Is Charlie Sheen the Victim of Parental Alienation? (Part I)
September 22nd, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
An article about Charlie Sheen's divorce, which I'll follow with a few comments:
End daughters' overnights with Sheen, ex asks
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Denise Richards has asked a court to stop allowing ex-husband Charlie Sheen to have overnight stays with their two young daughters.
Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards married in 2003. The couple divorced last year.
In a filing Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Richards said the children have resisted spending the night at Sheen's home and "often returned sad and upset," according to court papers obtained by syndicated TV show "Access Hollywood."
The 36-year-old actress also requested that Sam, 3, and Lola, 2, undergo therapy.
Richards said she's concerned that Sheen engages in "inappropriate behavior" on the Internet and doesn't understand how that affects "the child-rearing of two young daughters."
"Virtually all of these allegations were previously raised and were denied by Mr. Sheen," the actor's attorney, Lance Spiegel, said in a statement.
Sheen, 44, has complained that Richards is interfering with his relationship with their daughters since the couple's bitter divorce last year.
He filed a court request last month asking that he be allowed to choose the nannies who accompany Sam and Lola while they are at his home. The court previously had given the choice to Richards.
"Clearly the mother of my children has no interest in responsible co-parenting when it comes to my relationship with our girls," Sheen said in a statement. "She behaves as though she owns our children. She does not."
A few comments:
1) In some ways this seems like a typical Parental Alienation case--there's a divorce, and mom seeks to minimize and control the relationship between the father and his children. That Richards says the children have resisted spending the night at Sheen's home and "often returned sad and upset" is a common alienator behavior called the "Independent Thinker." To some degree Richards is putting forth the ludicrous pretense that it's the kids, not her, who have a problem with Sheen--we supposedly have two very little "independent thinkers," ages two and three. I doubt the kids have any problem with their father outside of what Richards manufactures and tries to make them think or feel.
2) To be fair, Sheen had problems when he was younger, including substance abuse and cavorting with prostitutes. He hasn't been a choir boy.
3) Apparently Richards has some problems with self-control and managing her anger. According to Wikipedia:
"On November 8, 2006, officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) were called to the River Rock Casino in Richmond, B.C., where Richards was making a movie. After seeing some photographers taking her picture from a nearby balcony, she apparently confronted them, grabbed one of their laptop computers and threw it over the balcony. The laptops landed near two elderly women, one 91 years old and one 89 years old and in a wheelchair. The 89-year-old woman suffered minor injuries (mild bruising) and was treated by emergency personnel. Neither pressed charges against Richards."
4) The accusation "improper activity on the internet" means watching porn, I guess. Unless Sheen is sitting there watching it with his kids, it's his business, and no reflection on his parenting. Also, given some of the roles Richards has played, she's nobody to be pushing Victorian values. For some examples, click here and here (warning: adult content).
"));
19 queries. 0.361 seconds.
September 22nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
No, his daughters from birth never loved him. They just cuddled up to him and suckled on his nose and chin because they only seeking to manipulate him into turning on 'Dora the Explorer' instead "Barney". She never loved him; all those hugs, loving looks, kisses, and games of patticake were just a scam.
Why would ANY father think otherwise?
Mike
P.S. The poor girls. What a thug and child predator she is in my view.
September 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
"often returned sad and upset,"
This sounds like my custody hearing.
Scare the judge and (s)he will cut dad out of the picture in a heartbeat.
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
What's so nice about claiming they return sad and upset is that the court won't actually ask the kids what they think until they are much much older. It wouldn't be fair you see.
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
i bet she is hoping to get more support if his time is reduced.
September 22nd, 2007 at 5:48 pm
When you get a divorce your ex's private life is his life. I am sure she is not at home all the time playing Suzy homemaker. Is it any of Sheen business? It sounds to me she wants her cake and to eat it to. I wonder who the new guy in her life is? He in my oppinion will have some pretty big shoes to fill. Plus how much does she get in support now? If she gets what she wants, Charlie better figure twice that much.
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
But Glenn! You don't unnerstand!! When a woman kisses another woman in a movie its art! When a man watches that very same movie he's a perv!
Get with it, dood!
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Being a lousy husband and perhaps person doesn't mean that thereby a lousy dad. Children love freely and willingly unless their innocence is violated, most probably by other people. Children and so-called 'child support' are routinely exploited as a means to quite literally hurt or kill the involved separated/divorced father. We're supposed to believe that adults are supposed to sometimes become affected by Stockolm Syndrome and easily maliable children are not influenced by PAS; give me a break.
Think of divorce being where all too often uses the children as both a weapon and a shield to put the 'emotional gun' to the head of innocent children. Some day women and especially mothers will have their behavior equally accountable to appropriate civil and criminal justice remedies as opposed to being allowed to be the what clearly see as the primary child predators in America. Child predation is a drop in the bucket compared to that inflicted on children by hateful, selfish mothers; politicians, judges, most so-called 'child advocates', lawyers, etc. through child exploitation and maltreatment. These people need to be identified as condemned at every opportunity as the violent child predators they all too often are. Most children are only at high risk because intellectually and morally corrupt bigots allow them to be.
Mike
September 22nd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
PAS. Hands down. No question. She should lose custody for the emotional toll she takes on those little girls every day of their lives. Charlie may not be a choir boy, but no Dad deserves for Mom to campaign against him to his kids for the rest of his life, even if she were the most pristine Suzy Homemaker alive. He was good enough for her to choose him as the father of her children. Why she thinks he's not good enough now just because he's watching trash on the internet is beyond me. I guess because it plays well in court.
September 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Mike she isn't even thier primary caregiver. She has a nanny to do that. It is all a big soap opera drama to her. She doesn't really care about her kids. Just making herself look good.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Maybe his kids are "sad and upset" upon their return to their mother (nanny?) because they have had to say goodbye to their father, who they can tell loves them dearly?
If this man has (unproven speculation) taken to seeking only visual intimacy with women via the web, rather than in-person intimacy with a woman, could it possibly be because he has been traumatized by the consequences of the latter?
Makes sense to me.
September 22nd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
P.S. Any man who has ever had much contact with self-involved women knows that to them, children are very often little more than a prop through which they attract attention to themselves.
September 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 am
"Any man who has ever had much contact with self-involved women knows that to them, children are very often little more than a prop through which they attract attention to themselves."
Oh... you've met my ex-wife?
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Dave,
No, but in her case I would speculate that she is also using them as a generous meal ticket for herself.
AP
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 am
Ap, you would be 100% correct!
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
I can only hope that one day we will get some judges and politicians with enough common sense to see these women as the parasites that they are, and the backbone to do something about it!
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 am
"PAS. Hands down. No question. She should lose custody for the emotional toll she takes on those little girls every day of their lives."
I respectfully agree and disagree.
"PAS. Hands down. No question." - Yes.
"She should lose custody for the emotional toll she takes on those little girls every day of their lives."
No. Even though Ms. Richards is wrong, she should still be eligible for a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting. Even though parental alienation is bad for children, shared parenting will help the children and she should retain half custody.
September 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Michael H - I will have to respectfully disagree with you. She should not still be eligible for a rebuttal presumption for shared parenting. If (and I believe this isn't really an "if") she is a perpetrator of PAS, shared parenting will not help the children. In fact, shared parenting will harm the children every second they are with Ms. Richards. Most perpetrators of PAS don't simply stop one day because a judge admonishes them to quit. They spend every day working the children over and destroying their relationship with the other parent--most often the father. Everyone loses in that situation. What works in PAS is to remove the children from the care of the party performing the alienation.
This isn't just about Ms. Richards, either. It's long past time for the court system to actually issue sanctions for this behavior, with a penalty harsh enough to make future perpetrators think twice. Maybe Ms. Richards could be the poster child for "Don't commit Parental Alienation. You'll lose your kids."
September 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
I have no idea what went down between Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen that ended their marriage so abruptly when she was pregnant with their second child. That having been said, her behavior re: Richie Sambora and Heather Locklear leads me to believe that she's immature and narcissitic, and this latest story does nothing to disprove it. Poor kids.
Note: Charlie just got engaged again, to a beautiful woman who seems very sweet based on the incredibly superficial amount of information I've read about her. If he really has time and motivation for extensive "inappropriate behavior on the Internet" given that and his full-time job, I'd be surprised. Not that I think that's a real issue here - I think Denise Richards doesn't have as high-profile a career as she'd like, and is looking for attention here. I don't think she should lose custody - but I don't think it would hurt the situation for a judge to point out that Charlie, unlike Denise, is about to be able to provide the kids with a stable two-parent home, and might be a better choice as a primary custodial parent.
(The really funny thing about this is that Charlie is by far the more experienced parent than Denise; he has a grown daughter from a teenage relationship. Given that she's not being splashed across "National Enquirer" with a tearful "My father, Charlie Sheen, never loved me!" story, I'm assuming she's a fairly well-balanced young adult.)
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Stephanie: "She should not still be eligible for a rebuttal presumption for shared parenting. "
We will agree to disagree then. Accusations of parental alienation should not replace or be added to accusations of domestic violence in the "gamesmanship of divorce."
The idea that family court judges are able to decide the best interests of children and the idea that family court judges should be willing to take more than 1/2 custody away from either parent in any but the most extreme cases, must die.
While Ms. Richards may be a flawed individual and a parental alienator, in my opinion, her actions as reported in this post, are not extreme enough to justify taking away more than 1/2 custody. I may add that half custody should never have been taken away from Mr. Sheen.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Michael H - I agree that "parental alienation should not replace or be added to accusations of domestic violence in the 'gamesmanship of divorce'". I'm not saying that it should get added to the ugly repertoire already used by so many in the family court system to manipulate the situation. What I am saying is that people who alienate their children from the other parent are dangerous and, in proven cases, there should be sanctions to assure that the children are not emotionally damaged beyond repair by a parent that is unable to maintain a healthy co-parenting relationship. I don't advocate giving unlimited power to the family court system. God knows they already have way too much power. But folks like Denise, who see their children as pawns in a game rather than people in their own right that deserve access to both parents, should not be allowed to continue an unchecked campaign of denigration. The children suffer horribly.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
My ex said something similar during our many custody battles in court, custody evaluation, etc.
I replied that they were "sad and upset" that they had to leave my place and return to hers, and that this clearly was an indication that they should spend more time with me.
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
"I don't advocate giving unlimited power to the family court system."
I go much further than you. I strongly advocate an extreme restraint on the power of family court judges. Every judge should be required by law to publically acknowledge the imperfection of the family court system prior to every single case. We need a strong rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
Parental alienators are empowered by the willingness of the court to take more than half custody away from a parent. Many parental alienators will stop their behavior when shared parenting is enforced. In a custody case clearly involving parental alienation in England, Lord Justice Wall, who ordered shared parenting, noted that the children later stated that their parents stopped fighting "because they have nothing left to fight about."
September 24th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Don't get married unless you absolutely have to.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:30 am
"2) To be fair, Sheen had problems when he was younger, including substance abuse and cavorting with prostitutes. He hasn't been a choir boy."
and she was the perfect church going honest chastity symbol?
September 24th, 2007 at 8:47 am
That relationship was doomed from the start. How on earth a hedonist and an obsessive-compulsive prude ever thought they could have a real relationship is beyond me. Now their kids are paying for that mistake.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:05 am
First I want to say that I am FEMALE. Unless and until laws are changed & judges are kept in check (I speak for New Jersey because the laws & JUDGES are biased against men and clearly for women), the children will continue to suffer. Most of the women I know, use their children any way they can against the husband with total disregard for the wellbeing of the child. They are blinded by hate and vengefullness. IN my case, MONEY IS MY HUSBAND'S EX'S GOD".
I will ask again on this "blog" if there is anyone out there that sincerely wants to change the way JUDGES & LAWS treat males in divorce (in NJ or anywhere else), please contact me at djones2411@yahoo.com.
J.K. Rowling said it best: "Anything is possible if you've got enough nerve".
September 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I can understand Denise's concern for her girls as Charlie is addicted to porn. He can deny it all he likes but she knows what he did when they were together. PAS is total bull. Dr Gardner may have been a pedophile himself! His writings on early sexualization of children being beneficial certainly raised a red flag for me! Maybe thats why he committed suicide?
September 25th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
"often returned sad and upset,"
While it is not out of the question she is imagining things, it is also a very real possibility the children are sad and upset at having to return.
Any one getting to see someone dear to them, infrequently, knows the bitter sweet of having to leave them. It hurts. It is extremely painful.
So what we know from Richards' statement "often returned sad and upset," is her view, not the children's
And if it turns out Richards' view is not a reflection of the children's then we also know she is putting her emotional needs before the emotional welfare of the children.
Hardly the iconic image of a mother.
JT
September 25th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Go for it Joan. Things will only change when enough people raise enough hell about the problem. As I have said many times on Glenn’s site, the real problem is with the statutes, which need to be changed but there is nothing wrong with letting the judges (and family courts generally) know that you (and thousands like you) are not happy with the way things have gone in recent years.
I also note that if the “family courts” were genuinely reasonable in their judgements, there would be far less “business” for them. If everyone knew in advance that they couldn’t rip off their respective ex-spouse (ie the law would not allow the courts to assist in and ultimately enforce the theft of assets and, more distressingly, the theft of children), the scam would stop – but this wouldn’t be good for the business of the courts or the lawyers who appear before them.
Despite receiving legal training on the “reasonable person standard”, lawyers are never required to prove that they understand what “reasonable” means – this should be a major hurdle on bar exams but it is no where to be found! The pool of lawyers appearing before a given court often serves as the source of judges who ultimately sit there – any wonder that courts can behave unreasonably (and often unjustly) with impunity. I am all in favor of oversight of judicial decisions by a panel of reasonable persons because currently no one judges the judges – they aren’t answerable to anyone!
By the way Dan, PAS is not only real but it is alive and well - just ask the millions of kids who have gone through it.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
[...] In my blog post Is Charlie Sheen the Victim of Parental Alienation?, I discussed the Charlie Sheen/Denise Richards divorce and apparent attempts by Richards to [...]
September 25th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
i personally think that these women need to appreciate the fact that they have an x in their life wanting to be a father...other women out there are begging the x's to be a father...alot of them are...me included...i think that the law needs to profile all these incidences and start using them in court to hlep the child and the parents...get them to understand...they are doing nothing but harming the kids...
September 25th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I dont feel all that sorry for Charlie Sheen, BUT Denise Richards is a typical..well HO!! As far as him watching PORNO on line..cant he do that moronic stuff when his DAUGHTERS arent there!! Wake up guys we dont have anymore right to our kids then mothers!! This site is almost turning into a male NOW site!!
September 25th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Celia:
Any ideas on where to begin. Called many legislatures, senators, etc. and none of them will get involved - all seem to fear the Women's Rights Groups. We need to form a coalition so that men can no longer be exposed to legalized extortion from their ex spouses. Judges have total discretion and the Appellate court rarely overturns decision they make because judges in family court have total discretion without accountability (don't let anyone tell you they are accountable to the Appellate courts). Men are being financially raped by women with the courts & judges total approval. Where does it stop?
More importantly, the well-being of children from second (or third) families are being overlooked - they are invisible to the family court system. I call them "ORPHANS OF FAMILY COURT". Something is wrong with a judge who would put the "WANTS" of an exspouse over the "NEEDS" of a dependent child but that's exactly what happened to us.
Can anyone out there help?
September 25th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Sorry Eric, I suspect you haven't been listening - no one has a "right to their kids" - that's the law. However, the law, as currently practiced, is clearly biased in favor of women when it comes to all matters to do with children - and it is getting more biased all the time. I happen to know this personally and professionally. I also note that this site is a haven of enlightenment compared to anything associated with NOW - do some reading!
Joan - No simple answers. If you want to follow my lead, get a law degree. Support law reform groups. Speak out against unreasonable laws and unreasonable judicial behavior - EVERY time you see examples of it. Keep blogging. Get in people's faces (including politician's) regarding unreasonable behavior of courts and judges. Send the politicians newspaper and magazine clippings, or internet articles that make the point. Never talk about "fairness" when discussing these issues because that is far too subjective a term. The legal point of reference is "reasonableness" - a word and deed that is in dire need of rehabilitation.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:45 am
It seems Richards is the pot calling the kettle black. She's the one that was having an affair with a married man while she and Sheen were married- she's a home wrecker! I guess that's just fine with the judge. I know Sheen is no choir boy but Richards is far from a moral authority.
The judge should at least allow Sheen to provide his own nanny for the children when they're with him. Obviously Richards' nannies act as her spies, and are all too willing to be paid to make bazaar claims against Sheen.
The entire Family court system is a biased and corrupt mess that has all but done away with fathers' rights as parents. I'm a grandmother, but I try to talk to young men I meet about the biased system and inform them of the dire consequences they face if they marry or have children. Many of them have learned about the dirty underbelly of the system and say they don't plan to ever get married, and definitely do not want children, in order to protect themselves from the almost-certain repercussions later.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Yeah, Charlie Sheen was not a saint, but dump any P.C. B.S. right now and do the math folks. Denise Richards dumped Charlie and then betrayed her BEST FRIEND, Heather Locklear, by stealing HER husband!