In a decision that will surely generate controversy and fuel gender wars and the ongoing debate over parental alienation, Nassau County Supreme Court Judge, Robert Ross, has sentenced a woman to six weekends in jail for alienating her children from their father.
The court went into great detail describing the mother's behavior toward her ex-husband, the defendant in Lauren R. V Ted R. The mother's behavior reached a crescendo, according to Judge Ross, when she made a false report of sexual abuse against the father to Child Protective Services.
The factual findings concerning the mother's behavior as stated in the decision by Judge Ross are extensive but worth reading in their entirety as they form a basis for his decision.
Concerning the plaintiff's (mother's) behavior, Judge Ross stated:
"Plaintiff intentionally scheduled their child's (N.'s) birthday party on a Sunday afternoon during defendant's weekend visitation, and then refused to permit defendant to attend. She demanded that N. be returned home early, in order to "prepare" for her party, but D., the other child, was enjoying the time with her father and wished to remain with him until the party began. Plaintiff castigated N. for "daring" to invite her father to take a picture of her outside her party. According to the plaintiff, "this doesn't work for me!" Plaintiff threatened to cancel N.'s party, and warned her that her sister, too, would be punished "big time" for wanting to spend time with her father. Plaintiff's taped temper tantrum, offered into evidence, vividly detailed one instance of how D. and N. have been made to understand that enjoying time with their father will be met with their mother's wrath and threat of punishment."
Mother consistently lied about father's custody rights
"Plaintiff conceded that when she completed N.'s registration card for XXX., she wrote that defendant is "not authorized to take them. I have custody. Please call me." At trial, she claimed to fear that defendant would retrieve the girls directly from school. However, she later admitted that defendant had never even attempted to pick them up at school. Her testimony at trial sharply contradicted her sworn affidavit dated January 23, 2008, in which she stated that "the defendant consistently attempts to pick up the girls unannounced from their schools and activities, which disrupts not only the girls, but those in charge of the aforementioned." In her sworn affidavit, plaintiff claimed that she completed the registration card because defendant sought to attend the end of D.'s art class and then had the audacity to drive his daughter home. The art class "incident" occurred well after the registration card was completed by the plaintiff. Moreover, nothing in the parties' agreement prohibits the defendant from visiting the children at extra-curricular events or from driving them to or from such events. In point of fact, there was no dispute that D.'s Friday art class in Huntington ended as defendant's alternate weekend visitation commenced."
"Plaintiff wrote to Dr. L.1 (then the XXX. principal) and Ms. T. (N.'s fifth grade teacher), demanding that they restrict their conversations with the defendant to N.'s academics, as plaintiff is "solely responsible for her academic progress and emotional well being. Notwithstanding the nature of their joint legal custody plaintiff insisted before me that, "I have custody, he has visitation.""
"The plaintiff made/completed an application for admission to XXX on behalf of N. in October, 2007. On the application, she checked the box "Mother has custody," rather than the box directly below which says "Joint custody." She identified her new husband, R. L., as N.'s "parent/guardian," and she failed to mention the defendant. During cross examination, plaintiff insisted that she only omitted reference to the defendant for fear that his financial circumstances would adversely impact N.'s chances for acceptance. However, no financial information was requested anywhere on the application. Moreover, plaintiff acknowledged that none was required until after an applicant was invited to attend."
"By applying to XXX without defendant's knowledge - - but with N. completely involved in the process, plaintiff orchestrated the decision to be made, as well as alienating the child. Had the defendant not consented to N.'s attendance at XXX, after the fact, N. would be angry with him for purportedly interfering with the enrollment, even if defendant's objections to a private school placement were sound. In no event was he consulted as to this educational decision."
"When asked how she might handle things differently now, plaintiff did not indicate that she would first discuss the possibility of a private school with the defendant, as she is obligated to do pursuant to the Stipulation."
"In a similar pattern of being advised "after the fact," defendant testified that there were countless times when plaintiff deliberately scheduled theater tickets, family events and social activities for the girls during his visitation, and he was compelled to consent or risk disappointing the girls. These occurrences continued even during the time span of proceedings before me."
Mother claims children don't want to see father
"Plaintiff was forced to concede at trial that the defendant was prevented from enjoying his visitation rights after he returned with the girls from his niece's Bat Mitzvah until this Court granted defendant's emergency application to compel the plaintiff to allow the defendant to take D. and N. for the ski trip he had scheduled for his half of the Christmas recess. Plaintiff insisted that it was D. and N. who refused to see their father, because they were angry with the 'choices" he had made on their behalf, including his objection to N. attending XXX. Defendant was made aware of the children's position because they parroted their mother's demands on several occasions. D. even read from a script during the brief dinners he was permitted. As plaintiff wrote in one e-mail when she was describing her role with respect to the children: "I am in charge here, not them. What I [sic] say goes. They may bring their shoes. You are responsible for the rest. End of story.""
"In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007. I observed the plaintiff smirk in the courtroom as defendant emotionally related how he was deprived of spending Hanukkah with his children, and was relegated to lighting a menorah and watching his daughters open their grandparents' presents in the back of his truck at the base of plaintiff's driveway on a December evening."
"The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet "their" demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother's therapist, and that he pay for 75% of D.'s Bat Mitzvah but limit his invitations to a handful of guests and have no role in the planning of the event. Plaintiff's contention that she had no involvement in these children's "demands" was belied by the very fact that the children had intimate knowledge of their mother's position on all of these issues. The children, in effect, were evolved into plaintiff's sub-agents and negotiators, having specific details of the financial demands of the plaintiff, and information as to the marital agreement."
"The mother alluded to the ambivalence of the children in seeing the defendant. But such abrogation to the children's wishes, under these circumstances, was in violation of the agreement. It was wholly improper for the mother to adhere to the children's wishes to forego visitation with their father (see, Matter of Hughes v. Wiegman, 150 AD2d 449)."
"Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant's role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant - - notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance - - hesitating and defensive - - with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant's joint custodial arrangement into farce. The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible."
Mother calls father f-----g asshole & other names in front of children
"Plaintiff relegated the defendant to waiting endlessly at the bottom of her long driveway. When defendant drove up her driveway on October 26, 2007, so that the children would not have to walk down with their heavy bags in a torrential rain, plaintiff ran down the driveway where she had left her car, drove up the driveway and blocked defendant's vehicle. The children watched as the police listened to their mother angrily demand that their father be arrested and, when the police refused, heard their mother scream that she is a taxpayer and the police work for her. She frequently disparaged the defendant in the presence of the children, calling him a "deadbeat," "loser," "scumbag," and "f——-g asshole." On one particular occasion, while holding N. and D. in her arms, plaintiff said to the defendant, "We all hope you die from cancer." Just this past summer, when defendant insisted that D. retrieve her clothes from plaintiff's home in preparation for their visit to N. on her camp visiting day, plaintiff urged to defendant that "Judge Ross will not be around forever, d___." Before the beginning of each of defendant's vacations with the children, the plaintiff staged prolonged and tearful farewells at the base of the driveway, during which plaintiff assured the children that they will return to "their family soon," and if "things get too bad, they can always tell Daddy to bring them home.""
Mother accuses father of sexual abuse
"The crescendo of the plaintiff's conduct involved accusations of sexual abuse. Plaintiff falsely accused defendant of sexual misconduct in June, 2008, shortly after defendant moved to Huntington and the children's friends were enjoying play dates at defendant's home. Plaintiff testified that D. shared that she was uncomfortable when the defendant tickles her, and conceded that she knew there was nothing "sexual" involved. Undaunted by the lack of any genuine concern for D.'s safety, plaintiff pursued a campaign to report the defendant to Child Protective Services. To facilitate this, she spoke with W. M, the psychologist at the school D. attended. Plaintiff also "encouraged" D. to advise Dr. C. (the chidren's pediatrician) that defendant inappropriately touched her - - but he saw no signs of abuse. Plaintiff also advised Dr. A., Ms. M., Dr. R. (the children's prior psychologist) and family friends of the allegations and, ultimately, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services opened a file on June 3, 2008, and began an investigation."
"According to the Case Narrative contained in the New York State Case Registry, a complaint was made that "On a regular basis, father inappropriately fondles 13 year old D.'s breasts. This makes D. feel very uncomfortable. Last Sunday, Father hit D. on the breast for unknown reason… " When the caseworker and Suffolk County detectives interviewed D. on June 3, 2008, she reported only that her father tickles her on her neck and under her arms, and she categorically denied her father ever fondled her breasts. She admitted that her father was not attempting to make her uncomfortable, but that he still regards her to be a tomboy. The detectives closed their investigation."
"Thereafter, and significantly, when the CPS caseworker met with plaintiff on August 19, 2008, plaintiff was quick to state that her ex-husband "did it again." Plaintiff claimed that the defendant hugged D. too hard. According to the caseworker's notes, the caseworker repeatedly cautioned the plaintiff not to bring the children into her disputes with the defendant. This warning was contained in CPS records."
"Although unfounded child abuse reports are required to be sealed (see, Social Services Law §422[5]), such reports may be introduced into evidence,"by the subject of the report where such subject… is a plaintiff or petitioner in a civil action or proceeding alleging the false reporting of child abuse or maltreatment" (Social Services Law §422[5][b][1]). Allegations that defendant had injured the child were found to be baseless and, by making such allegations, plaintiff needlessly subjected the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services, placing her own interests above those of the child. This report was not made in "good faith" - - rather, the investigating agency warned the mother not to re-utilize the allegations and her children in her custodial litigation with the defendant."
Mother's behavior not affected by pending contempt proceeding
"The concern of a pending contempt proceeding did not affect the plaintiff's conduct. For example, knowing that defendant had parenting access with D. on July 3, 2009, plaintiff invited D.'s close friend, C. C., to a country club for a fireworks display and advised D. of this invitation. She then instructed D. to tell her father she was invited to a friend's party on that date. Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that "it was not her responsibility to make plans for T.""
"The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, incorporated but not merged into their Judgment of Divorce. The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to undermine the relationship between the children and their father and replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant's parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any semblance of "good faith," and her imposition upon the children to fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they want to have with their father. The unfortunate history here also reflects the plaintiff's hiring and firing of three different counsel, expressed disdain towards the children's attorney, and utter disregard for the authority of the Court."
Judge Ross discusses parental alienation
Aware of the controversy surrounding the subject of parental alienation, Judge Ross spent some time addressing the issue in his decision.
Ross said:
"Differing "alienation" theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent's relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a "parent's ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child," a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the "interference with the non-custodial parent and child's relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent." See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793."
"Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent's right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009]."
The sentence and justification for the sentence
Judge Ross found Lauren R. in civil contempt of court. She will spend every other weekend in the Nassau County Correctional Facility during June, July and August.
Judge Ross acknowleged that "An imposition of sentence upon a finding of contempt should contain a language permitting the contemnor an opportunity to purge." However, in this case, a jail sentence was the only option available because it is no longer within the power of the plaintiff (mother) to purge since the violation was of a past court order. Furthermore, remedial intervention through counseling and parental training during the course of the trial was unsuccesful and if re-utilized, the "Court cannot release from imprisonment upon future compliance."
The matter of approximately $165,000 in attorney fees will be the subject of another hearing.
Read article by Dan Weaver on parental alienation in Saratoga County
Read other articles by Dan Weaver on family court and similar topics in Nassau County
Comments
It's unfortunate that this case was so extreme, but I'm glad that the Judge did finally take action. This happens so much of the time in divorce where one parent uses the child against the other parent. These circumstances should have been an issue long before these extremes were reached by the mother.
Wow. For all that, she gets SIX weekends in jail?
Good result. Hope it's precedential in NY.
Sounds as if the children are around 12 years old. Kids mature earlier today.
Let's hope their testimony is listened to by the Judges.
This judge wouldn't know a lier if one was in his face. He ignores facts, and only hears what he wants to hear. If someone really looked at this case they would be horrified to find that the judge would rather have children on there own, being left to fend for themselves, while there father galevants aimlessly away from the house. The children could be in a loving home with a stepfather who is an upstnding citzen, attentive and loving, and a mother who adores her children. I can guarentee there is no alienation in this case. Judge Ross abuses his power and should be de throwned.
I applaude this judge's decision. It is about time that an alienating parent receives consequences for the abuse they are putting the children through! Keep the children out of it!!!!
This happens way too much but most people can't afford to fight back. $165,000 in attorney fees...craziness.
The system needs to take the attorneys out of the picture and put the parents in court with a judge and therapist. Attorneys have the incentive to create as much contention as possible.
Hooray for a judge with the good judgment to wear the robe!
Just Maybe.. the tide is about to turn.. and us dads that only want to be good dads.. will have a chance in court. I'm over 100K - and my situation is no different from this one.
God Bless you Judge!
In our book, A Family’s Heartbreak: A Parent’s Introduction to Parental Alienation, we point out that when a judge refuses to impose consequences on an alienating parent for ignoring court orders designed to maintain, and in some cases restore, the other parent’s normal, loving relationship with his or her child, the judge effectively tells the alienating parent that the bad behavior is okay.
We are happy this judge imposed consequences that will hopefully put an end to this parent's alienating actions. However we are sad that the children in this case have lost time with Dad, and will lose time with Mom, that they can never get back.
Sincerely,
mike jeffries
Author, A Family's Heartbreak: A Family's Introduction to Parental Alienation
I sincerely hope this indicates a turning of the tide. Many of us divorced fathers have personally experienced the effects of parental alienation, have had our livelihoods stripped from us, have been called "part time deadbeat dads" by our X's and have had ZERO help from the courts. Instead we are pushed further into debt as we fight for the right to see our children. My only complaint with this case is she was given only six weekends-- it should have been a year or two behind bars so she can think long and hard about how her actions have affected the children she had with her X.
Ive been down this road with a x wife who has lied about everything for years and wont let me see my kids but the courts say she is right and that im a bad father. She had turned my kids against me to cover up her drug use and there not a damm thing I can do about it. Dads in this country have ZERO rights about anything when it comes to child supports or any other thing with their kids. That bitch should have received 5 years in jail as far as im concerned and so should my x!!!
My fiance's kids have been alienated from him and the judge didn't care, even though we had PILES of evidence. The Guardian ad Litem didn't care, either.
I'm glad to see that Judge Ross decided to take a hard line against alienation. Kids deserve to have BOTH parents in their lives. One parent's refusal to support the kids' relationship with the other parent should be grounds for a custody reversal.
I don't think kids' testimony in cases of alienation should be taken. SO's kids testified against him and the judge didn't consider that they'd been brainwashed to feel the way they apparently do.
I think if a judge hears that the kids hate a parent and want nothing to do with that parent, counseling with a psychiatrist with experience with alienation should be ordered. If no alienation exists and the kids have good reason to hate the parent, the psychiatrist will be able to tell that.
For all you dads that lost your kids to alienation, I'm sorry.
My fiance's kids have been alienated from him and the judge didn't care, even though we had PILES of evidence. The Guardian ad Litem didn't care, either.
I'm glad to see that Judge Ross decided to take a hard line against alienation. Kids deserve to have BOTH parents in their lives. One parent's refusal to support the kids' relationship with the other parent should be grounds for a custody reversal.
I don't think kids' testimony in cases of alienation should be taken. SO's kids testified against him and the judge didn't consider that they'd been brainwashed to feel the way they apparently do.
I think if a judge hears that the kids hate a parent and want nothing to do with that parent, counseling with a psychiatrist with experience with alienation should be ordered. If no alienation exists and the kids have good reason to hate the parent, the psychiatrist will be able to tell that.
For all you dads that lost your kids to alienation, I'm sorry.
After reading what the Judge wrote in his decision, I see so many parallels to what my husband has gone through and continues to go through with his ex-wife. These tactics used by parents to hurt the relationship between Parent/Child are abusive. I wish more CA judges and the mediation community would see this as well. The problem is they spent so much to have a trial. Most of us don't have that kind of $$ for a trial and just have to live with the mediator's recommendation. It's the kids who lose out and grow up thinking one parent doesn't love them when that is not true.
finally a judge that listens. my husband tried to get his ex for the same thing and the judge did not listen to the evidence. he even crossed the line and took the children in his chambers, which is a no-no with the ex, and came up with the kids were teens and could make up their own minds if they wanted to see their dad. that is sooo wrong. they had been brainwashed for years. of course they are going to do what their mom wants. 15 years later, my husband has not talked to his daughter. thanks,judge!
I commend the Judge on his decision to take a stand which may prove unpopular. "The Child Has the Right to Both Parents" but needs the court to enforce that right. In the Best Interest of the Child is The Child's Right to Both Parents.
James Edwards
www.fathersforchange.org
My daughter is also a victum of parental alienation. The courts mediation department made the call, but the court did nothing. It continues today and is nothing but abuse of a child. I could care less what my x says about me, but my daughter does and she is the one who is being abused by the parental alienation. Why do mothers abuse their own childs? Messing up their heads is abuse, plain and simple, but mothers always get primary custody and at least 65% custody. WHY????
If someone violates a court order then they should be punished. Six Weekends in jail will hardly makeup for the damage she has cause being so self absorbed. Judges need to learn from this and protect children and society from this happening.
Inattention to facts is commmon in such cases -- as the courts are inclined to do what is convenient (for them!)... and not what is the best interest of the children (or child). Such conduct (or behavior) will rule the day depending on the degree/depth at which one "adult" is willing to bash the other. As to contempt or perjury, the court's leniency removes the risk; thus, they say anything (and everything) with impunity...
the sad part about this case is it takes EXTREME misconduct by the Mom to be held accountable. otherwise, many vindictive ex-wives buck court orders continuously with no regard for the authority of the court, much less the well-being of their children. i am a Dad who fought for and achieved the lion's share of custody with my children, but it is only because, first of all, that's the way the kids want it and secondly because their mother has had so much misconduct on her own that if we brought it up the piles of evidence in court i assume our result would be similar. it is sad it takes so much EXTREME misconduct on behalf of the Mom for the court to pay attention to it. Otherwise, most just frolic through life bucking Dad's rights with no recourse.
I have been complaining about parental alienation in front of this same JUDGE ROSS. It has fallen on deaf ears for 3 years. He pays absolutely no attention to the complaints of denegration by the mother. I do not have $165,000 to spend on attorneys, but i have tried to tell him on my own. Believe me, Judge Ross IS NOTORIOUS FOR not caring about the children at all. One thing for sure, he has a strong liason with plaintiffs atty and rules in favor of plaintiff even when she is 100% wrong. JUdge Ross punishes me by making me pay wife's atty fees even when she lies, is totally wrong and purgers herself right and left. What can i do???? I am my wits end.
Lack of enforcement of this law amounts to stte sanctioned kidnapping.
I wished more judges would consider parental alienation issues along with the officials involved with the Friend of the Courts to assess the children in such cases. The court system does not seem to care or protect the father's rights with their children. The new step-father for the children will obtain many more rights with the mother's children over the real father. The court will also evaluate the father and yet the court never evaluates the step-father is appropriate for the children. The divorce court also seems to accepts lies by the mothers in court without any penalty of lying in the court.
A real life case study about a father losing his children due to divorce involving parental alienation can be read in a recent book called "Divorce Rape". A very revealing story sharing a sad experience of a father's divorce which would show how unfair the justice systems is for fathers involved with children. The book can be found at amazon.com or lulu.com.
If this dad was indeed being a good father, then yes this is what he deserves, to have his children. However, there are many fathers out there who "claim" to be great dads. Ones who have never paid a penny towards their children, who have anger issues, drug and alcohol issues, past misconduct, felonies, pathological liars, and are completely irresponsible (in regards to themselves, AND the child) and therefore they SHOULD be alienated. A child does not need nor should they be forced to have someone in their life like that. However, they are not allowed to be ousted. The laws need to change to make sure people are getting what they deserve. Not just that all dads have 50/50 with moms, because there are fathers that don't deserve that. It needs to be a situational law. I don't agree with people getting something just because they are a mother or father. It needs to be shown how much you love your children, and then you get what you deserve.
So many of us in the same situation, so many judges that refuse to listen. I brought a comtempt of court motion against my ex for this very things, as well as other orders that she did not comply with. What ddid the judge do...proclaimed in his order that since eventually she complied with some of it, then no there was no contempt. Family Court is a farce, has nothing to do with the best interests of the children. I am exaperated, left hardly believing that there will ever be real change! The corruption & bias towards the mom is ludicrious & has often proved dangerous, yet they still refuse to open their eyes.
If this dad was indeed being a good father, then yes this is what he deserves, to have his children. However, there are many fathers out there who "claim" to be great dads. Ones who have never paid a penny towards their children, who have anger issues, drug and alcohol issues, past misconduct, felonies, pathological liars, and are completely irresponsible (in regards to themselves, AND the child) and therefore they SHOULD be alienated. A child does not need nor should they be forced to have someone in their life like that. However, they are not allowed to be ousted. The laws need to change to make sure people are getting what they deserve. Not just that all dads have 50/50 with moms, because there are fathers that don't deserve that. It needs to be a situational law. I don't agree with people getting something just because they are a mother or father. It needs to be shown how much you love your children, and then you get what you deserve.
To all fathers out there you have experienced or experiencing parental alienation continue to get involved in organizations who attempt to change the family courts for the betterment of fathers.
Parental Alienation is a common practice by ex.'s particular women.
This form of abuse is ruining children thoughout America.
I often wonder how we fathers keep from "going over the deep end" because of a vindictve, mean and nasty ex. wife.
For the men who are able to maintain themselves through this ordeal, I commend you and wish you the best.
I never thought mothers could be so cruel until I experienced the hatefulness they portray in destroying a father's relationship with their children.
I am understanding more everyday why other countries surpress females/moms.
It's time for the courts to recognize parental alienation.
Dad's continue to press on and believe you are a good dad no matter how an ex wife trys to destroy your relationship with your child/ren.
To whom it may concern, I know there are alot of good parents in the world but, we all could be better and I would like for you to check out my cause on facebook.com called "Mom and Dad meet me at the Altar". Search Evangelist Chris Fisher, " Mom and Dad we are without exscuse, because we are made in Gods graven image.
Proverbs 22:6 Raise a child up in the way you would have him go and and when he is old he will not depart from it.
Mom and Dad there our flesh and blood and they did not get here by themselves, this needs to stop and the only way is forgivness through the blood Jesus Christ.
Leonard Henderson has it right, this should be AUTOMATIC grounds for immediate, PERMANENT custody loss, immediate and PERMANENT visitation loss and SIGNIFICANT jail time for the willful visitation/access order contempt.
Until parents realize that court orders are not just "voluntary, if convenient to follow", the system will be unable to "police" itself.
BTW, this case is not so extreme, as some other have suggested, it is too often typical of these disputes, where there are virtually no consequences to ignoring civil court orders, making false claims, or filing false affidavits, which all occur FAR too frequently, without any significant consequence to the offending party.
You could be sure the "games" would end immediately if the real possibility existed of loosing your custody permanently occurred for court order contempt actions. Then, miraculously, the system would start to work, without the crazy legal costs now incurred.
I am now getting ready to go to court for the 100th time. Even with court order to get my kids this weekend already got the call we don't want to come and you can't make us. This is breaking my heart.
I have the same problems with my x, but she is an attorney herself. I feel pretty hopeless, small wonder this stuff drives people crazy. It truly is state sanctioned kidnapping. I only hope that the inertia of the system really will change someday, maybe when these children grow up and can testify as adults when and if they finally recognized the truth about what happened to them as kids.
Finally, a precident to stop this nightmare for fathers! Listen up Family Courts--this is happening everywhere in America and you need to put a stop to it for the children!!
tO THE MOM........There are NO dads or moms that deserve to be alienated from there children period. get a check up fron the neck up. Your logic is the problem. Good by
If the Dad was doing the right thing from the beginning, the mom would have been crazy to alienate him. Do you have any idea how hard it is to raise children alone? No woman wants that responsibility in this day and age. I believe these dads are control freaks who come and go as they please and use their children as crutches. If they did what they were supposed to from the beginning the children would have stood up for them. Kids love the parents who love them first. During divordes, Dads typically get total freedom from any and all responsibility regarding schooling, homework, babysitting, doctor visits, activities, vacations, etc. and keep their careers in the process. Moms bear the workload alone, and most often, the dads are unreliable and disruptive in the routines, calling at all hours demanding to speak to the children at unreasonable intervals, not calling for days on end, taking off on vacations at will without providing contact information, etc. etc. Dads like these deserve to be cut out of the picture. Why are the moms held to such scrutiny, yet the dads run wild like wild dogs in heat?
If he was consideriing the well being of the children, Why did it take JUDGE ROSS so long to do something? No doubt they had NUMEROUS court appearnces prior; JUDGE ROSS should have enforced visitation long before. Now the children really will suffer. where was the law guardian?
what an unfortunate chain of events in a broken system.
I think all mothers who falsely accuse should go to jail. Delusional women!
I am living through this as well and I wish Judge Ross was still alive to hear my case and witness the alienation and abuse my children are suffering through the system. God bless this Judge and may he rest in peace. There are too many of cases just like this in Nassau County and throughout the U.S.
Judge's are quick to allow alienation, issue orders of protection and facilitate the breaking up of an already broken home without any consideration to balance or rule of law or evidence in mind! Not all men are innocent, but an overwhelming number of the innocent are considered guilty even after they are proven innocent. We need equal rights today....EQUAL not siding with women because they were abused and oppressed in society of yesteryear! "Girl power" has gone out of control.... children suffer the most and nobody cares that the Dad is being abused beyond measure. The abuse I've personally suffered is economic and emotional abuse; courtesy of the court system and an angry woman with mental problems.....Now it's up to me to prove it. I pray that justice is served and the spirit of Judge Ross' no nonsense, unbiased investigative eye is in the hearing with me! A six week reserve duty style imprisonment is a joke and she should have been sentenced to a straight 6 months++
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!