Parental Alienation Syndrome
Finally, DSM-5 was published today. The DSM-5 Task Force told us 2 or 3 years ago that they did not want parental alienation to be a separate diagnosis in DSM-5, but they thought that parental alienation could be considered an example of other diagnoses that are in DSM-5.
The actual words “parental alienation” are not in DSM-5, but there are several diagnoses that can be used in these cases. I would say the “spirit” of parental alienation is in DSM-5, even if the words are not.
Parent-child relational problem now has a discussion in DSM-5, not just a label. The discussion explains that cognitive problems in parent-child relational problem “may include negative attributions of the other’s intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement.” That is a pretty good description of a child’s view of the alienated parent, although it is an unfortunate use of the word “estrangement.”
Child psychological abuse is a new diagnosis in DSM-5. It is defined as “nonaccidental verbal or symbolic acts by a child’s parent or caregiver that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant psychological harm to the child.” In many instances, the behavior of the alienating parent constitutes child psychological abuse.
Child affected by parental relationship distress is another new diagnosis in DSM-5. It should be used “when the focus of clinical attention if the negative effects of parental relationship discord (e.g., high levels of conflict, distress, or disparagement) on a child in the family, including effects on the child’s mental or other physical disorders.” That is also a good description of how parental alienation comes about.
Factitious disorder imposed on another is the DSM-5 terminology for factitious disorder by proxy or Munchausen disorder by proxy. Its definition is “falsification of physical or psychological signs or symptoms, or induction of injury or disease, in another, associated with identified deception.” In some cases, that would describe the behavior of the alienating parent.
Delusional symptoms in partner of individual with delusional disorder is the DSM-5 terminology for shared psychotic disorder or folie a deux. The definition is: “In the context of a relationship, the delusional material from the dominant partner provides content for delusional belief by the individual who may not otherwise entirely meet criteria for delusional disorder.”
In discussing this topic, I would say that the concept of parental alienation is clearly in DSM-5, although the actual words are not. This is a great improvement over DSM-IV-TR, especially with the addition of the new diagnoses, child psychological abuse and child affected by parental relationship distress.
Dr. Bernet is currently working with PAAO to present a webinar on this subject in the next 2 – 3 weeks. We will notify you of the details shortly.
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Omaha resident Gary Owens pounded the table and raised his voice Wednesday as he testified before Nebraska lawmakers, demanding they pass two bills that could allow him to spend more time with his son.
A coalition of fathers, doctors and family-law attorneys is asking lawmakers to change a Nebraska parental custody law that they view as unfair to men.
The Legislature’s Judiciary Committee had to open an overflow room to accommodate the advocates who testified in support for two parental custody bills.
“Men should have a right to have custody of their children just as much as their mothers,” Owens said.
Sen. Russ Karpisek of Wilber introduced the first measure that would create a legal presumption that both parents are entitled to at least 45 percent of the total parenting time. If the parents disagree on this, one parent would have to prove with a preponderance of evidence that parenting time should shift in favor of one parent. He said studies show children who spend less than 35 percent of their time with a parent have diminished physical and mental health.
The legislation is modeled after a measure recently passed in Minnesota but later vetoed by the governor. The bill would have increased the amount of time each parent gets with a child from 25 percent to 35 percent.
Karpisek grew up in a divorced family and is a recently divorced parent. He said he and his wife share parenting time and that his children are doing well because of it.
The second bill, introduced by Kearney Sen. Galen Hadley, would change provisions of the Parenting Act to say it is in the best interest of the child to have substantial parenting time with both parents, and that both parents should be equally involved in making decisions involving the child. This bill is modeled after Arizona legislation that went into effect this year. Ten states have provisions that say joint custody is in the best interest of the child.
“The time has passed when the sex of the parent is the determining factor,” Hadley said.
However, a legal group for Nebraskans, attorneys and advocated for domestic violence victims opposed the bills, saying they would create more family fighting, reduce child support most mothers receive and could reduce public benefits for poor households. Advocates for domestic violence victims worried women in such situations would have a harder time protecting themselves and their children.
Sen. Colby Coash of Lincoln worried about the impact Karpisek’s bill would have on child support payments. Karpisek said he didn’t introduce the bill to help dads get out of paying child support.
Hasting family law attorney Chris Johnson said judges would take into account the number of days the child spends with each parent and the parents’ income to decide who should pay child support and how much should be paid.
“I don’t care about the child support,” Owens said. “Take all my money. I don’t care. I want my son.”
Omaha 13-year-old Sydney Morehouse asked the lawmakers Wednesday to pass the bills that would help her spend more time with her dad. Before the hearing, she burst into tears when she talked about how hard it is to only get to see her dad every other weekend and Wednesday nights. She hates shuffling between two households and not feeling settled at her dad’s house.
Her dad, Curt Morehouse, said he has been fighting to get more time with her since she was a baby. He also heads a father’s rights group to help divorced dads gain more time with their children.
“I’m not a bad person,” he said. “There’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to see her more.”
__Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
A statewide group working to reform family law is laying down roots in Central Georgia while making moves at the State Capitol. The group, called The Georgia Parental Alienation Awareness Organization secured a proclamation from Governor Nathan Deal on Thursday.
Parental alienation is an issue that’s just beginning to gain awareness according to members of the group. It’s when one parent gets custody of a child, and through negative comments and characterizations, the child begins to form unjustified hatred and a strong dislike for their mothers or fathers. Parental alienation can make a rejected parent’s access to their children difficult and sometimes even impossible.
“It makes me very sad, it makes me mad,” said Brenda McIntyre, a Centerville woman, who is leading the charge for parental alienation awareness in Central Georgia.
The only times McIntyre regularly sees her two kids is shuffling through old photos. The self-proclaimed victim of parental alienation says after her divorce eight years ago her ex-husband began funneling his dislike for her through the couples then 5-year-old son and 12-year-old daughter.
McIntyre says she was characterized as a lunatic. She was arrested twice. Once for trespassing as she tried to pick her children up from her ex-husbands home, and another time for making harassing phone calls, trying to contact her children. In both instances the charges were dropped because McIntyre says she was just exercising her custodial rights.
“It’s ridiculous,” McIntyre said.
Searching for support … McIntyre eventually became connected to the statewide group Georgia Parental Alienation Organization,
that traveled to Atlanta last week seeking a proclamation from Governor Nathan Deal to recognize parental alienation as a growing problem in the state.
Hilary Crowe, who spearheads the group out of Loganville says she asked the Governor to set aside one day as Parental Alienation Awareness Day. He gave her a week.
“By him signing the proclamation it’s that one giant leap we need to get local senators and local legislators attention,” Crowe said.
Crowe’s group hopes to create legislation giving parents equal rights in custodial matters, and they want people, specifically judges, to recognize that parental alienation is real, and it’s wrong.
“This will lead to other opportunities for parental alienation awareness in the state, and it’s a way to reach out to others in the state that may not know about parental alienation, or know that they’re experiencing it,” Crowe said.
Crowe says the group is quickly expanding as people realize they’re victims of parental alienation, but most members say the real victim’s are the children.
“You want them to have a healthy psychological disposition, and to do that you need both parents involved in their lives,” said Bill Moore, an advocate for family law reform who’s longstanding group has merged with the Georgia Parental Alienation Organization.
While the group is gaining momentum, McIntyre says she’s doing what she can. She’s created a Central Georgia chapter for parental alienation awareness, and plans to hold regular meetings.
If you or anybody you know is a victim of parental alienation and you want to make a difference, McIntyre’s says she wants to hear from you.
You can reach her at: (478) 333-6100 or email@example.com
She has also event planned for her chapter.
April 16: Mayor Harley presenting proclamation making April 25 Parental Alienation Awareness Day in Centerville
April 20: 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Bubbles of Love event at Rozar Park in Perry
April 20: 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Bubbles of Love event, FBC Centerville
April 25: first meeting of Middle Georgia Regional Chapter of Parental Alienation Awareness Organization (location to be determined).Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Widner Family Law deals with divorce. They have a radio program called “Divorce Rescue Radio” which is on every Sunday night. During this episode they spend a lot of time talking about Parental Alienation.
Dr. Richard Warshak is on this program. The show is full of great information from some very knowledgeable people. You can listen to the program clicking on the link: http://divorce-rescue-radio-talk-showRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Tara Eisenhard is a child of divorce as well as an ex-wife and previous partner of a divorced dad. From these life experiences came her beliefs that a marriage shouldn’t survive at the expense of its participants, and families should evolve, not dissolve, through the separation process.
Tara considers herself a student of divorce and is passionate about sharing her vision with others. She’s the author of the book The D-Word: Divorce Through a Child’s Eyes and the blog Relative Evolutions. Additionally, she has written for Divorced Women Online, Since My Divorce and Stepmom Magazine.
Click on the link to listen to the show: http://EisenhardblogtalkradioRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Lita Ford has a song on her new album that helps her express how she feels about family, travel, the geographical distance that makes or breaks families and in general, her new music.
Living Like a Runaway is her first CD since she began to manage life on her own. Her life changes prompted her comeback release Wicked Wonderland. Her latest work is closer to the music she wants to create.
But one track, called Mother, is a personal message to her children. Reflecting on her situation, Ford says the biggest lesson she’s learned was that: “If you ever get angry at your spouse, don’t take it out on your kids. Keep them out of it. They don’t need to know. Just let them be kids.”
In this episode you will hear the songs, MOTHER, PLAYING WITH FIRE, STILL WAITING AND GOTTA LET GO.
Click on the link to listen to Jill and Judge Michelle talk with Lita Ford: http://Litaford blogtalkRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Lawdiva’s Blog – Canadian Lawyer Georgialee Lang – Her recent story on Parental Alienation
There are many divorced fathers in Canada who believe they are nothing more than a “wallet” in their children’s eyes. It is rare however, for a judge to confirm that status in Reasons for Judgment, but that is exactly what Mr. Justice Gray did in his recent decision in Veneman v. Veneman 2012 ONSC 6324.
Mr. and Mrs. Veneman separated in 2004 after 11 years of marriage. Mr. Veneman left the family home but maintained the financial status quo and enjoyed a good relationship with the children, ages 8 and 11.
The apparent bliss of separation disappeared, however, when Mr. Veneman commenced a personal relationship with a woman he met on the internet. His ex-wife’s reaction was venomous as revealed in vulgar emails from her to Mr. Veneman where she called his girlfriend an “internet whore”.
At about the same time, Mr. Veneman decided that after two years of separation, the parties should reorganize their financial affairs. He closed the joint account that his wife and he shared since the date of separation and began paying voluntary child and spousal support.
Ms. Veneman’s campaign of abuse against Mr. Veneman was quickly adopted by his two girls who also began writing mean-spirited and disrespectful emails to their father. The children were particularly angered by their father when he brought his girlfriend to a birthday party for one of the girls hosted by the girl’s paternal grandparent. This was the first occasion they had met her, although Mr. Veneman told his children about her and their relationship.
As time went on, the girls also sent emails scolding their father for failing to provide sufficient funds to their mother. The Court found that Ms. Veneman liberally shared her views about his girlfriend and his financial contribution, all actions which eventually led to the termination of any father/daughter relationship.
Eldest daughter Maggie described her father in an email to him as “selfish, greedy, lying, back-stabbing, neglecting, blackmailing, bribing, idiotic, mean and just overall a stupid person”. This kind of poison most often originates from a parent who cannot see that their attitude is severely harming their children.
Despite the difficulties, Mr. Veneman continued to make every effort to reconnect and appease his children but all overtures were rebuffed by them.
With his older daughter approaching the age of nineteen and attending Queen’s University, Mr. Veneman brought an application to court asking for an order that his obligation to pay child support cease upon her birthday.
Several years earlier, he had agreed to an order that he pay 75% of his children’s post-secondary education costs, but he now argued that her termination of any relationship with him was cause for the court to reconsider his child support obligations.
Mr. Veneman relied on several cases where courts noted that an adult child’s unilateral and unreasoned abandonment of a parental relationship could lead to a termination of support. Other cases, however, were cited where the proposition was accepted that “estrangement, even at the sole instance of the child, should not be relevant”.
Judge Gray, however, did not need to grapple with which authority was correct as he was able to decide the case by finding that the father had not shown a material change in circumstances, which was the required test to vary a child support order. The judge held that when Mr. Veneman agreed to pay post-secondary expenses in 2009, he had no relationship with Maggie, and had no relationship now.
He declared that Mr. Veneman “was nothing more than a wallet” and said the blame for the alienation must be assumed by both parents.
It is here where I part company with the judge’s findings. It is startling to suggest that the clumsy, perhaps even insensitive, introduction of a new partner to one’s children who are 10 and 13, after two years of separation from their mother, constitutes conduct that is blameworthy.
In my view, Ms. Veneman’s immature behavior is the reason her children have ousted their father from their lives. I hope when the girls figure it out, which they will, they will clearly understand their mother’s role in a tragic family situation the judge called “irrational and avoidable”.
Interesting that if you are part of an intact family you can decide how much you want to contribute, if any, to your child’s education, but if you are separated or divorced the State decides.
Equally interesting is the absence of any reference to “parental alienation”. I guess if you don’t say it, it doesn’t exist.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Japan Times に掲載された記事「Japan’s ‘silent tsunami’ severs parental ties, wrecks children’s lives」のケビン・ブラウンさんによる文章の日本語訳です。
Japan Times 2011年8月30日（火）
3分毎に新たな子どもが親の離婚によって両親の片方から断絶されています。 7分 毎に新たな子どもが学校いじめの犠牲者になっています。 12分毎に児童虐待に関する新たなケースが保護施設に報告されています。 毎週、少なくとも1 人の子供がこうした児童虐待の結果として死んでいます。
「Children First」は、これらの問題と子供に影響のあることについての他の問題を克服するために活動しています。 しかし、私たちだけでは実現できません。日本が子供にとってより良い場所になるためには、国会議員や政策立案者の助けが必要です。
ほとんどの人々がいじめと虐待の存在に気付いています。これらの2つの問題はしば しば新聞に掲載されます。 しかし、私や多く の他の親達が更に憂慮すべきだと考える問題は、3分毎に子どもの離婚後の片方の親との連絡が絶えてしまうということです。
これは、日本中に癌のように広まっている静かな悲劇です。 それによって、子ども達は彼らの最大限の可能性を広げることができません。それは家 族と家族重視の価値観を滅ぼしています。それは子どもを、将来についての混乱の最中に放り出したままにし、そして普通の生活を送れる可能性を小さくします。 何組かの親子は想像を絶する深 い悲しみの中に取り残されます。これは多く の人々が知らない静かな津波です。 家裁と日本の法システムが、この悲劇が続くことを許しているのです。
現在、私は裁判を抱えていますが、その内容はすぐに変わるべきです。9月13日に、裁判官は離婚と親権に関する判決を出すでしょう。前例の通りであるならば、私は100%負けるでしょう。私は、私の所轄裁判所のある熊本から東京の最高裁判所まで、自転車に乗って行くことを計画しています。私は家族法を変えることを要求するつもりです。私は道中、県庁に寄って知事達からの支持を集めるつもりです。私はそのために8週間の休暇を取りました。「Children First」の日本のフェイスブックページ(http://www.facebook.com/pages/Children-First-Japan/115396388532379)や、「共同親権」の日本のフェースブックページ(http://www.facebook.com/oyako)で、私の計画の経過を見守ることができます。そしてまた、私のブログ「Children First Japan」(http://kwbrow2.wordpress.com)で、私の旅行に関する詳しい情報が得られます。
I have made some modifications to my cycling trip. I have decided to start in Kumamoto on the 13th of September. I picked this day because the judge will rule on my case on the 13th. I was expecting the ruling much earlier. As a result I thought it would be best to delay my start. It seems kind of symbolic to start in Kumamoto. I have a had to make numerous trips to Kumamoto for court. I can pick up my ruling on the 13th and then start cycling. It would be nice if I could get press or left behind parents to see me off on the 13th. If you don’t have plans feel free to meet me at the Kumamoto Family Court on the 13th of September.
I am still planning to handout flyers along the way. I am still planning on stopping at governors offices, court houses, and international schools. Due to my late start I may not have time to cycle all the way to Hokkaido. I will play it by ear. There are numerous left behind parents who can support me from Kumamoto to Tokyo but much less support exists between Tokyo and Hokkaido. I am working with other left behind parents now to pin down the exact days I will be in Saga, Fukuoka, Yamaguchi, Hiroshima, Okayama, Kobe, Osaka, Kyoto, Otsu, Gifu, Nagoya, Shizuoka, Yokohama, and Tokyo. I will be making updates on the Joint Custody in Japan Facebook page and the Children First Facebook page as well as my Facebook page. Please check one of these places every week or so.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
Jill Egizii is and alderman in Illinois. She has done great work with the Cerebral Palsy Foundation. She hosts a show called “Life without limits”, showing that kids with disabilities can still lead productive lives. She is divorced and she has 4 kids and she has been alienated from all of them. She gives advice to those who are experiencing parental alienation. She has worked with Alec Baldwin to change family and divorce law in Illinois. She believes a child has the right to both parents. Please click the link and watch the video.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
ERNIE ALLEN, President & Chief Executive Officer for THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN testifies in Washington, D.C. before the TOM LANTOS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION about “INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION AND PARENTAL ACCESS”
December 2, 2009
According to the latest research from the Department of Justice, there are more than 200,000 family abductions per year. In these situations, a non-custodial relative abducts a child from his or her custodial parent. This is a crime under both state and federal law. Family-abducted children suffer extreme emotional abuse, ranging from lack of identity to grief over the loss of a parent. In many instances the abductor tells the child that the left-behind-parent is dead or no longer wants the child. Abductors frequently move the child from city to city, or take the child to another country, making it difficult for law enforcement and the searching parent to locate and recover the child.
To help illustrate the scope of the problem of international child abduction, I’d like to share some additional statistics with you. NCMEC is currently working cases involving 1,214 children who were abducted by a non-custodial parent from the United States to a foreign country. The majority of these children were taken to the following countries: Mexico (533 children); Japan (54 children); India (32 children); Egypt (30 children); the United Kingdom (24 children); and Canada (23 children).
To read Mr. Allen’s full testimony please click on the link below.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The government of the United States is deeply concerned about the issues of international parental child abduction and child custody/visitation with respect to its close friend and ally, Japan. Due to its sole-parent child custody system, its reluctance to join the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and the fact that it has never returned a single child abducted from abroad to his or her rightful home, Japan has earned an international reputation as a safe haven for kidnappers. Over the past several years, U.S. lawmakers have begun making concerted efforts to end the tragic situations affecting a great many American families due to Japan’s antiquated family law system and its inexplicable disregard for international norms.
The U.S. State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues states there are 100 active cases involving 140 American children who have been abducted from the U.S.A. and who are now being held in Japan in violation of American law. Many of the Japanese nationals guilty of these abductions have court orders against them and are subject to arrest by the F.B.I. and prosecution by federal courts for kidnapping should they again set foot on U.S. soil. In the United States and most advanced nations child abduction is an extremely serious crime. Japan lags far behind other developed countries by failing to recognize this common sense, international consensus and by not legislating child abduction as a punishable criminal offense.
In addition, it is estimated that at least 3,200 American children residing in Japan are being denied access to one of their parents post-divorce. This is due to the Japanese child custody system that awards shin ken (parental rights) to only one parent upon divorce and also severely limits child access to the other parent thereafter. In the case of international marriages, foreign parents are greatly disadvantaged in Japanese courts, and Japanese nationals almost invariably receive sole parental rights. Once shin ken is granted to one parent, the other has no further legal rights with regard to his or her child’s upbringing, and the shin ken holder may deny that other parent access to the child at his or her whim. Since no specific provision for visitation exists under Japanese statute, and since Japanese courts in any event lack any real enforcement powers, the left-behind parent – i.e., the parent without parental rights – is at the mercy of his or her former Japanese spouse. Child visitation is frequently denied outright or severely curtailed, and in any event is always subject to the caprice of the shin ken holder.
These two issues – international parental child abduction and child custody/visitation – are beginning to strain the friendly relations the United States and Japan have enjoyed since the end of World War II. In response to the seriousness of this situation, the U.S. House of Representatives has recently begun taking steps to address what the United States considers to be gross violations of the human rights of American children and their parents by the Japanese nation.
H.Res. 1326 (House Resolution 1326
H.Res. 1326 is a non-binding resolution approved on September 29, 2010, by a vote of 416 to 1 in the U.S. House of Representatives. The resolution 1) “condemns the abduction and retention” of American children by Japanese nationals and demands their repatriation, 2) calls upon Japan to create enforceable laws that guarantee American parents the right to visitation with their children, and 3) urges Japan to accede to the Hague Convention so that established legal mechanisms can be relied upon to resolve custody disputes arising from the dissolution of international marriages. H.Res. 1326 reflects the overwhelming feeling among the American public and its lawmakers that Japan should immediately address these very serious issues for several reasons.
First, removing American citizens from their domiciles in the United States without the consent of the American parents is, as the resolution states, “a violation of their human rights and international law.” As a friend and ally of the United States, Japan should act immediately to end this tragic injustice and restore the family relationships its policies have damaged or destroyed, and thenceforth ensure that the rule of law applies in a reciprocal fashion between the two countries.
Additionally, Japan is viewed as an outlier among the community of advanced nations for not providing for joint custody or enforceable child visitation following divorce. The end result of these policies is frequently the American parent’s complete loss of access to his or her child. Essential family bonds are thus traumatically severed, and the children affected by this tragedy often have to contend with the effects of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a psychological condition which can result in depression; loss of community; loss of stability, security, and trust; excessive fearfulness, even of ordinary occurrences; loneliness; anger; helplessness; disruption in identity formation; and fear of abandonment.
Finally, Japan is currently the only G-7 country that has not signed the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, adopted thirty years ago in 1980. This multilateral treaty, in which 82 countries participate, provides a legal means to effect the expeditious repatriation of children abducted from their domiciles in their home countries, termed in the treaty the child’s “place of habitual residence.” Japan’s resistance to becoming a signatory to the convention and its oft-repeated claims that it is “studying” or “considering” the issue are adversely affecting the country’s diplomatic and economic relations with its strategic allies and important trade partners. Over the past year, through a series of démarches, or diplomatic initiatives, America has joined with 11 other nations plus the European Union to pressure Japan to accede to the treaty and also to resolve outstanding child custody and visitation issues. These démarches are evidence of the increasing frustration the global community now feels over Japan’s lack of progress with respect to this important human rights issue.
H.R. 3240 – The International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009
H.R. 3240, entitled The International Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2009, is a bipartisan bill pending before the U.S. House of Representatives that specifically addresses the joint problems of international parental child abduction and loss of child custody/visitation under the Japanese legal system. If approved by the House, H.R. 3240 would, as a federal statute, have the force of law, and would require specific action on the part of the U.S. government to resolve these issues. Among other things, H.R. 3240 would establish an Office of International Child Abductions in the U.S. Department of State and provide for punitive measures for countries deemed to have exhibited a “pattern of non-cooperation” with respect to the protection of children’s rights.
As explained in one summary of the proposed bill, H.R. 3240 would create an Ambassador at Large for International Child Abductions whose primary responsibilities would be to:
1) promote measures to prevent the international abduction of children from the United States;
(2) advocate on behalf of abducted children whose habitual residence is the United States;
(3) assist left-behind parents in the resolution of abduction or refusal of access cases; and
(4) advance mechanisms to prevent and resolve cases of international child abduction.
In addition, the act would direct the President of the United States to:
(1) annually review the status of unresolved cases in each foreign country to determine whether the government has engaged in a pattern of non-cooperation, and if so, designate such country as a Country With a Pattern of Non-cooperation;
(2) notify the appropriate congressional committees of such designation; and
(3) take specified presidential or commensurate actions to bring about a cessation of non-cooperation.
Thus, passage of H.R. 3240 in the House will radically alter the friendly and cooperative relationship America and Japan have traditionally enjoyed, absent a sincere effort on Japan’s part to resolve the fundamental human rights issues the bill addresses. It is hoped that Japan will voluntarily do the right thing and, as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell cautions, not “wait until the situation has become so tense and so difficult that it appears that Japan is only responding to pressure from the United States.”
 see “Parental Child Abduction is Child Abuse” by Nancy Faulkner, Ph.D. presented to the United Nations Convention on Child Rights in Special Session, June 9, 1999, at http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htmRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
On Saturday July 31st, (“中部・共同親権法制化運動の会”)”Chubu Joint Custody Association for the legislation of joint nurture” sponsored a demo in Nagoya followed by a symposium related to Parental Abduction, Joint Custody, and Parental Alienation. Five fathers spoke at the symposium after the demo. Goto-sensei was the keynote speaker at the symposium. NHK and the Chunichi shimbun were at the symposium and plan to do stories on the issue.
Goto-sensei had several interesting points. She said, there are not many lawyers in Japan that are experienced and willing to fight the unjust Japanese Court system. Goto-sensei talked about a case that she worked on for 3 years. She represented the father and after a 3 year battle custody was awarded to him but transferring physical custody to the father was a problem. The court tried to assist with this two different times but each time it failed. After the second failure the court suggested that Goto and the father give up. Hence, as most of us know, the court has no real power.
Goto said things use to be different 30 years ago. Men often got custody but sometime in the 1990′s a feminist movement took place and women suddenly started gaining power especially in custody cases.
Goto also said, if you are a good person and follow the Japanese way your chances of being abused by the system are great. Goto suggested you fight in court that way judges and courts will know there is a problem. If you don’t try and fight you will never win. “Fight the system” was her biggest message of the day. But, in the same breath Goto-sensei said there are only 5 aggressive lawyers in Japan who are willing to fight the system. She said the other lawyers are weak or inexperienced and don’t want to cause trouble. So if you read between the lines, it is almost impossible to hire an aggressive lawyer who will fight for the best interests of the child.
If you have time watch the short video below.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Despite the harm Nancy Fiedler inflicted on her daughter and her ex-husband and his family, I predict her punishment will not fit the crime. If this were a “stranger” abduction, there is no doubt of severe retribution, however, the irony is that the true victim, Eva, will likely support and defend her mother.
According to Georgialee Lang (lawyer), there is no reason to believe that Nancy Fiedler will discontinue her accusations of abuse against Greg Fiedler after living a large part of her life based on this theme. In Ms. Lang’s experience, women like Nancy Fiedler rarely have insight into their destructive behavior. She likely casts herself in the role of heroine, after all, she saved her daughter.
To read the full article click on the link. Lawdiva blogRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )