn’t wait to get back. The reality being, they had a great time and that periodically, they come forth with these uh, uh angry statements in order to have the material to give back to the programming parent.

In the severe form, visitation is impossible. Impossible. The children refuse to go. The programmer is often paranoid. The children believe they will be murdered, they will be poisoned, they’ll be raped. Uh they will be uh sexually abused, physically abused, neglected, beaten. Uh, uh togetherness  in the house, there’s blood-curdling shrieks, they’re trying to jump out of the window, run into the street. Uh, the.. they’re paranoid and they believe that uh… uh they will be subjected to, to terrible punishments, even though they have no evidence for it or even though they’ve never had any personal experiences to suggest  that even for one second that such things will happen to them. And so visitation is just about impossible in the severe form.

Now the behavior during visitation I described uh…

The bonding with the alienator: In the mild and moderate cases, the bonding with the alienator is usually good with the exception that the alienator, in, in order to um… strengthen his or her position in the lawsuit will um… uh, will program the children. Um, in the um, severe cases, the bonding with the alienator is usually quite set. Either the m… the uh, the alienating parent is is programming, uh, i… i… is paranoid or is extremely over protective, never trusted the um, the father, even at the very beginning.

Uh, I’ve had cases, uh, one case in which uh the mother uh refused to let the father in the delivery room. Now in recent years, this is much more common. I don’t know in Europe, in… in the US, they come in with the camcorders and they’re taking pictures of the delivery… (Gardner laughs and the audience laughs.) and they show their friends the delivery. (More laughter.)

Uh, anyway, uh…

(Feminine, irritated voice) “I don’t want you to film me. This is a personal matter.”

There was one woman, when the father came into the delivery room she said to the obstetrician… while she’s in labor, delivering,

“If you don’t get him out of here, I’m going to fire you.” (Just a few laughs.)

That’s not usually the time to fire the obstetrician.

But uh… this is the uh, the extent of the, of the uh… uh the re…the rejection. Uh, they don’t trust the father to hold the baby, he’ll drop it. I… I had one father who was a professional football player – uh, not soccer, our American football. Professional football player, and uh, the mother didn’t trust him to hold the baby. Uh, he couldn’t hold the baby, but he…he could hold footballs. And uh, this kind of thing. He would drop the baby. Uh, but these things are ludicrous and absurd, but uh, this is the extent uh to which you have people justifying uh ,the over protectiveness.

The bonding with the alienated parent is usually good. And that, as I said at the outset, if the father is a rejector, is an abandoner, is an abuser, then… uh… the “parental alienation syndrome”… uh… diagnosis is not justified because there has been no… there has been abuse and it’s an entirely different situation and this is a very important point. 

Now, let me tell you a little bit about my opinion as to what has happened, why we have this disorder, why it wasn’t until the early 1980s that I saw it and that I was doing uh, child psychiatry for maybe twenty-five years and never saw it, and then suddenly appears in the early 1980s.

I believe that the main reason relates to the uh, the fact that prior to the 1970s, uh mothers were automatically given custody. And that at least in the twentieth century, uh p… prior centuries, it was usually the fathers. That, that’s a different thing.

Um, and that in the 60s and the 70s, with the expansion of the women’s liberation movement, uh women, justifiably uh were given more opportunities for education, equal pay, job opportunities, education opportunities, all of these things which are important and wonderful developments and uh long past due. Men began to say, “Wait a minute, wait a minute. Uh the idea that a woman should be given preferential treatment in child… as primary custodial parent sets it’s… it’s…  it’s predjudiced, it’s biased against men and we want to have equal opportunity for custody of the children.”

And the legislators, the courts agreed and there became a shift where fathers had equal opportunity for custody. And what happened was that then the custody litigation began to increase uh because now fathers had a chance to be, to get primary custodial status. The… as a result, there was an increase in custody litigation and then the parents began to program the children in order to strengthen their positions in the lawsuits.

Now, up until a couple of years ago, my experience had been that it was primarily the mother who was the programmer and that although the fathers would program, they weren’t as successful and the mothers seemed to prevail. And that uh, so that most of the programmers were mothers. And in my first book on the PAS, uh, my… my first was in 1987, uh the mothers were the primary programmers. The second book in 1992, the mothers were the primary programmers. The third book, which came out in 1998, I started to see a shift. And in the last year or two, the shift has been dramatic, where I’m seeing in the US, many more fathers now who are programmers and it’s almost at the point now where it may be 50/50. And I think what’s happened is, one thing, is that fathers have read my books and are learning the techniques and so can use the same intervention. And another relates to the fact that there’s been increasing time the children have with the fathers with the expansion of father opportunities and father access so  that the more time, they have more opportunity to uh, to program the children.

So now it seems… and my own personal experiences are being verified by friends, relatives, colleagues, uh, various parts of the country who are reporting the same thing to me and when I lecture in different parts of the US, I ask my greatest fans, “What’s your experience been?” and that’s usually been uh… uh the um… uh… in… in the last year or two, it seems to be equaling out.

Let me ask this audience, for all of our interest. For those of you in this audience who have familiar with this disorder… who are familiar with the disorder, in how many cases have the  mothers been the programmer and the father the victim? By raising hands. Where it’s primarily the mothers as the programmer and the father… uh please raise hands high you should all look and see.  It seems about a third of you are raising your hands. Now, how many have seen as the… the father is the programmer and the mother is the victim? Father is the programmer… I see just a few hands. This is why we’re seeing in the U.S. … um… up until two or three years ago and now it’s changing. And if I’m correct, and so many other waves that I’ve seen to come here a few years later, uh, you probably will see more fathers as programmers if that principle continues to hold uh, of… of… of getting our bad habits here in Europe a few years after it they’ve come… they’ve become common in the United States.

Now, um, unfortunately, your uh material does not have information on the treatment. It… it’s uh there was an error, there was another error, all the publications, uh on the PAS in scientific journals have been omitted from this document as well.

You have uh, citations from the uh the legal movements in which testimony of The Parental Alienation Syndrome has been recognized by a court of law but the um, and those are listed in your document here, but all the publications of which, of which there are probably a hundred now, uh some in German literature, uh one in French and the others in English. Um, I, I would assume uh that uh, Mr. van Dijk can probably make those available to you.

Now let me say something about the treatment um and uh emphasize very important points.

(Clears throat.) The Parental Alienation Syndrome has become politicized. It has become adversarial uh… in part because anything that goes into a court of law, almost, almost automatically becomes adversarial as one lawyer supports one parent’s position and one lawyer supports the other. So it behooves one of the lawyers to come up with garbage, with lies, with misrepresentations in order to support that lawyer’s position. Another reason why it’s become politicized, is that, because women were the ones who were more often the programmers up until a couple of years ago, I was criticized as being sexist, as biased against women for claiming that women are more often the programmers.

And my answer was, “That’s the reality. Let’s not deny this reality. To call me names for describing the reality, is it loses sight, what’s the reason for it?”

The reason was that the women were the primary caretakers primarily, and the children wanted to be bonded more with the mothers because they want the mothers to have more availability, more access and the children wanted to stay with their mothers, they were more strongly bonded with their mothers.

Uh, and uh, but with time now fathers are becoming equally bonded and the children now it it’s evening out.

The… the problem that I have found is that the courts have been unreceptive to coming down heavily and being properly restrictive of the programming parent. Um. This is the central problem.

(Lowering voice. Speaking slowly, deliberately.) Um. Inducing The Parental Alienation Syndrome in a child is a form of abuse. In a way, it may even be worse than physical abuse and sexual abuse.

(Speaking more casually.) You see, in physical abuse, there comes a time when the child reaches a point where the child can s…stop the parent. You… you’re twelve you… you’re thirteen, you’re fourteen, you can fight back, you can resist, you can run away. You’re old enough to call the police and you can protect yourself somewhat. And, so it certainly reaches a… a point when it stops. Not that there aren’t ongoing psychological consequences after but it… it can stop.

(Less seriously. Raising the pitch at the end of each statement as in questioning.) Sexual abuse uh, can certainly damage any child, psychologically to varying degrees from very little to very much depending upon the… the… the trauma associated with it. But ultimately the child can… is old enough to stop, to report it and bring about a discontinuation of it.

(Slowly, seriously, emotionally.) In psych… in PAS, you get life-long alienation. The bonding is eroded, it’s corrupted, it’s destroyed and if… if after eight, ten years, you’re strangers. It’s like an alumni meeting. The brain is just filled with hatred in the brain circuitry and all the loving, tender feelings all the… all the positive, loving experiences have evaporated. They’re replaced by the campaign of denigration. And even if there is contact then, it’s a lost. It’s lost. It’s never again the same.   And it’s… it’s a… it’s a form of abuse that may not be as easy to detect as physical abuse where you see bones and broken fractures and you see abrasions and you have medical reports or physical abuse, where you s… you may see evidence in… in… in medical examination. Here it’s psychological but it is… it is very detrimental.

Now, the courts have the power to cure the PAS. If a judge were to treat a PAS indoctrinating parent… like, let us say a father who reneges on paying his support or alimony. In the United States, and I’m sure here too, if a father doesn’t come up with his support and alimony payment, they can be taken from his salary or uh automatically or he can be put on notice that if he doesn’t pay, he’s on house arrest for the weekend so that from Friday afternoon to Monday morning he must stay at home and if he’s out of the house, he’s in contempt of court, he can be arrested. They can put shackles on his ankle, electronically communicating with the police department. Uh, random telephone calls 24 hours a day. No answering machine to ensure that he’s there. They do that routinely to fathers who have not properly paid for their uh, their monetary obligations.

If a judge were to say to a mother, “If the children are not… if the children… if the children are not at the father’s house at 5:00 on Friday, the car … there’s a court order here at 5:01, for the police to come and arrest you … for not getting your children there. And you will spend the weekend in jail …to help remind you that those children must be there.”

I haven’t gotten one judge to do that. Not one.

I haven’t even gotten one judge to say to a, such a mother, “I order you to take a tour of the jail just to see what it’s like to give you an idea of where you’re going if those children don’t go.”

I had a child in the early eighties, a seven-year-old boy, who was a PAS victim himself… boy is …the children are victims too. (As afterthought.)

(In the voice of a young adoring child.) “Dr. Gardner, is it true that if I don’t go and see my daddy, uh the judge is going to put my mommy in jail? That’s right, isn’t it true the judge is going to put my mommy in jail?”

Oh my, the kid was begging me. Every cell in his body was begging me to say, “Yes, the judge will put my… your mommy in jail.”

I said, “Well, you know that’s a possibility, he has the power to do that.”

“Okay I’ll see, I’ll see my daddy. Mommy, Dr. Gardner says the judge will put me in jail if I don’t see daddy, my daddy, so I’ll go see my daddy.” (Note: According to Gardner’s categories, such behavior in a child would indicate a total absence of the “Parental Alienation Syndrome”.)

He was begging me for the excuse. I beg the judges, the kids need the excuse. They want to be able to say to the alienator “I hate him. But I’ll go anyway to protect you.”

The judges won’t do it. Because it’s not the politically correct thing to do in the United States in 1999 to put a woman in jail, for not visit… visiting. Put a man in jail for not paying the money, it’s done every minute. Put a woman in jail, politically incorrect…look bad in the papers.

Now that men are starting to induce PASs, it’s easier… it will be easier. There are so many cases all over the United States of PAS… hundreds of thousands. There’s an epidemic, there’s no question. It has to happen. And once it happens, it’ll probably be easier if the man is the first one because then it will be easier for the judges.

So what I’m saying is this, the judges have the power, if anybody is in contempt of court, to put in jail. In other words, if… if… if somebody before a judge in the United States were to not appear … [Audio 45:28 – 45:31 missing]… to work within those guidelines.  Contempt of court in general, the judge has power to incarcerate.

There’s only two states in the United States that I know where the judge is empowered to incarcerate up to six months a parent who is in contempt of court for a visitation uh… order. And once that happens, there will be very, there will be a rapid shrinkage of PAS.

So, I started this presentation saying, what I said about the cure of PAS is the legislators empowering the judges to impose penalties, meaningful, humane penalties, on PAS inducing parents – regardless of the gender of the parent. This is the only cure I know of. Psychotherapy will not work. Nothing else I can think of will work and I’ve certainly been giving a lot of thought to this over the last fifteen years. And there’s nothing in my experience to suggest that there’s any other route to cure and my hope is that what I’ve said today will play some role in bringing about this change here.

Thank you.



“It is not based on facts and law… The more I talk abuse, the more I lost my kids.”


From Lawless America:

Congressional Testimony: Tiffini Flynn Forslund to Bill Windsor of Lawless America.

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them. 

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website:  www.LawlessAmerica.com 

Lawless America YouTube Channel:  www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/


Press Release: Congressional Initiative to Fix Broken Family Courts


From The Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health:


Broken Family Courts Initiative

In honor of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health

has launched a national initiative and Congressional advocacy campaign

to address systemic failures in the U.S. family courts

that are placing tens-of-thousands of children in harm’s way each year…


“Looking in a Blind Eye”

by Julia Fletcher

Driving through a parking lot yesterday, moving forward slowly, I happened to turn my head to the left for some reason. It could have been the bumper sticker that caught my eye. Big and bold. Navy blue and white. It said “We Are Penn State”. 

I don’t think I’ve seen that bumper sticker before. Maybe I have seen it and didn’t notice – having looked at it “in a blind eye” before yesterday. 

Most of us have noticed something for the first time that’s been there all along. Maybe that’s what happened.

Almost everyone knows about Penn State University and their football team and maybe everyone except me has seen that bumper sticker before and they already know what it means. I didn’t.

When I saw that bumper sticker, I didn’t think about cheerleaders at football games. I thought of all the “We are” solidarity slogans we’ve seen in the news lately…

     “We are Trayvon Martin”

                                                                                                                                              “We are Troy Davis”

                                                          “We are Bidder 70”

“We are Penn State”

“Wow.” I thought. “Bumper stickers to show solidarity with the children abused at Penn State.”

I certainly didn’t expect that. The Penn State scandal broke, and now, here’s this public awareness of the importance of speaking up about child abuse with Penn State leading the way!

Everything’s going to be okay… those working in family courts will catch this wave of solidarity and protect our children from now on.  It’s just a matter of time …

So inspired and so clueless. I drove home and sat at my desk to write this post, so optimistic and so ready to call it:

 “We are Penn State!”

Looking online for the bumper sticker, I learned what “We Are Penn State” actually means. It’s been one of the school’s mottos since 1948.

“Success with Honor” is another. 

It’s interesting to note that the phrase “We Are Penn State” actually did start in the spirit of solidarity. It was a show of support for the entire football team at that school and it happened over 60 years ago. The first and now famous sentence spoken was, “We’re Penn State. There’ll be no meetings.” and  “We Are Penn State soon became the football team’s cheer and catchphrase.

I would have thought that the majority of Connecticut state legislators would have shown the same kind of solidarity last month during a Judiciary Committee hearing when two advocates, a psychologist and a physician offered testimony to express their concern and support for a little boy in Connecticut.

It could be that the legislators didn’t show their concern or support for the boy because the hearing was mostly about an attorney – rather than the boy the attorney was supposed to protect.

Those who testified about Attorney Maureen Murphy’s alleged misconduct in the boy’s case, stated their opposition to Ms. Murphy’s promotion to the position of Superior Court judge. They told state legislators about her mishandling of clear and convincing evidence of horrific, unspeakable child abuse.

Just a few weeks before the hearing, Ms. Murphy had been the boy’s Guardian ad litem.

Perhaps the Connecticut legislators thought they had only two choices – to vote for or against Ms. Murphy – and maybe they didn’t have enough time to take a closer look at what happened in that case involving the boy. 

Could it be that some purposely “looked in a blind eye” at the evidence? 

Many of them are lawyers and all are politicians. Were a few of them worried about Ms. Murphy becoming a Superior Court judge and eventually sitting in judgement of them or in judgement of their clients one day?

The testimony was as clear and as convincing as it could be.

Connecticut State Senator Doyle wondered out loud during the hearing about how it could be possible that so many individuals involved in the case didn’t do anything about it. He said, “If Attorney — if Attorney Murphy was the only party in this case and the only person of authority, to me, that would — I could understand it more. But you’re telling me everyone looked in a blind eye. To me, that’s hard to believe.”

It is hard to believe. 

What happened at Penn State is hard to believe too.

Year after year, hundreds of thousands of fans filled that stadium. The football games were televised. The coaches and staff  lived their lives in the public eye. So many coming and going, in and out of the locker rooms. Surely someone must have seen something over the course of so many years. 

Those who saw what happened “looked in a blind eye” there too.   

Is it too hard for us to believe that some adults abuse children in unspeakable ways?

Is it too hard to believe that those in positions of authority in our homes,  in our schools and in our family courts are unwilling or unable to protect children from abuse? Are we ashamed to talk about it or is our shame more important than protecting a child?

Are we afraid or is our fear more important than protecting a child?

Will it inconvenience her in some way?


Will it take too much time for him to investigate?


 Will their social standing be affected? 
                         Will others think less of them? 

    What happens when we dare to speak up first?

Was Ms. Murphy afraid she would be held accountable for not protecting the boy? According to the testimony presented that day, she tried to convince everyone that the abuse did not occur.

Why would she tell others to ignore the signs and symptoms?

And what about a child’s teacher? A child’s teacher would speak up if something’s not quite right. Right?

What should teachers do when a child’s grades drop 33%?

What should teachers do about a child who is “significantly depressed, anxious… traumatized… punching himself in the face… and talking in school about his father playing “tickle the weenie” with him.” ?

 Did Senator Doyle think, if the boy displayed clear signs of child abuse at his school, those in authority at the school would take care of it? Did Senator Doyle consider that maybe the school’s principle worried that an abuse case would harm the school’s reputation  in some way?

Maybe it would disrupt the teachers’ schedules.

Would it invite a lawsuit against the school for not reporting the abuse sooner? 

Did the Ms. Murphy, as Guardian ad litem, convince the teachers to “look in a blind eye” so she would avoid liability as the one who was ultimately responsible for protecting the boy?

In any event, at this point in time, whatever reasons there were for whatever happened in that case don’t matter more than protecting that young boy from harm right now. 

The following is an actual email exchange between the mother and her son’s two teachers. All names in the emails have been redacted.  The mother saw signs that her child’s father was abusing him. She reported the abuse to professionals who reported the abuse to the family court judge.

Subject: meeting today————————

From: (Mother)Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:59 AM To: teacher@aol.com, teacher2

Hello (Teacher) and (2nd Teacher),

I have an emergency that came up this morning and I have to handle it A.S.A.P.

Can we reschedule the PT meeting for one day after school?

Thanks so much,


———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:56 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.com, (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com

Hi (Mother),

I have a half an hour available on Thursday at 3:45. Hopefully that will work while you are picking up (Child).

Let me know.

Peace –


———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AMTo: “(Teacher)@aol.com” <(Teacher)>Cc: “(2nd Teacher)@gmail.com” <(2nd Teacher)>

Hi (Teacher),,

It’s not a good thing for (Child) to have his already limited time with his mother any further reduced, so let’s find a time when we can meet without doing so. I can make myself available almost anytime outside of my time with him.



———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:34 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.com, (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com

Hi (Mother)-

Just wanted to confirm that we are scheduled for a brief meeting on Thursday at 3:45 in addition to you emailing me your questions and concerns, etc. I do have another conference at 4:15 on Thursday. I will be happy to read your email, respond and place it in (Child)’s file.

Let me know. Thanks.


———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:03 AMTo: (Teacher)@aol.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com

Hi (Teacher),

I’m curious why you’re confirming a meeting that I was clear I won’t be able to make.

I certainly understand your constraint of having to get the material from parent conferences turned in by Friday. I also understand that you only have to offer me 30 minutes of time. I think, however, that we’d all agree that (Child)’s situation is far from typical, and that the typical amount of time spent in discussion will not validly cover the issues in anything but a cursory and unrealistic manner. I’d like to avoid the further spread of confusion and misinformation in (Child)’s situation.

I look forward to meeting whenever we are able to do so.



———-From: <teacher>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:03 AM To: mother@gmail.com Cc: teacher2@gmail.com, schooloffice@yahoo.com</teacher>

Hi (Mother),

Surely, I agree that (Child) situation is not typical, however I can show you his school work, and relay my observations about him during school session in about 30 minutes. My job and dedication to your son is his behavior and performance in school. While I am sure you are under pressure with all that has happened, I must stay unbiased regarding all other information outside of school. If there is something you feel is a particular situation that you see and may effect your son during school hours, always, please email me and let me know. Particular attention will be given to him that day, as all the teachers have done in the past. I am sorry to not spend this sharing time today with you, to show you how great he is doing and excelling in all areas. Your son is lucky to have you in his life.


———-From: Mother <mother>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM To: teacher@aol.com Cc: teacher2@gmail.com, schooloffice@yahoo.com</teacher>

Hi (Child’s teacher),

Thanks for working with me to make sure we can come together to find solutions to address (child’s) needs.

I will confess that I am confused about your goals for this meeting. In this email thread you tell me, “My job and dedication to (your son) is his behavior and performance in school.” However the questionnaire I have been working on for the purposes of this meeting asks many detailed questions about his home life, such as, “What area of your family life would you like to improve?”, “Describe your relationship with your child,” and “Tell us about your dreams for you child’s future.” Perhaps the most striking question that is truly relevant to you, and may need 30 minutes of discussion in itself is: “Does your child have any behavior or social difficulties?” I hope you can see how two pages of questions like this would lead me to believe that you are interested in discussing (my son’s) life outside of school at least somewhat.

Regarding the last question, part of the necessary colloquy needs to address how you make observations like “…to show you how great he is doing and excelling in all areas,” and yet have scored him as significantly depressed, anxious, and traumatized on the instruments you have filled out. I have witnessed him self-harming in the classroom, having been corrected by you or (another teacher) in several instances, and yet that is never articulated as a concern in his reports, or relayed to the authorities even when they ask you. Are you concerned that the bulk of his report card scoring has dropped to mainly 2s instead of 1s he was getting during his first year? I don’t perceive what must work out to at a minimum a 33% drop in grades – particularly the social areas – as “excelling in all areas”.

It is this, what seems to be a major disconnect in your reporting your observations, that I feel needs to be explored in more detail. I had hoped to do so face to face, but as it doesn’t seem workable for this week I’ll relay my concerns here.

I understand that being in this situation is very untenable for you and for everyone at the school. No one likes dealing with anything this chaotic. I didn’t bring any of you into this situation, and my asking for honest and clear communication regarding my child is not the problem – it is the only way to come to a solution that helps him.

Thank you for your time,


———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:01 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com


The form you have been asked to share is a standard form, given to all NESM families. We were trying to grant you the same opportunity. Please feel free to disregard the form all together. After a lengthy discussion with (2nd Teacher), we do not see (Child)’s social behavior in the classroom as difficult. I have conveyed this information to several lawyers, therapists, and doctors that have called. Each year comes a higher level of expectation, both in academics and classroom behavior. While we may have observed anxiety, we have not expressed witnessing significant depression or signs of being traumatized. (Child) continues to show improvement in self correcting his own behavior, sometimes with reminders, regarding hurriedly walking and a loud voice in the classroom. I will continue to communicate in an honest and clear manner – keeping (Child)’s well being in mind.

(2nd Teacher)

———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:14 AMTo: (Teacher)@aol.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com

Dear (2nd Teacher),

Thank you so much for “trying to grant me the same opportunity” as every other parent of a child in your school has. I’m not sure why it warrants a distinction that you’re “trying to grant me the same opportunity” that every other parent has, but I appreciate it nonetheless. I’m unclear what gave you the impression that I might like to ignore a form that I specifically have been asking for some consideration to go over with you in more detail to assess accurately (Child)’s circumstances.

As you well know, I have been under court-ordered supervision for the last eleven months, and my child is not allowed to spend nights in my home, for no other reason than I reported clear signs of physical and sexual abuse. I find it absolutely hypocritical of you to send (Child) home with a form asking many detailed questions like “Briefly tell us a little about your child’s history, focusing on significant events that have shaped your child’s character/personality,” and then tell me that it is a “standard form” and that you don’t want to entertain discussion that my child is not living a “standard” life.

It is a matter of record that you have scored (Child) on the instruments provided to you by the psychologists with elevated levels in anxiety, depression, and trauma. It is also a matter of record that (Child) has talked in school about his father playing “tickle the weenie” with him. It is not a matter of opinion, and it’s veracity is not open for discussion. What is in need of explanation, however, is your glossing over of (Child)’s falling grades with, “Each year comes a higher level of expectation,” and your strange denial of witnessing behavior in him which is a matter of record that you not only witnessed but corrected.

I am not concerned about whether (Child) runs or speaks loudly or any other normal developmental issues that children learn to curb. I’m frankly not even sure why you would introduce such typical things into a discussion where I am referencing the truly frightening instances of things such as (Child)’s punching himself in the face in your office and classroom, and demonstrating a preoccupation with dying. These would be the behaviors that we are discussing, that an accredited educational facility has a mandate to report accurately to the authorities.

This statement from you: “I must stay unbiased regarding all other information outside of school,” is quite true. “Unbiased” means reporting exactly what happens as it happens – not ignoring it, or saying children are “excelling in all areas” when they are punching themselves in the face, their grades are falling, and they are scored, by you, on psychological testing instruments as highly anxious and depressed. The reason for mandatory reporting laws is to ensure that professional educators are observing and documenting signs that a child’s home life might be abusive or neglectful. In the position you seem to be taking, however, ANY acknowledgement of signs of abuse would be “biased” against a parent suspected of inflicting it.

I had hoped that meeting with you about these issues would give us an opportunity to work together on bringing your disparate accounts of my son’s behavior and performance into alignment. I’m saddened that, instead, you have chosen to evade my valid concerns with a combination of defensive maneuvering and disingenuous obsequious. It seems, unfortunately, at this point that to continue this discussion in a meeting would be a waste of time. If you have any further information for me at this time or in the future, please feel free to email or call me at the number in (Child)’s file.

Thank you so much for your time,


“Success With Honor”. That’s a catchy phrase too. I wonder how many people in Connecticut know about that one.

“Barbaric” Courts on Both Sides of the Pond

From The Daily Mail Online:        


Scandal of ‘unqualified’ experts who advise our family courts:

Decisions about the care of thousands of children routinely flawed


By Katherine Faulkner

Life-changing decisions about the care of thousands of children are routinely being made on flawed evidence from poorly qualified ‘experts’ in the family courts, a damning study reveals.

More than a fifth of these vital reports are being produced by people who are completely unqualified, the Channel 4 News investigation found.

‘Experts’ used in hundreds of family court proceedings are frequently unqualified or unreliable, the study reveals. In some cases, reports on parents or children are being given to courts by doctors who have not even seen the individuals concerned.  Until now, these ‘expert witnesses’ – often psychologists or psychiatrists – have largely escaped scrutiny due to the draconian secrecy surrounding the family courts.

But in a unique study for the Family Justice Council, Professor Jane Ireland – a forensic psychologist who has herself been an expert witness – examined over 100 expert witness reports used in family court cases. Incredibly, she found that 20 per cent had been produced by people who were not qualified at all. A further fifth had been carried out by people who were writing reports in areas entirely beyond their knowledge and qualifications.

In addition, as many as 90 per cent of the reports had been produced by ‘expert’ witnesses who were no longer in current practice at all, but were simply working as ‘professional expert witnesses’. Often, these professional experts – who rake in thousands of pounds in fees from the chaotic family courts system – have not practised for years, leaving them out of touch with developments in their field.

They are often appointed to assess the suitability of a parent or parents to continue to look after their child in care proceedings brought by local councils. They can also be used in access cases following the separation of a child’s parents. Thousands of children have their futures decided in the family courts every year and because of strict rules on what can be reported, often little is revealed about what happens once the court doors are closed.

In the past, parents have bitterly complained that they have not even been allowed to know the names of the paid expert witnesses who testified against them.

That has now changed but Professor Ireland, of the University of Central Lancashire, said 65 of the 100 reports she examined were ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ carried out.

Some reports were found to ‘cite opinion without conducting a formal assessment’ or show a complete lack of understanding of the conditions discussed. One was even found to have ‘completed an assessment on the mother without actually seeing her’.

Professor Ireland said an ‘urgent review’ of expert witnesses in the family courts was needed. ‘I think we were very concerned and perturbed by some of the reports that we read,’ she told Channel 4 News.

‘Some of the most startling results were the sheer number of expert psychologists . . . who are reporting that their entire job is the production of assessment reports for courts.

‘I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing.’

The Family Justice Council is an independent public body set up in 2004 and funded by the Ministry of Justice. It is charged with monitoring the family justice system and advising the Government and the courts on how the system can be improved.

One mother involved in family court proceedings told how a psychiatrist who had never seen her wrote a 14-page report on her and her family. The day after the psychiatrist signed off his report he was suspended by the General Medical Council for a separate offence. Despite this, his report was still used by the courts.

‘He’s never seen us, never spoken to us,’ she said, ‘and yet he’s ended up writing 14 pages, with recommendations, that he could not possibly have made if he had spoken to any of us or had he read through the court papers.’

She said her custody case dragged on for five years because of the competing testimonies of no fewer than eight expert witnesses.

‘The court system in England is barbaric,’ she said. ‘It does not allow parents to be given a voice, it doesn’t allow their children to be given a voice.

‘But what it does instead is it focuses on employing expert witnesses – at huge expense.’

Nigel Priestley, a family solicitor in Huddersfield, said: ‘If the statistics are that 20 per cent are unqualified, that is not just a mess, that is staggering.’

Good News From The California Protective Parents Association

Dear Friends,


Save the Dates.  2012 is an action-packed year…


March 1 :

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) will hold a Congressional Briefing to share results of evidenced-based programs and practices.

Court Practices and Programs to Improve Justice and Safety for Children and Families from 10:00 to 11:00 am, 2226 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

RSVP to Sarah Grabowska at sgrabowska@ncjfcj.org or 775-784-6711.

You may send in your written testimony, if you cannot attend.

March 16-17 :

Conference in Phoenix, Arizona –  Our Broken Family Court System 

March 19-21 :

The U.S. Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence – The “Defending Childhood Task Force” – will hold the third public hearing in Miami, Florida focused on children’s exposure to violence in their communities and at school.

If you cannot attend, you can e-mail comments by April 24 to defendingchildhoodtaskforce@nccdcrc.org or send to NCCD, Attn: Defending Childhood Task Force, 1970 Broadway, Suite 500, Oakland, California, 94612.


April 28:

 Eighteenth Annual Child Sexual Abuse Conference at the Veterans Memorial Center, 203 East 14th Street, Davis, California from 9:30 am to 5:00 pm. Healing from Trauma: Clergy Abuse with Keynote Speaker Jaime Romo. There is no cost for the conference.

May 6-8:

Fourth Annual Mothers of Lost Children Mothers Day demonstration/lobbying in Washington, DC.

We are holding this event the week before Mothers Day this year.


Sunday, May 6:

Time: 11:00 am to 3:00 pm for a silent vigil and march around the White House.

6:30 – 7:30 pm for a silent candlelight vigil.

Place: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW in front of the White House.


Monday, May 7 :

Time: 10:30 am to 3:30 pm for our first formal coalition meeting and lobbying workshop.

Place: Sewall Belmont House Suffragists’ Headquarters, 144 Constitution Ave, NE

Contact cppa001@aol.com right away to sign up for the workshop (seating is limited).

A small fee of $40 is needed due to high cost of the historic space.


Tuesday, May 8:

Time: 10:00 am to 4:00 pm to lobby at the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives

  • Most of us stay at the inexpensive International Hostel, 1009 11th St NW, Washington (202) 737-2333
  • Be sure to bring your Mothers of Lost Children T-shirts! We will bring more in case you don’t have one. We wear white like the Liberian women .
  • We follow in the footsteps of the mothers who demonstrated every Thursday afternoon at the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, Argentina to protest government torture and murder of their adult children. In Sacramento we demonstrate on Thursday afternoon at the family court to protest the legalized beatings, rape and murder of children.
  • For information on previous Washington DC demonstrations, go to the Mothers of Lost Children website.

Who Would Win Family Court Super Bowl?

Could your state win a Family Court Super Bowl?

What would it take to win? 

Would the winning team continue year after year, promoting “high conflict” litigation, draining public coffers, ruining lives and taking lives in the process?

Let’s say the attorneys are the coaches.  The judges are the referees. The rules of the game are the law.

The skills required to play the “game” are this: Knowing the rules of law. Knowing the nuances and the dynamics of all kinds of kinds of cases – especially the “high conflict” cases – and doing the right thing at the right time. For the right reasons. Always.

It’s just a matter of time before all family courts begin to play the game the way it’s supposed to be played. 

And… It’s first and ten on the 50-yard line… Alabama family courts have the ball….   

From WLTZ.com:


 Local volunteers create binders to spread word on child abuse

by Christina Chambers

It’s a binder full of stories about those who have been affected by child abuse.

“What’s happening is 58,000 children a year, throughout the nation, are being court ordered into unsupervised contact with the people that they have identified as abusers,” said project volunteer Amanda Hodge.

Three volunteers who have been victims of domestic violence created a resource binder for all family court judges in the state of Alabama.

“These binders are the first step in trying to reach out to our judges, not place blame, but to say we want to help, we want to fix this problem as a community and a state,” said Hodge.

Alabama is the first state to create a resource binder for judges. Hodge says she’s spoken with survivors across the nation trying to push this project in other states.

“It’s huge for us to have the support of our state legislators, and to be able to get these binders out to people,” Hodge said.

Hodge says the intent is to assist judges in the proper way to handle child abuse cases that come up when the victim wants to leave the abuser.

“I hope that our judges will take the time to read the binders, go out and get further training, and ask questions,” said Hodge.

The judge’s resource binder also has letters of support from Governor Robert Bentley and House Speaker Mike Hubbard.

The volunteer group is sending out the binders at the end of the month to 70 family court judges across the state. Lee County family court Judge Mike Fellows had no comment on the issue.