Feminist Opponents of Shared Parenting Get It Right in Parental Alienation/Abuse Accusation Case
July 27th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
The Feminist Family Law Movement claims that abusive fathers often employ Parental Alienation as a way to wrest custody from protective mothers in family court. They push for reforms which will make it easier to deny fathers shared custody or visitation rights based on unsubstantiated abuse claims. They also push for laws to exclude evidence of Parental Alienation in family law proceedings.
The FFLM has promoted several cause celebre cases in recent years as a way to garner public sympathy and political support for their agenda. I've investigated many of these cases and have found the FFLM's claims about them to be very inaccurate. I detailed several of these, including the high-profile Genia Shockome and Sadia Loeliger cases, in a co-authored column here.
The most recent of the FFLM's cause celebres cases is the Holly Collins case. Collins fled to Holland with her two children in 1993, claiming that her husband had abused the children and that she needed to flee to protect them. Last year I appeared on a Fox national TV show with Geraldo Rivera and Jennifer Collins, Holly's 24-year-old daughter who supports her mother's version of events. Jennifer Collins claims she's a victim of her father's false claims of Parental Alienation.
At the time of the TV show, which can be seen here, I thought it might be another fake case, but I also thought it might well be true. As I've said and written numerous times, I've never doubted that such cases are possible, though they're not very common. For example, in my co-authored column Protect Children from Alienation (Providence Journal, 7/8/06), I wrote:
[T]here are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who attempt to shift the blame to their children’s mothers by falsely claiming PAS. Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 "high conflict" divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of the cases studied.
As the Holly Collins case continued to grow in prominence, I asked for a volunteer who would help me investigate it, then I decided to go ahead and investigate it myself.
In January I wrote a detailed, 10,000 word analysis of the case which cited all of the case's key court records, documents, etc. This analysis can be found here.
Upon investigation it became very apparent that what we were told by Holly, Jennifer, and their allies about the Holly Collins case was very inaccurate. Subsequent to my investigation, Holly and Jennifer Collins (pictured above on Inside Edition last year) and their FFLM allies have endlessly vilified me on the Internet. However, despite the fact that Jennifer has repeatedly written that she has all of the court documents from her mother's case in her possession, neither Holly nor Jennifer nor their allies have done the obvious--go through the 30 separate problems I detail with Holly's version of events and attempt to debunk them one by one.
I would add that from the moment I wrote up my analysis of each of these three cases--Loeliger (here), Shockome (here), and Collins (here)--not one of these previously prominent cases has received even a small bit of mainstream media attention.
The new Joyce Murphy case, however, is different. From 10News I-Team Reporter Lauren Reynolds' La Jolla Mom Says She Kidnapped Daughter To Protect Her:
Joyce Murphy...is a 20-year employee of the University of California, San Diego, and was married to Henry Parson when her daughter was born...as their child grew, Murphy said, her husband's behavior became disturbing.
"He would wake me up at two o'clock in the morning, tell me about pornography he'd seen and wanted to reenact, and it was pornography about kids."
She became frightened of his post traumatic stress disorder from his tour in Vietnam, which included a story about raping villagers. She filed for divorce in 2002 when her daughter was 6.
A battle ensued in San Diego County Family Court over custody of the little girl.
Murphy claimed that her daughter was afraid of Parson.
"She would cry if she had to be left with him," said Murphy.
The young girl told a doctor that when Parson was angry he pushed down on her shoulders and injured her. The doctor reported it to Child Protective Service, which Murphy said termed the incident inconclusive...
Parsons was granted immediate overnight visits.
"And I just broke," said Murphy. "I thought, either I go to jail or I protect my child. It was like a primal instinct."
Murphy took her daughter and ran. She was arrested in Florida, brought to San Diego and tossed in jail.
She eventually pleaded no contest to felony kidnapping, accepting the charge without admitting guilt. She was placed on probation...
"And I thought, all I'm trying to do is protect my little girl from someone I know is a danger," said Murphy.
So she waited and worried for six years, until a call last November. Murphy had to pick up her daughter, because another young girl had bravely come forward, accusing Parson of molesting her. Parson was now the one behind bars...
The criminal complaint charges Parson with hurting three girls, two of them younger than 14 years old. The charges include oral sex with a child, molestation, possessing child porn and using a child to make porn.
A report from the District Attorney's Office said, "The defendant's computers and camera were seized ... revealed numerous photographs of young girls."
Using those photographs, an Oceanside police officer was able to identify and speak with one of the girls, which led to more charges against Parson.
Joyce Murphy feels vindicated, but it's bittersweet.
"I blame the entire family court system," she said, "because they are not held accountable"...
Joyce Murphy said Family Court's only good decision in her case was granting her full permanent custody of her daughter after her ex husband was jailed.
Henry Parson's daughter is not one of the victims alleged in the criminal complaint.
The full article is here. Parsons pled guilty to the charges and has been sentenced. Murphy is pictured at the top of this blog post.
One of the organizations which supports Murphy is Stop Family Violence. We have clashed with them repeatedly over the years, including:
During our successful campaign against PBS' anti-father documentary Breaking the Silence, Irene Weiser of Stop Family Violence (along with the National Organization for Women) urged supporters to counter our protest by calling PBS in support of the program.
Weiser and NOW's Marcia Pappas countered my co-authored column NOW at 40: Group's Opposition to Shared Parenting Contradicts Its Goal of Gender Equality (New York Daily News, 7/27/06) with their op-ed Fathers' Responsibilities Before Fathers' Rights.
Stop Family Violence publicly supported Genia Shockome and Holly Collins.
Stop Family Violence, to their credit, did get it right on Joyce Murphy--here's their write-up.
In Murphy's recent testimony to California legislators, she said the problem in her case was her ex-husband's repeated claims of Parental Alienation. The real problem is that, in part because there are so many false accusations and unnecessarily contentious custody cases, courts don't have the time to properly investigate charges of abuse. Often they simply default against the accused (usually the father). At other times, they suspect the mother's allegations but don't thoroughly investigate them, instead defaulting against her claims.
Lorna Alksne, the supervising judge of the San Diego County Family Court, told the reporter writing about the Murphy case that "each judge must juggle between 200 and 300 cases every month. She said the judges read before work, after work and during breaks to be prepared for their full day of hearings."
What's needed is a system which properly and impartially investigates claims, so that children like Murphy's daughter are protected, but women like Shockome and Collins are unable to use false claims to drive their ex-husbands out of their children's lives.
Organizations like Stop Family Violence could play a positive role here by actively counseling women not to make false claims--claims which can lead courts to suspect or not act on the accusations made by legitimately protective mothers like Joyce Murphy. And one way for Stop Family Violence to start would be to publicly disavow false accusers such as Collins, Loeliger, and Shockome.
"));
19 queries. 0.394 seconds.
July 27th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
An all-around exceptionally well-written piece.
Glenn, thank you for continuing to speak rationally, respectfully and even-handedly about the wide variety of issues that affect us all here. If the MRA movement is ever going to be seen as anything more than just "knee-jerk anti-feminism", it is going to need you, and more men and women like you, who will stand up to those who would confound you when they are wrong, yet will just as properly give them credit when they are right.
And if second-wave feminists continue to lie, and power-play, and manufacture statistics out of whole cloth while we are stuck "playing fair", what does it matter? We can -afford- to take the high ground, because we have the truth on our side!
I've never considered it to be "MRA" as much as I've considered it to be about plain and simple equality -- actual, true, genuine equality, where society realizes that men and women can be of equal value even if they are not identical in nature. And just as history would never deign to refer to great men like MLK as 'Negroists', I think that in a generation or two after we here have all started waking up on the brown side of the grass, websites such as this will be looked at as the start towards true equality between men and women rather than just "men's rights websites".
July 27th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Hear hear to both Glenn and Charles!
July 27th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I said a while back on this board that false accusations hurt everyone. I don't remember who it was that jumped on me saying that only one person suffers from false allegations. Stories like this are what I was talking about. All the parents who falsely claim abuse hurt the credibility of those who truly have a claim. I hope that the members of this community who have truly been victims of parental alienation will be as outraged about this father falsely claiming that as they are the mothers falsely claiming abuse. I have encouraged, to the extent that I'm able even forced, my ex-husband to be involved in our children's lives and he still chooses to claim that I'm denying him access. It's easier to play games and say that than to step up and be a dad. If our case ever makes it in front of a judge, I'm fairly certain that the judge will laugh him out of court. But the next time a father comes in and claims parental alienation or custodial interference, our case will be in the back of his mind and he won't be able to help but wonder.
There is little in this world that ticks me off as much as a woman falsely claiming sexual assault or a parent falsely claiming abuse. But the person falsely accused is only one of many victims. Society as a whole suffers when false allegations are allowed to fly. I fully support legal consequences for people who make false accusations, male or female, false accusations hurt EVERYONE.
July 27th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
And kudos to Glenn for reporting this story...I knew very little of the men's rights/father's rights movement until I stumbled onto your site. From what I can tell, you take some heat from extremists who think you are too moderate but I have always been impressed by your objectivity. I don't agree with everything you say, and I frequently take issue with some of your commenters, but I do have a lot of respect for you.
July 27th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Barbara,
for what it's worth coming from me, I think you are absolutely right. False allegations do hurt everyone. I don't know the person who 'jumped on you' saying that there was only one victim of false allegations, but I do know they're wrong.
Having said that, I am almost certain that this person's comments are borne from the frustration from some media outlets and some judicial opinions that only ever focus on how 'false allegations hurt women', forgetting that a false allegation of rape from a woman will all but destroy a man's life, and she will often get away scot free.
Of course, I say 'often', but not always. I don't have the link handy, but a woman in the UK did get several years in prison today for her false allegations of rape, and the judge was very fair in commenting how the false allegations not only harmed the accused directly but also harmed genuine rape victims indirectly. I expected it to be on Glenn's blog when I checked it out tonight; I will hope he has it posted in the next day or two. But still, I think you and I would both agree that this judge in question was completely and directly on the ball, yes?
July 28th, 2009 at 12:27 am
If the new gender feminist community who de facto run our schools, and raise our children, are so focused on the "childrens well being".... then why are so many American children put on psychiatric drugs??? They must be doing a shoddy job!!
July 28th, 2009 at 12:27 am
I have been interested in this case because of debates with some of the folks who state PAS is junk science. Thanks for the analysis. It is disheartening to hear the guy was a perv but justice has prevailed.
Because so many false allegations are made by so-called protective parents (read moms) I cynically disbelieve them from the get go. It would behoove all to get changes to the Family Court System so an impartial investigation can occur of allegations with penalties to either party for telling untruths.
Our children deserve that much.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:28 am
First I want to say that Glenn Sacks is an honest, intelligent, and forthright person which is one reason I respect him and Fathers & Families. Thank you Glenn.
I am on the eve of my second custody evaluation. One thing that I find very odd about groups like Stop Family Violence and Justice for Mothers is that they are very anti-custody evaluation. Ironically, as someone who has been falsely accused as being abusive or neglectful repeatedly I look at custody evaluations as a good thing or an ace in the hole. If I did not know better I would say that these feminist organizations are very touchy about anything that stands in their way of women's absolute right for full and total custody. Very icky.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Hi Glenn - you know that I totally oppose false claims and agree with Barbara that they hurt everyone. I am saddened by the horrible situation of Joyce Murphy and her daughter. It was clearly in that man's interests to cover up and bully his ex-wife and it sounds as though he got away with all of his bad activities for far too long.
But as to the frequent internet attacks by the mother and daughter following your expose of their public disinformation, I'm coming to the conclusion that this type of behavior is almost always a red flag. Anybody who takes their case to the internet or TV, and says different things than in the courtroom or to other officials, has to be under extreme suspicion. If these people are going to go on TV, then they have to be willing to take questioning and criticism.
I saw a list today of every therapist or other professional who'd attended the March, 2009 conference on PAS in Canada - every single one had some type of extreme, negative accusation made against them by an anonymous "feminist" blogger. The person was stating that every single professional on the list - dozens, male and female, from the US and Canada and even other countries - was simply someone who a disgruntled father could hire, and pay them to "get the courts to take women's children away from them." I never believe anything like that I see on the internet. It's an easy way out for people who have no other outlet for bullying and terror.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:05 am
So what if a bunch of nuts randomly happened to "get something right". That amounts to congratulating a terrorist because he happened to kill Jeffrey Dahmer.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Barbara ,
I dont think the attack as to victims was worded well when it was aimed at you , one of the biggest irritants for many here esp when dealing with false accusations is the fact that the victim is near enough alw3ays described in court as being third party females... the males who are the actual victim are most often regarded as collaateral damage.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Norman,
that's not true in the least. To prove your point, you need to show that "this bunch of nuts" acted in a completely random fashion that "just so happened" to get something right.
On the other hand, this group's stated goal is very much in line with ours. They are, theoretically, trying to stop family violence. Not "men's violence against women", but "family violence". Isn't that the sort of change that Glenn has been fighting for all these years? Isn't that a change that, if you woke up to it tomorrow, you would be giddily dancing in the streets? Even if they presently take three steps backwards for every step they take forward, shouldn't they be encouraged for taking that one step forward?
Granted, on a number of occasions, they fail to implement that goal properly, but you know what? In this case, their actions clearly pass the "smell test" for gender double standards. Even if it's -solely- due to the vagaries of random chance, why shouldn't we show respect when they do the right thing in the right way? Don't we want them to apply this exact same ardor and respect when the gender roles are reversed?
Glenn has spelled out a very straightforward plan. Wouldn't it be nice if Stop Family Violence threw out their agenda tomorrow morning and instead implemented Glenn's plan? Wouldn't you like them to wake up tomorrow and 'properly and impartially investigate claims' and 'publicly disavow false accusers such as Collins, Loeliger, and Shockome'?
God knows I would.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Of course it was not totally random in the mathematical sense of the term. If an analogy was perfect it wouldn't be an analogy.
But you're in outer space if you think their true goals are the same as ours, or that they are somehow aligned with us. Of course they are going to say "family violence", it punches everyone's "for the children" buttons - that is why they word it that way.
"Glenn has spelled out a very straightforward plan. Wouldn't it be nice if Stop Family Violence threw out their agenda tomorrow morning and instead implemented Glenn's plan? "
yes, and I would also like if if there were no wars, no racism, no traffic jams ,and I want a garden full of daisies and rabbits. All those have about an equal chance of happening.
Just out of curiosity, how long have you been on the board? I've been on here a while and I don't see where you've commented until very recently...
July 28th, 2009 at 3:20 am
p.s.
how come earlier in your comment you say their true goal is to stop family violence, then a few sentences later you say "their agenda"?
July 28th, 2009 at 3:40 am
Barbara,
are you sure the person didn't say "only one person suffers from a false allegation?"
Note the 'a' - they are talking about a given allegation. You can't take the generalization and apply it to any given specific case in the way you seem to be doing. Although I do agree if what you mean is that not only is the accused a victim, but so is the rest of his family (besides the false accuser herself).
July 28th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Norman,
#1) You're in outer space if you missed my use of the word 'theoretical'. Did I comment on what their true goals are? Or what their theoretical goals are?
#2) "how come earlier in your comment you say their true goal"...
Nowhere do I say what their TRUE goal is. Never do I use the word TRUE. I do use the word THEORETICAL, and certainly, their THEORETICAL goal (sorry for the caps, but you missed it the first time, so I thought I'd accent the key words) and their STATED goal (even if it is not what their goal is in PRACTICE) is the elimination of family violence.
And far from your outlandish rhetoric that they are like a terrorist who accidentally killed Jeffrey Dahmer, in this case, they applied the right reasoning to the right facts and reached the right conclusion. Switch the genders, and I'd be incredibly pleased with the outcome. Wouldn't you?
#3) "All those have about an equal chance of happening."
Guess what? It just DID happen. They applied the right reasoning to the right facts and reached the right conclusion. Far from being something as unlikely as peace on earth, it's something that just did happen. I don't care how many times I scold my children for doing something wrong, I'll praise them when they do something right. The same reasoning applies to Glenn (as evinced by his making this blog post) and applies to myself here.
#4) You can take your thinly veiled accusation that I'm some kind of sock puppet for a feminist organization, and cram it where the sun doesn't shine. You and I both know what "oh, I haven't seen where you've commented until very recently" means. I suppose that ellipsis was an accident, instead of an attempt to indicate your aspersions to my motivations, right? Maybe your period key is stuck.
If you have any questions about my motivations, look over my old posts over the past few months, or you could even ask Glenn. I've cced him on a half-dozen or so "letters to the editor / columnist" callouts that he's asked for. Or, maybe, reread what I posted above (with proper attention to the key words I put in CAPS above) or any other post I've made in the past, and find one sentence where I'm antipathetic to the fundamental causes that are brought up on this blog.
July 28th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Charles,
you need to attend an anger management workshop. Also a workshop on understanding analogies.
If you 'theorized' that their goal was benevolent, then why did you later refer to it as an agenda? Or is it some ghost who's doing the theoriziing?
July 28th, 2009 at 5:56 am
.....................................................................................................................
July 28th, 2009 at 8:05 am
I applaud Glenn's fairness and honesty, but from what I read it appears as if the feminsits "got it right" in this case because they were looking for cases of abuse by men against women/children. As a partisan organization, we can expect them to "get it right" when men act badly and women act well. I think it's important to stress, however, that civil rights organizations should be judged by how they act ethically and fairly even when it's not in their direct interests. If the feminists had made similar noise about Holly Collins, for example, then I would have been impressed. For now, it's just another dog bites man story.
Next, we shouldn't accept the paradigm that all men have to act perfectly EVERYWHERE for us to deserve the benefit of a doubt. If a single man does something terrible and it's run all over the newspapers, that shouldn't constitute proof that all men deserve to be treated as second class citizens.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:21 am
charles.....any action that reduces violence,abuse or other negatives towards children is welcome and should be fully supported by everyone without exception, we can agree. we also agree that children should never be used as a conduit to enhance and move forward an agenda. it's good when feminist get it right, at least in the short run.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:30 am
This case outlines for me why custody issues are so difficult these days. Sometimes you know someone is dangerous to the children, but if you can't prove it, you are stuck leaving the children with them. Go to jail or just close your mouth and do what the court tells you to do: leave your precious children in harms way?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:19 am
wow folks,
Cool down. I think someone needs to count to 10.
Great post.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Can someone point out in this where we know this guy is guilty?
The vid didn't load for me for some reason, but the comment on the vid link suggest it's not him speaking..
I don't see any info from him?
July 28th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Found it. Never mind.
July 28th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I have to say though,
I'm still wondering why there is no comment from the guy (aside from him being in jail).
July 28th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Good show Glenn!!
PK:
If the feminists had made similar noise about Holly Collins, for example, then I would have been impressed. For now, it's just another dog bites man story.
Sadly I think you're right that their reason for going into action on this had absolutely nothing to do with Parental Alienation but more of the usual, "Look! Another girl getting abuse by an entitled man!! The Patriarchy strikes again!!!!!" If their is no direct benefit (meaning they can't make it all about women) for them they aren't interested.
Next, we shouldn't accept the paradigm that all men have to act perfectly EVERYWHERE for us to deserve the benefit of a doubt. If a single man does something terrible and it's run all over the newspapers, that shouldn't constitute proof that all men deserve to be treated as second class citizens.
Precisely. No group should have to deal with such stereotyping but for some reason nearly any other group in existence is free to speak out against it except for men.
However posts like this are the stuff that need to saved and shown to anti-MRA types that think you all are just whining and trying to protect the right to beat and rape women and children.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Charles et al...
The Stop Family Violence website seems to me to be somewhat gendered in it's understanding of "family violence". Others should draw their own conclusions.
It was whilst perusing their site that I encountered a piece by Michael Fl**d lambasting the mens' movement. I was captivated by the closing elements of Fl**d's piece. The poor formatting is probably SFVO's responsibility.
Aussies in particular are probably aware of Mr Fl**d.
Here he demonstrates not an overt desire to advance a cause, but rather to destabilise that of another. In fact he urges political action by others to achieve that end.
What a man!
July 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
One of the fundamental problems with most feminist organizations is that they are not interested in equal rights as they claim. They want SPECIAL rights and are not interested in making this world a better place to live for EVERYONE.
Rather than working with men in a spirit of cooperation for everyone's benefit, they choose to engage in male-bashing, lies and negative propaganda, all for the purpose of indulging their own selfish agenda.
We need to fight this hateful and Marxist movement tooth-and-nail while we still can.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Apologies...I should have warned.
I reckon that in the quoted part the points from the first "Are interested only" to "Collude with perpetrators" should be indented or in point form. SVFO "published" it the way I reproduced it.
July 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Mr Fl**d's post is pretty offensive.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
One robin does not make spring. Pity the poor kids/future adults damaged by all these supporters of evil.
July 28th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
There are many women who fundamentally believe that they, and they alone, should be the sole power and authority over children. This includes individuals as well as organized groups. The idea that the men would have any rights let alone equal rights is antithetical to everything they stand for. Many of these women do not care what they have to do or who they have to destroy to maintain that control.
It is very important that men keep their eye on the ball. While I believe that there is a mixture of good and bad in all of us and that some people do bad things to children including both men and women, we need to assert our rights unapoligetically and not let the smoke screen of martyrdom, "equality" and victimhood to be used to screw us and our children out of the fundamental right to have both parents involved.
As they say, "even a broken clock is right twice a day". That still does not absolve groups like FFLM from having to respect due process, habeus corpus, and the hauge convention.
July 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Amy Sterling Casil Says:
July 28th, 2009 at 12:32 am
I saw a list today of every therapist or other professional who'd attended the March, 2009 conference on PAS in Canada - every single one had some type of extreme, negative accusation made against them by an anonymous "feminist" blogger. The person was stating that every single professional on the list - dozens, male and female, from the US and Canada and even other countries - was simply someone who a disgruntled father could hire, and pay them to "get the courts to take women's children away from them."
----------------------------------------------
Of course feminists are attacking proponents of PAS.
There's an old WWII bomber saying: "When you're getting flak, you know you're over the target."
The "target" in this case is the ability of vengeful mothers to use false accusations of abuse (of some kind or another) to remove loving caring dads from childrens lives (regardless of the harm cause to the child--as long as she gets to deprive him of their presence).
The ability of mothers to make false claims against fathers will continue to fill feminist coffers and giving instant credibility to these false claims will create legions of "victimized" women who will fuel the fire of the mass demonization of men, and they are going to violently reject any lessening of their ill-gotten gains.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
at some point, the question needs to be asked "do women understand what they are doing to men and if so, how is this defensible to any adult, male or female?"
July 28th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
"promote alternative constructions of gender and sexuality which foster non-violence and gender justice. "
LOL!! Classic!
July 28th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
False allegations and the unavoidably resultant parental allienation child abuse actually hurt every last member of society, not just the target father. Yes, it first hurts the falsely accused father, and then his children most of all, especially when the resultant PAS kicks in. This wreaks havoc on everyone around that child, often for life. This destroys the chidlren as they grow up which terrorizes the schools, community, police, courts and such who get dealt the horrible result of this often condoned worst type of child abuse. Yet, most of them misunderstand all of this, ignorantly fueling it instead.
Then of course this predominance of false abuse allegations also hurts the credibility of real victims too. The whole deal has a great cost to every last taxpayer and member of society. Last but not least, how many stop to even consider the cost to the women enticed and rewarded for making false abuse allegations? It eats her up sooner or later, and for good, too. Can any woman abuse her children this severely and not have it come back on her and destroy her life in return too? We watch this happen regularly.
Everyone is a victim of all this carnage, rape and pillage of the village. The only winners are the DV/Divorce industry parasites. They orchestrate this destruction of families and society solely for their own gain. Remember, the worst of all abusers and predators have always historically hunted in packs.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
[...] GlennSacks.com » Blog Archive » Feminist Opponents of Shared … [...]
July 28th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I see it as counterproductive to ever give feminists credit for anything.Who says "stop family violence" got it right on the joyce murphy case? How can we say that about an organization with SFV`s record? An organization that has frequently co-conspired with similar groups to block pro-father and pro-shared parenting efforts? An organization that cherry-picks and illuminates cases that will support their ideological views about family violence,while ignoring all the others? An organization that seeks to discredit the fathers movement,not because it cares about "ending family violence",but to promote its anti-family and anti-male agenda.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
I'm beginning to agree with a lot of the posters on here that say "so what?"
I understand about being an ideologically honest movement (as opposed to feminism which is an ideologically dishonest--or even deceitful--movement), but I question the validity of giving them a clap on the back, considering their technique is to try to attack fatherhood at each opportunity.
A) This father falsely kept kids from mother with false accusations of PAS. LIES!
B) This father falsely kept kids from mother with false accusations of PAS. LIES!
C) This father falsely kept kids from mother with false accusations of PAS. LIES!
D) This father falsely kept kids from mother with false accusations of PAS. LIES!
E) This father falsely kept kids from mother with false accusations of PAS. LIES!
F) This father falsely kept kids from mother with false accusations of PAS. Correct!
Hey let's give the FFLM a big hand for *standing up for justice* in this one case!
Let's not, considering that on the previous 3 or 4 occasions, they were willfully spreading deceit to further their ends of smearing PAS so that moms can freely at any time or place crush dad's involvement with the kids via false accusations of some form of harm.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I watched the video. Talk about "professionals" who misunderstand what parental alienation syndrome is. Even a psychologist, who has no clue. And the comments about the bank. Talk about being far fetched.
PAS is not about the parents. It's a syndrome which a child receives. Parents are the main role models in their child's lives. They are who their children learn from, and learn to socialize. When parents separate, (1) the child doesn't understand and often takes blame. When you have two parents fighting. Belittling each other in front of or to the child etc. The child becomes detached, angry, depressed, has difficulty socializing, establishing relationships, and develops fears of loss and being abandoned. That is P.A.S., it's not about a parent becoming depressed. They need to get their stories right, before looking like idiots on tv.
September 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I hadn't seen this before -- Bravo, Glenn!
This shows that "our side" is honest enough to admit that this is a tough issue. PAS claims can be false and used by abusers (of either gender). Our courts need to give more attention to the PAS issue.
I'd love to see NOW and their ilk just once have the courage to admit this isn't a "black and white" issue. To see them admit that Holly Collins (et al) played them. Ha! Keep waiting.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 am
What the court needs to prioritize are substantial consequences for false accusations of any stripe.
Penalties should be proportionate to the harm, such that it is more than the 'cost of doing business'. Also attorneys who advise clients to fabricate should be acted against also.
This will have no effect though if it is understood that the probability of being caught is low. False claims and confabulated testimony should be investigated. The reason the courts are so flooded with this stuff it that it is so easy to do. Once it is understood that there is no free ride for lying there will be a lot less for the judges to read.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:07 am
I was behind Joyce's media coverage...and was unaware she was unwittingly hijacked by the so called, "Protective Parents" and the equally frothy, Stop Family Violence crew who conveniently *didn't* post the news feature below, but did every other one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn_YqJ4HehU
Also, I entirely disagree with everyone here. Parental alienation was the brilliant marketing work of Dr. Richard Gardner, who cointed the phrase, then hired himself out as a defense witness for pedhophiles.
I was also the first to suspect, investigate, confirm and publish at http://www.Familylawcourts.com, breaking news that he'd committed suicide.
After his suicide some mothers who were victims of Parental alienation - continued saying there was no such thing.
All of you - both sexes - both groups - continue to miss the obvious. No wonder therapists are making a mint.
Parental alienation is not a syndrome. It's a physical act. Whether the brain washing parent has a psychological disorder is an entirely, *separate* question.
See here:
http://open.salon.com/blog/bonnie_russell/2009/08/31/a_nation_of_stockholm_children
But as long as gender based groups continue flinging dirt at each other, everyone loses. Children especially. (Doesn't seem to matter as those running the so called "non-profits" continue their plea for bucks.)
However, judges are delighted with the rantings and ravings of each group because it takes the focus of what they're doing.
Allowing both groups to continue funding therapists.
Consider this bill, (thank God it failed) which was introduced by lobbyists hired by the Association of Marriage and Family Therapists.
SB 1031 (Hollingworth)
This bill would, among other things, require parties involved in a dissolution of marriage, where minor children are involved, to complete four hours of family education, during the sixty-day period immediately following the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage. The education would focus on the impact of dissolution on children. CAMFT is watching this bill. Although, at the time that this article was being written, the bill had not passed out of its first committee.
(In other words, the therapists would run the courts...which would come to a screeching halt, until the therapist could fit people into their schedules.)
So Thank God it failed.
In other news....I note Sacks' rapid response guy Franklin, continually refuses to address the number of men killing so they don't have to pay support. I urge all you so-called Mens Rights and Fathers rights people to address this issue, at long last, head-on,
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/07/double-murderer-gets-2-life-terms/
and
http://www.familylawcourts.com/kids.html
and
http://www.familylawcourts.com/badcop.html
Because when you refuse to address the sheer numbers and come back with "well, some men are also abused," or the equally pathetic,
"She started it,"
you lose whatever traction you imagine you have.
Why doesn't everyone stop funding the divorce industry. If you'd like to discover how, write me.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:47 am
[...] is correct–this can happen. One example is the Joyce Murphy case in San Diego–to learn more, see my post Feminist Opponents of Shared Parenting Get It [...]