The words Parental Alienation did not appear. Why? Did I miss them somehow? Were they avoided?

Court loves PAS, Parents lurk about waiting for the first sign of an accusation so they can run in slow motion across the daisy filled field to hug them tightly.

Parent A says Parent B is a baddie and Parent B cries P'tal A'on at the top of lungs, now Parent A is bigger baddie. Huh? Does that mean Parent A is always assumed to be lying or that Alienating a Parent is a bigger crime than, let’s say, Beating A Child?

“Heard of investigating?” I say “Herd of cows?” Court replies.

For the proven baddie parents; supervised visits directed by court.

Why are we forcing children into the presence of people who have been abusive towards them? Doesn’t that send the weirdest message of all to those wee brain cells?

But there is still no getting round Community Services reaction to any mention of violence in the home is there? Take the children… nah not as an example, just take them. Silly Parent A needed proof for court so went to CS for help and now the children are in foster care. Ha Ha!

It is a race Houel but it is the slowest that wins and takes home the PA trophy.

NOTE: Parent A is the FEMALE. Sorry couldn’t stand the gender neutral stuff any longer.

Dr. Elspeth McInnes

The major threat to children safety is the irresponsible politician and the hungry lawyer.

Late in 1974, a group of concerned men and women put to Senator Lionel Murphy that unless the rule of leaving to one of the parents the ‘custody of the child’ changed to the more natural ‘equal duty of both parents to towards fulfilling the needs of the child’, his new “Marriage Law” would open the gates to a flood of divorces and increase the number of suffering children.

It did and the Lawyers have put on more fat than they had before the change.

Pied Piper another version of PA. A true story which I got to see first hand with parent A being a former friend.

Parent A want's to move interstate.
Parent A raises accusations of fear for childrens safety despite no abuse or threats's of abuse but she is afraid.
Parent A put's the sticker on the car about women and children having the right to feel safe.
Parent A put's a rough sign on the front fence to let her ex know that he could not enter the property.
Parent A get's the locks changed and starts being very consipicuous with security.
Parent A does other things to aggrevate the father (setting up conflicts between time with dad and other things they would like to do and ensuring that the children know that dad will mean missing out on doing the other thing). Forgetting that the children should be with their dad when she sends them on outings etc.
Parent A generally does everything she can to advertise to the two children (who can both read) that they should be afraid of daddy.
The older (n my view moodier) child buy's into it, the younger one does not.
The authorities decide that because the older one admit's to being afraid of daddy that the shared care arrangments should be stopped.

Mother then takes children and moves interstate.

Again I was close enough to this to know that there had been no threat to the children or mother and that shared care arrangements had been working well. The driver seemed to be the mother's desire to return to her home state (which she had not lived in for many years), the father remarrying (moving on with his life) and pressure from the government which required the mother to start seeking paid work.

R0bert

Piper,

'It is a race Houel but it is the slowest that wins and takes home the PA trophy. '

I bow to your experience in the issue, but didn't the author says that, in her new order, that any parent under any accusation can not see the child until it is all cleared up. I mean I've rung Telstra before, and I can only assume dealing with DoCs would be a similar experience.

So, I imagine (as I am wont to do) under this scenario, until everything is 'cleared up' one way or the other, the default holding pattern is that the abuser (as accused, not proven) doesn't see the kids.

How long does this default position stand? ie how long do they take to investigate and does it affect 'the best thing for the children' later on when the court thinks about disruption to their lives when arranging custody even if he's just been exonerated?

Also, does it go through the police and have a formal investigation, with charges laid? How does it work? I always thought innocent until proven guilty was a nice way of doing things.

I've only ever heard of this PAS when pynchme and antiseptic and r0bert bang on about it for hours of fun and I usually tune out. I know from my little ones' answers to questions about their day how unreliable kids are as witnesses. My partner fills in the blanks and they parrot what she says so I can believe it would be like shelling peas to put ideas in kids heads.

I do it for fun, I ask did you eat a Giraffe for lunch, and she says yes. Deadpan. Unless.... na, surely it didn't happen.

Their brains work in a different planet and they copy what adults do all the time. My daughter sends up my partner something chronic without meaning to, gives me endless laughs.

Yep seems classic alienation of one parent against another R0bert. Emotionally damaging to children etc.

Not sure why the court, in cases of suspected child abuse, has to be so strange but I heard recently some 200 court changes were being made, lord help the little children.

Is the bigger question more about how do we get people to do the right thing by their children? If one parent can improve circumstances or be happier then the other parent should let them go? We just aren’t willing to sacrifice anything anymore?

No idea why court can’t just identify and investigate claims of abuse and place the rights and wellbeing of a child before the rights of a parent. PA should be tagged as only useable in chronic form.

Aw no, Houel I think you nailed it, more children in care, NGO’s will be raking it in. Adoptions for gays, family court investigations, abuse allegations, all dealt with by removal from parent/s and off they go into foster care. The machine grinds on. No proof necessary beyond random malicious calls are often required.

Then even if the police don’t believe anything happened and certainly have no intention of charging anyone with anything CS can still decide on no proven evidence that something did happen and it was bad enough for them to take the child/ren.

They take newborns now, newborns that were never abused – I mean fair suck of the sav cobber, at least let them neglect bubs a little first.

Yeah their brains... See what happens if you say “who hit you?” 10 times in a row, in the end they will name someone just to shut you up. Then say something like “did you hit them back”. You can create a whole false memory but to date I have only known a visit supervisor to allow this but the caseworker believed it. Luckily the pretend abuser was only 3 years old eh. He probably got put on a sedative for abusing an older child and some foster parents income increased overnight. :P

The more secular we become the more violent we become, the more man and woman abuse, the more greed, the more child molestation. More laws never changed rotten hearts. I can never really understand any man with any integrity hitting a woman or abusing a child but then again I have met a number of women who certainly have enough ugliness in them to drive men to suicide. Social engineers that championed the break up of the family now want laws to some how fix up the mess they have caused. Go figure.