Denali Dave

2013-11-04T16:39:00.001-09:00

Well folks...I'm now down to a couple of weeks at the most. Bed ridden...can you imagine? I love you all. Kristin...You are still the light of my life and I love you so much. You think I'm a pig...that's okay cause I understand. Still, I did give you life. Not to worry girl, I understand all, and all is okay. Damn, I love you. If there is a God and a life after this one...I'll surely watch over you and will be your guardian angel. They're sending my body for burial in Blackwell, OK. .

Kristin...the light of my life

2013-01-24T20:36:00.000-09:00

Well, folks...I'm now dragging around a plastic hose 24/7 so I can breath with only one lung. It's a war thing...as they say one of the sacrifices us "wounded warriors" have...from fighting for those that couldn't, can't fight for themselves. Actually, I kind of dislike saying it...but I don't remember thinking about saving those in the good old USA. I did care and try for those in the foreign countries I fought in... Still, the plastic hose and oxygen keeps me alive I reckon...not sure that's a good thing, though. Clearly, I'm depressed and frustrated. I'm a people person and haven't been out of the house (except for the hospital) in more than a year. So, what to do? I don't write this stuff for anyone other than myself. Kristin (my lovely little girl) once said..."why don't you admit to being the pig you are...?" I was, and still am really disappointed in her. She hasn't known me since she was 4 years old...so, how does she know "I'm a pig." I have to admit...that one hurt a bit...but I do understand how she came to that. So, how do I fix this...? What kind of a woman or man would do this to my daughter...? Surely they will burn in hell...if there is a hell. And, I have no one left to tell Kristin when I die what I was really like...or for her to get the hell out of that religious cult she was raised to believe in.... Can you imagine? I should be tougher than this, shouldn't I? I have a proven background, track record, of never giving up, of being especially tough, of completing anything I started...I've gone through some of the toughest training our country has... So, why am I being such a wussy now? It's making me nuts...

David's oral statement to the court....

2013-01-10T16:21:00.001-09:00

Don't know if this will help anyone or not...but, the misunderstandings are what cost me my children. In any case, it's what happened to me and this was my statement to the court... I tried, but still don't know if I did right... I'm not feeling real well so for now this is the best I can do... Happy new year everyone... David’s ORAL STATEMENT TO THE COURT: MAY 24, 1993 A family decides to go camping in a valley surrounded by mountains. The man's wife takes one of her best friends who happens to have a master's degree in psychology. When they arrive at the spot where they plan to camp, the husband builds a fire, then he heads off to a nearby stream to catch fish for their dinner while the rest finish setting up camp. A while later he returns and, to his distress, finds his wife, her friend, and the children feeding hunks of bread to a bear. Even worse, he realizes his wife is down to the last piece of bread. And he knows the bear won't understand when all the bread is gone. Just as he also knows that bears, by their very nature, are unpredictable and dangerous. Seeing no other course of action, the husband runs to the fire, reaches into the burning blaze, grabs a red hot, flaming log, and runs hollering and swinging the blazing log after the bear. To all the world it appears the man fully intends to take on a 500 pound bear with only his bare hands and a piece of firewood. But, of course, just as the man had expected, or at least had hoped, the bear turns tail and runs off into the woods. The man, angry now, admonishes his wife for what he considered a stupid act, then shrugs off the adventure and asks her to help him with his burned hand. But the man's wife seems agitated. Actually, she's baffled. What did she do wrong? Nothing, from her point of view. Certainly it wasn't bad enough for him to be so adamant and forceful with her. And why in the world did he run off such a pretty animal? It didn't act dangerous. All it was doing was eating bread. Well, the husband doesn't pay a lot of attention to her since he knows she has led a somewhat sheltered and protected life, especially when compared to his. He knows she often see things differently than he does. She simply didn't realize the potential peril, nor how badly it had scared him that his family was in such jeopardy. As the wife is cleaning and bandaging his hand, she becomes even more bewildered. Looking at his terribly burned hand, she can't believe what she's hearing. "Don't worry, sweetheart," he tells her. "It's okay. It'll heal in a week or so. It smarts a little, but it's no big deal." In reality, the husband is on the verge of tears from the pain. Fact is, all he wants to do is get away from everyone so he can groan and whimper by himself. It's not "manly" to whine or cry in front of others. Besides, he also knows from all his past experiences with pain, that pain is really a state of mind and can be controlled. After all, he'd survived three years of hospital time after being shot, stabbed, and blown up during Viet Nam, hadn't he? But his wife has never seen anything like this. Neither has his wife's friend. What kind of a man could have this kind of control over himself they wonder? It's almost scary. Well, again the husband doesn't say much because he knows his wife is particularly sensitive and approaches mostly everything in their personal life on an emotional level. And his wife's friend, even though an experienced psychologist, has never been around the military. Further, she doesn't have much experience with men anyway since she treats mostly women and children. She simply can't comprehend his military training or the fires he's already walked through in his lifetime. Besides, he knows that feeling sorry for himself is not going to make the pain go away or help his hand heal any quicker. And because of his strong personality and past experiences, he is particularly analytical and approaches nearly everything with logic, even his intimate life. So he gives it no more thought. Later, the husband, wife, and her friend are sitting around the fire talking and drinking coffee while the kids are running around playing in camp. The kids, being kids, aren't paying particular attention to what they're doing and step on their Dad's $300.00 fishing rod and break it. Certainly, he understands these are children, and, by the very nature of children, don't always pay attention to what they're doing. Just as he knows that children don't always realize the consequences of their actions. But he also recognizes that children learn to pay attention by being corrected when they don't. And too, he realizes that his children in particular have some learning problems and don't learn in a manner that most consider the "normal" way. So he turns to the children and says: "You guys remember what I did to that bear, don't you?" "Yes sir," they reply. "You want me to run you off into the woods like that?" "No sir," they answer. "Well then, pay attention to what you're doing." He then turns back to the fire and gives the situation no more thought. After he finishes his coffee, he goes to see what he can do about repairing his fishing rod. His wife and her friend begin to talk among themselves. "That's incredible," the wife's friend says. "I've never seen anyone with that much control. He didn't even seem nervous after charging that bear. And his burned hand? That didn't seem to bother him at all." "Oh, he does stuff like that all the time," his wife tells her friend. "In fact, a while back he was fishing in Nicaragua when a guerilla gunboat came along. Not wanting to be caught miles out in the jungle by a bunch of 17 year old machine gun toting kids while he was carrying his military ID card, he jumped out of the boat and ran into the jungle. To get back to the lodge in Costa Rica, he walked 25 miles through the jungle and swam across 4 shark infested rivers. He did this barefooted, wearing nothing but shorts and a T shirt. And nothing happened to him but the worst sunburn I've ever seen. It would have put anyone else in the hospital, but it took me 2 days to talk him into going to the doctor after he got back. Fact is, you can still see the scars on his legs." "He's not afraid of anything, is he?" the wife's friend asks. Actually, he has the same fears as anyone. In fact, he has a high regard for fear and considers it very important because he knows that being afraid can save your life. Just as he knows that letting fear take control can get you killed. And he's learned well from training and experience to understand and control his fear. "Does he get mad?" the friend asks his wife. "Well, of course, just like anyone," the wife answers. "Boy, I wouldn't want him mad at me," the friend says. Now the wife is starting to wonder about her husband. After all, isn't her friend who happens to be a psychologist, wondering about him? It so happens that the man's wife is one of the finest photographers and artists he's ever known. She's particularly creative since she has an especially vivid imagination. But, combine this with the fact that she's completely inexperienced with anything like her husband's background, and her imagination can nurture unrealistically. And her friend, although intelligent as well, has never had any experience with anyone like this man either, so her imagination begins to build too. "Would he really run the children off into the woods?" the wife's friend asks. "No, of course not....Well, I don't think so....But...." the wife answers now wondering even more. The two women continue to talk, and the more they talk, the more their imaginations build, the more the concern grows. And the more a "mistaken picture" of this man becomes reality. Soon, the wife and her friend have built themselves up to the point of near terror, of believing that this man could, and would, do anything. So, in fright the wife grabs up the kids and runs up the mountain while her friend jumps in her car and heads to town. "I've got to save the wife and kids," the friend says to herself. Well, the man's confounded. He doesn't have a clue as to what they're afraid of, or even what's wrong. He knows that he'd never hurt anyone. He never has and never will. He knows full well what it's like to be hurt. Fact is, he can barely stand it when his wife and children are sick or hurt themselves. Besides, they saw that he had protected them from the bear. What more could he possibly do to prove that he loves them? He decides he has two choices. First, he can run up the mountain after his wife and kids yelling all the way: "What's wrong sweetheart. What are you afraid of? Come back, talk to me, tell me the problem. I promise I won't hurt you." But he knows his wife is particularly emotionally sensitive and doesn't always hear the same thing he and others do especially in a situation fraught with emotion. So if he does run after her, he knows she won't hear anything but a rustling in the bushes as he desperately tries to find them. And, in her panic to escape, she'll run further up the mountain, eventually crossing over the top into the next valley and will be gone forever. His second choice is to stay by the campfire and hope she'll come back to him. And that's exactly what he does for he doesn't want to frighten her or the children any more. Soon it gets dark, and cold, and a little scary up on the mountain. And sure enough, she looks down at the man still standing by the campfire and begins to wonder if maybe her imagination did get a little out of hand. "Maybe he's not so bad after all," she thinks. "I know he deeply loves me and the children and would do nearly anything for us. And, maybe after all this, we can talk more and better understand each other." So she picks up the kids and says: "Let's go back down and talk with your Dad. Maybe this is just a big misunderstanding and we can work it out." But about this time, the wife's friend returns from town and she's brought help. She'd run around town telling everyone that a man who was "seriously potentially dangerous" had trapped his wife and children up on a mountain side. Well, these people, who for all the world really believe they are protecting a mother and her children, gather in a circle around the campfire and begin throwing rocks at the man. The wife's friend, also believing with all her heart that she's helping save the woman and her children, gathers up a bunch of rocks and heads up the mountain. "Here's a bunch of rocks," she says handing them to the man's wife. "Throw them at him so he won't come up the mountain after you." The man's wife is really emotional by this time and she's having trouble making up her mind on about much of anything to do with her personal life. So the wife thinks: "My way doesn't seem to be working. And I sure don't want to spend the rest of my life on the side of this mountain. Maybe I should listen to someone else now. And, after all, my friend is a psychologist. And she says my husband is seriously, potentially dangerous." So her imagination rises to new levels and she begins throwing rocks, too. Your honor, I've chosen to stand by the campfire and take the blows as they come. Of course I'm fully aware that the best defense is a good offense. But what would I look like now if I "attack" these people to defend myself, if I "charge" my wife and children to put a stop to this stoning. Of course I have rights, but if I try to protect myself now, I violate every principle I have, I destroy all that I believe in, I lose all that I love. It's every man's dream to find a treasure in his lifetime. And I have found my treasure in a loving family a splendid woman, and three of the finest children anyone could ever want. But this wealth is being snatched from me because of misunderstandings and unfounded fears. I'm being stoned unfairly. Stoned by honest people, true believers to be sure, but nevertheless, I'm being stoned unfairly. I'm not so naive as to believe that life is always fair, that righteousness always triumphs, that goodness always prevails. Just as I accept that no one ever said life was easy. Actually, as I think back in history, this situation is not without precedent. Remember Salem, Massachusetts and the witch trials? Your honor, I'm the witch. And I now know full well how the witches of Salem must have felt as they were bound and burned the unheard appeals, the frustration, the fear. Your honor, for the love of my wife and children, I simply cannot do anything to stop this. But, sir, you can. Thank you. David Couch

David's verbal statement to the court...

2013-01-10T16:12:00.000-09:00

I give up...

2012-10-20T02:47:00.000-08:00

Hey all... I need the world to hear me... Someone, please help... I created the parental alienation group for a reason. A very, very long time ago. I was very sad and alone. I missed my little girl, Kristin, so much I didn't know what to do... Imagine, a full grown man crying himself to sleep? I was so very alone. Still, I did not realize how many others were in the same situation as I. But now , the doctors tell me I'm out of time. So,now I need help. Who is going to stand up and carry on for me? I spent my life fighting for our freedoms and rights...now I'm dying of wounds I received during that fight. I saved a few, but not nearly enough to make my life worthwhile. And, I have a lot of regrets... Sometimes I still can't stop crying. And, I'm a "proven" tough guy. So, now I need help... Who do I turn to for help...? I really have no one. So, I need one of you to step up and carry on. I know one of you can do it...I know that. So, step up...do it. Surely, there's more than one of you. If I could do it...you can surely do it. Please...get off your ass and make a difference. Please...help give my life some meaning. Not just for my daughter, but for all the sons and daughters that need help...that cry themselves to sleep without knowing why... I would only ask that our children be taught understanding and forgiveness. My daughter, Kristin Jean is quite religious. But, apparently, she's never really learned about true forgiveness or understanding. There must be many mothers and fathers and sons and daughters that really don't understand true forgiveness...and that none of us are perfect. We should do everything we can to teach our children...how many of us have not made any mistakes...? And, what can we do to... One of my greatest regrets is that I haven't had the chance to explain to my daughter...or even ask for her forgiveness. How can you truly believe in God without understanding forgiveness? Isn't that why Christ hung on the cross? Talk about parental alienation...and christian cults... In any case, before I go out...I would ask that someone puts together a very large group with the same objective. Lets us take a trip somewhere in the world...somewhere that all can afford it. I like the idea of a cruise... Like a cruise or a gathering somewhere all would enjoy. And, wouldn't it be particularly fine if we could bring our estranged children at the same time. All we have to do is offer them the trip...free of charge. We'll pay for it somehow... So, while I can't do it anymore, I know there is someone out there that can put their heart into it and organize something of this sort. Make it happen. Surely, someone is out there that has enough money...you know...like 100's of millions that most of us can't understand...please help all of us see our children again... Feel their little arms around our necks. What more can I say... What goes around, comes around. No matter your beliefs in God... So, please...someone stand up, step forward...whoever you are. It can be done. We can do this. I won't be much help...but I'll surely give it my best. If someone out there can afford it...maybe you can help reunite some families. I can tell you...the pain of losing a loved one is one of the most hurtful, devastating, and... I can't finish...I can still feel my daughter's little arms wrapped around my neck as she sobbed...daddy I don't want to go!

My darling daughter...

2011-11-08T14:44:00.000-09:00

Kristin Jean (Couch) Haywood, the light of my life…and my darling daughter was born on 27 March 1990. I raised her the first 4 years of her life. I last saw her in 1994. I did not get to see her first date. I did not get to see her graduate from high school. I did not see her first day of college. I wasn’t even allowed to see her get married. I don’t know if I’m a grandfather or not. My x-wife has created so much distrust and fear in my daughter that she is terrified of me to this day. Her step father has become her “daddy.” What kind of a man would allow that? After more than 20 years as an Infantry officer, 5 wars, and three woundings…nothing has hurt me more than losing my daughter. And, I don’t even know what I’ve done wrong. Still, I spent all my life in Infantry special operations so I’ve got to be a bad guy, huh? What has happened to this world…? Can it even be fixed...?

NH Supreme Ct: PAS Harms Kids; F & F Helps Introduce GA Child Custody Bill

2011-04-06T15:23:00.005-08:00

NH Supreme Court: Parental Alienation 'Inimical to Children’s Welfare'

“Across the country, the great weight of authority holds that conduct by one parent that tends to alienate the child’s affections from the other is so inimical to the child’s welfare as to be grounds for a denial of custody to, or a change of custody from, the parent guilty of such conduct.”--New Hampshire Supreme Court, in a new ruling

James Miller and Janet Todd had two daughters...a New Hampshire court awarded joint custody, with Ms. Todd as primary custodian and Mr. Miller with visitation rights.

Todd began a long series of allegations of child sexual abuse against Miller. Each and every claim was investigated; each and every claim was determined to be unfounded. As part of the investigations, the girls were subjected to invasive pelvic examinations at least twice each.

False though the allegations were, they served a purpose; they caused the New Hampshire family court to suspend Miller’s parenting time with his children throughout the course of the proceedings. This meant that, for over two years, he had no contact with his daughters and they none with him...

This case is excellent, not only because of its result, but mostly because of its sound analysis. It should serve as a template for courts not only here in the U.S. but in other countries as well.

It comes to us from the Supreme Court of New Hampshire and analyzes a situation in which false allegations of child sexual abuse were used by a mother to deprive a father of contact with his children. It’s a familiar pattern of facts and altogether too rare an outcome.

In 1999, James Miller met Janet Todd online. They developed a relationship and, although they never married, had two daughters. Laurel was born in 2002 and Lindsey in 2003. Ultimately, a New Hampshire court awarded joint custody with Todd as primary custodian and Miller with visitation rights.

But early on, Todd’s mother claimed she had seen Miller sexually abusing Laurel. Thus began a long series of allegations of child sexual abuse against Miller. They were still going on as late as March, 2009, some five years after the first one.

Each and every claim was investigated; each and every claim was determined to be unfounded. As part of the investigations, the girls were subjected to invasive pelvic examinations at least twice each.

False though the allegations were, they served a purpose; they caused the New Hampshire family court to suspend Miller’s parenting time with his children throughout the course of the proceedings. That meant that, for over two years, he had no contact with his daughters and they none with him.

Eventually, in July, 2006, the court ordered psychologist Dr. Peggie Ward to thoroughly examine Miller, Todd, the girls and the family situation to determine issues of custody, alienation, sexual abuse, etc. It took Ward 17 months to produce her 88-page report which the court found to be “extraordinarily thorough.”

What Ward concluded was that there was no reliable evidence of sexual abuse by Miller. She also concluded that Todd had probably not set out to deliberately alienate the girls from their father; that probably originated with Todd’s mother. The problem stemmed not only from the various claims of abuse, but from Todd’s almost total inability to accurately process everyday occurrences.

[p]sychological testing shows that Ms. Todd has a “serious
impairment in her ability to accurately process the information she takes in from her surroundings and the degree of misperception she demonstrates has major implications for her adaptive functioning. Ms. Todd’s level of distortion is substantial and predisposes her to misunderstanding and misconstruing intentions, motivations and actions of other people. This places her at great risk for faulty judgment, for errors in decision-making, and for behaving in ways that are based on inaccurate information. These data indicate that Ms. Todd will not only fail to recognize or foresee the consequences of her actions at times, but that she will also become confused at times in separating fantasy from reality.”

In other words, Todd was unable to sort out false allegations from real ones. Into the bargain, Todd failed to protect her daughters from her own feelings and fears about what she thought may be happening, thereby perpetuating the girls’ own confusion about the nature of what daddy had or had not done.

So, given years of false allegations against Miller and the manifest inability by Todd to (a) distinguish fantasy from reality and (b) promote a healthy relationship between Miller and his daughters, the trial court did what so many of them do; it gave custody to the children’s mother.

That violated New Hampshire law which requires parents to promote positive relationships between the opposite parent and the children. It also ignored the rather startling fact that Todd’s emotional problems posed obvious risks for any child in her care.

So why did the court give her custody? Because the kids had been with her for several years during which time they’d had no contact with Miller. They’d developed friendships at school and so, according to the court, their “best interests” required them to see little or nothing of their father, depending on the decisions of their clearly unbalanced mother. If that makes sense to you, please explain it to me.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court squashed that one like a bug. Its opinion grasps what so many courts do not - that continuing, deep and rich relationships with both parents are in the child’s best interests. The mother’s obstruction of such relationships between the children and the father is per se not in their best interests.

Why that should be so difficult to understand is beyond me. The statutes of New Hampshire make it clear as do the statutes and courts of other jurisdictions. The court said:
“Across the country, the great weight of authority holds that conduct by one parent that tends to alienate the child’s affections from the other is so inimical to the child’s welfare as to be grounds for a denial of custody to, or a change of custody from, the parent guilty of such conduct.”

And yet time and again, courts ignore statute and case law and look only at the fact that the child has been separate from the father for a certain period of time. They then conclude that the he cannot have future contact or that it must be limited, without ever noticing how his lack of contact came about.

The New Hampshire court specifically objected to the concept that Todd had “benefitted from her own misbehavior.” That’s a concept I’ve waited many years to hear a court articulate. For as long as I’ve been a student and advocate of fathers’ rights, I’ve been astonished at courts’ willingness to ignore mothers’ wrongdoing in order to grant them custody. That happens as a matter of routine in adoption cases.

What Miller v. Todd does is to show that the requirement on the part of each parent to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent is necessary and beneficial to the child. It also shows that courts will not reward the alienating behavior of parents.

And that, in a nutshell, is how courts should rule in these cases. They should make it clear that false allegations of abuse are not acceptable and that they will not be used to benefit the alienating parent.

It’s a simple concept that more courts need to grasp.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
___________________________
Portsmouth Family Division
No. 2009-806
IN THE MATTER OF JAMES J. MILLER AND JANET S. TODD
Argued: November 17, 2010
Opinion Issued: March 31, 2011
Law Office of Joshua L. Gordon, of Concord (Joshua L. Gordon on the
brief and orally), for the petitioner.
John P. Carr, of Hingham, Massachusetts, and Elizabeth B. Olcott, of
Concord, on the brief, and Mr. Carr orally, for the respondent.
HICKS, J. The petitioner, James J. Miller, currently a resident of New
York, appeals an order of the Portsmouth Family Division (DeVries, J.),
recommended by the Master (Cross, M.), requiring the parties’ two minor
daughters to continue to live primarily with the respondent, Janet S. Todd, in
New Hampshire. We vacate and remand.

We have reviewed the extensive record in this case and set forth the facts
most relevant to the issues on appeal. Miller and Todd met in 1999 over the
internet and established a relationship. At that time, Miller lived in Michigan
and Todd lived in New Hampshire. Although they never married, their
relationship produced two daughters, Laurel born in 2002 and Lindsay born in
2003. During 2002 and 2003, the parties spent some time living together in
Michigan, Todd and the children spent some time alone in New Hampshire living with Todd’s parents, and the parties all spent some time together at
Todd’s parents’ house in New Hampshire. Toward the end of 2003, the parties’ relationship broke down. On December 23, 2003, Miller obtained an ex parte order in the circuit court in Michigan granting him sole temporary legal and physical custody of his
daughters. That same day, Todd took the children to her parents’ home in
Hampton, New Hampshire. On January 6, 2004, Todd was served with the
Michigan custody order. On January 15, the Rockingham County Superior
Court, in response to Miller’s petition for enforcement of the Michigan custody
decree, ordered Todd to appear at a hearing and on January 26, the trial court
ordered Todd to bring the children to Miller within twenty-four hours for the
purpose of transferring custody to him. Sometime in January, Todd’s mother told her that, four months earlier, she saw Miller molest Laurel by inserting his forefinger into her. On January 27, on the advice of her attorney, Todd took the children to the emergency
department at Exeter Hospital and requested a “well baby check.” The
physician’s report states: “[P]atient here for well child check-up; told by Lawyer
to have evaluated for custody issue.” There is no evidence in the record that
Todd notified the hospital staff of any concerns regarding sexual abuse. The
physical exam indicated the children’s condition was good. Todd then transferred the children to Miller’s custody. On February 5, 2004, a report was filed with the Family Independence Agency of Michigan, Child Protective Services, alleging that
maternal grandparents recalled an incident that occurred in New Hampshire between 10/03/03 and 10/05/03 when father was rubbing diaper cream on Laurel because she had a diaper rash. Maternal grandmother states she did not have [a] diaper rash.
Maternal grandmother stated father inserted his fore-finger inside of Laurel. This was never reported to anyone. The agency investigated the report, including having pelvic examinations of both children administered. No indications of sexual abuse of either
child were found and the investigation was closed. In November 2004, the Rockingham County Superior Court issued a temporary decree awarding the parties joint legal custody of the children. In that order, the trial court questioned the credibility of both parties. Regarding Todd, the court found “most troubling” the allegations of sexual abuse raised by her. As the court stated, “It is simply far too convenient to believe the
testimony put forth by [Todd]: that her mother [chose] not to reveal the
allegations of [Miller’s] alleged sexual assault until custody of the minor children was awarded to [Miller].” The court noted that neither party “appears to care to whom they lie so long as they achieve favorable results.” In June 2005, Todd’s father reported to the Hampton police that while he was lying in bed with Lindsay and Laurel watching a movie, Laurel tried to “straddle” him on his chest and stated, “I’m f------ you.” When the grandfather asked Laurel where she heard that she said nothing. When the grandfather
then asked, “from your father,” Laurel said “yes.” The police noted the report as a “possible disclosure” of sexual abuse, but took no action. In September 2005, a friend of Todd’s made a statement to the police that Laurel had reported that Miller had spanked her in the groin area. Todd filed an ex parte petition for temporary stay of visitation between Miller and the children alleging that the children reported being spanked by Miller and a third party in the groin area and that Laurel had displayed “other alarming behavior of a sexual nature,” referring to the grandfather’s report to the police in June.
As a result of these allegations, the court issued an order prohibiting Miller from having any contact with the children “until this matter is duly investigated and any and all allegations of abuse are deemed unfounded.” After an investigation that included a second pelvic examination of Laurel, the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) closed the matter as unfounded. Details of the alleged abuse were sent to the Manchester Police Department which, after investigation, also concluded that the charges were unfounded. A copy of the report was sent to the Hillsborough County Attorney.
In November 2005, Todd and the children’s therapist reported to DCYF that Laurel had stated that Miller took “pictures of her with her clothes off,” made her “eat his pee pee” and “panks her in the front.” On January 30, 2006 DCYF sent a letter to Miller stating that it had determined that he was “the individual responsible for the abuse” and that his name would be entered “on its central registry of founded child abuse and neglect reports.” Miller appealed the finding and, on February 24, 2006, DCYF rescinded its initial determination. In a letter to Todd, DCYF informed her that new evidence had
come to its attention and that “the assessment regarding your children has
been closed unfounded.” DCYF stated that “[t]here has been a concern that
Laurel has been coached with the information that she has been disclosing.
Please understand that this . . . type of coaching, if proven, is equally as
abusive to a child as if the abuse had actually occurred.” The matter was also
referred to the Manchester Police Department, which investigated but did not
pursue charges.
In July 2006, the parties agreed to be evaluated by psychologist Peggie
Ward “to investigate and make recommendations . . . on the issues of a
parenting/custody assess[ment], abuse allegations by both parties, parental
4
alienation issues, scripting issue[s] and any and all other issues . . . which she
deems relevant.” On December 18, 2007, Dr. Ward issued an eighty-eight page
report in which she considered several hypotheses. First, Dr. Ward posed the
hypothesis that “Laurel was not sexually abused by her father or anyone else.”
Dr. Ward noted that both children were subjected to multiple examinations and
questioning and that Laurel’s statements to the Child Advocacy Center “do not
appear to be consistent with her initial statement nor do they have a good deal
of context.” Dr. Ward opined that “this hypothesis may be supported by the
data” in that “Laurel’s presentation is less consistent with a child who has been
repeatedly sexually abused.”
Second, Dr. Ward posed the hypothesis that “Laurel was sexually abused
or inappropriately touched by Mr. Miller.” Dr. Ward noted that “Laurel’s
statements and behaviors are less consistent with child sexual abuse than they
are of premature focus on the genital area followed by a good deal of anxiety
and distress about sexual abuse from both Janet Todd as well as [Todd’s
mother].” Due to the “lack of context and the lack of memory regarding
abusive behavior, combined with multiple physical exams and multiple
interviews,” it was “impossible to determine whether Laurel was sexually
abused by her father.” Dr. Ward’s opinion was that “Laurel’s presentation is
less consistent with a child sexually abused by her father and more consistent
with other hypotheses.”
Third, Dr. Ward posed the hypothesis that Todd “has deliberately
coached the children in what to say and scripted their responses.” It was Dr.
Ward’s opinion that “this hypothesis is not the hypothesis best supported by
the data.”
Fourth, Dr. Ward posed the hypothesis that “Todd came to believe that
Laurel, not Lindsay, was sexually abused by Mr. Miller.” It was Dr. Ward’s
opinion that this hypothesis “is the most likely hypothesis supported by the
data. That is, that Ms. Todd, after experiencing her parent’s concerns about
Mr. Miller and after having experienced her own negative interactions with Mr.
Miller, became increasingly convinced that Mr. Miller was harming Laurel.”
Referring to a psychological report on Todd that was prepared in August 2007
by Dr. David Medoff, Dr. Ward noted that
[p]sychological testing shows that Ms. Todd has a “serious
impairment in her ability to accurately process the information she
takes in from her surroundings and the degree of misperception
she demonstrates has major implications for her adaptive
functioning. Ms. Todd’s level of distortion is substantial and
predisposes her to misunderstanding and misconstruing
intentions, motivations and actions of other people. This places
her at great risk for faulty judgment, for errors in decision-making,
5
and for behaving in ways that are based on inaccurate information.
These data indicate that Ms. Todd will not only fail to recognize or
foresee the consequences of her actions at times, but that she will
also become confused at times in separating fantasy from reality.”
As Dr. Ward explained,
Ms. Todd has the liability of distortion of information and failure to
accurately identify intentions, motivations and behavior of others.
Ms. Todd’s emotional state placed her at risk for misinterpreting
information that she gained from her environment, adamantly
believing that Laurel was sexually abused, and acting with full
force on this information.
Dr. Ward thus concluded that “the hypothesis that Ms. Todd unintentionally
but clearly caused Laurel to come to believe that she has been sexually abused
by her father is the hypothesis best supported by the data.”
In making her recommendations, Dr. Ward cautioned that “[w]hile it is
unlikely that Mr. Miller has sexually abused Laurel, it is not possible to say
with an absolute certainty that he did not.” She concluded, however, that
while it is “likely that Janet Todd did influence her children with her negative
beliefs about Mr. Miller, from her psychological profile, it is most likely that her
feelings colored her perceptions and that she not only came to see Mr. Miller as
harmful to Laurel but also did not protect the children from her feelings.” In
addition, Dr. Ward noted that “Ms. Todd’s parents appear to have wholly and
adamantly accepted that Mr. Miller is a pervasive negative influence on his
children. Mrs. Todd in particular is active in helping her daughter prove that
Mr. Miller sexually abused the children.” Finally, Dr. Ward noted that “Laurel’s
therapist is convinced that Laurel has been sexually abused, and may have
inadvertently reinforced the abuse by making a ‘book’ with Laurel about her
abuse.”
At the time Dr. Ward submitted her report in late December 2007, Miller
had not seen his children, outside of Dr. Ward’s office, since September 2005.
Because the children had no present relationship with Miller, Dr. Ward
recommended therapeutic reunification. Dr. Ward noted that the “children and
their father have lost time that they cannot bring back. Once the relationship
between Mr. Miller and the children is both more positive and more stable a
parenting plan should be worked out wherein the children can spen[d]
significant periods of time with their father.”
On January 7, 2008, the trial court issued an order addressing Dr.
Ward’s evaluation and recommendations. The court noted that as a result of
Todd’s allegations of sexual abuse, Miller “has had little meaningful parenting
6
time for the past two years, other than when he and the children met with Dr.
Ward as part of her evaluation.” The court expressed its intent
to set a course for the immediate therapeutic reunification of the
children with their father. Too much time has already passed and
too much opportunity has been lost. The children certainly
deserve better. [Todd] asserts that she accepts the goal of
reunification, but wants it to proceed at a slow pace. The court is
convinced that [Todd’s] pace for reunification is far too slow and is
premised on assertions which may not be true.
The court noted that although Miller had already identified a reunification
therapist, Todd had “made no such effort whatsoever.” The court ordered that
the parties immediately contact Kelly Khachadourian to begin the therapeutic
reunification process, that Todd immediately reenroll in counseling, and that
her therapist be given a copy of Dr. Ward’s evaluation and Todd’s own
psychological evaluation. The court found “that the children’s best interests
require that they ‘normalize’ their relationship with their father. It is
extraordinarily harmful to them to deprive them of a relationship with one
parent, especially when the reasons for doing so appear to be wholly
unjustified.” The court expressed that it did
not doubt that [Todd] feels justified in objecting to [Miller] having
parenting time because of her concerns about sexual abuse, but
the objective evidence does not corroborate her concerns. In fact,
Dr. Ward’s evaluation and the parties’ psychological evaluations
raise the very real possibility that unless the children’s
circumstances are immediately addressed, they risk abuse from a
different source.
On March 6, 2008, following a hearing, the trial court issued an order
stating that its “hope that progress could be made in [Miller’s] reunification
with the parties’ minor children was misguided.” The January 7, 2008 order
setting forth a plan for restoring the relationship “failed in relatively short
order.” The court attributed responsibility for its failure to both parties:
“[Miller] because of his insistence and belligerence with the reunification
therapist” and Todd “because of her fanciful concern about the therapist’s
‘fraudulent billing’ of insurance.” The court ordered that the parties enroll in
reunification counseling with a new therapist and that they develop a schedule
which gives Miller “some increasingly longer periods of parenting time” during
the reunification process. The court stated that it was “growing increasingly
convinced that [Todd’s] insistence that [Miller] sexually abused the children is
the single biggest obstacle to restoring [Miller’s] relationship with them. If her
insistence continues to be so intractable, [it] may be left with no alternative
short of modifying the children’s primary residence.” Further, the court denied
7
Todd’s request to depose the children’s former therapist, stating that Todd’s
“representation that [the therapist] is the source for her conviction that the
children were sexually abused is, at this point, irrelevant; whatever the source
of her belief, the fact is that she continues to hold to it no matter the evidence
to the contrary.”
On May 15, 2008, following a hearing, the court, after noting that the
parties “have no interest to cooperate in what they both profess to believe –
that the children need [to] rebuild their relationship with their father,” ordered
that they begin reunification therapy near Miller’s home in New York no later
than July 1, 2008. Following an ex parte motion filed by Miller alleging that
Todd’s continued interference with the reunification process required
immediate modification of residential custody, the court stated that if Todd and
the children did not appear for the July 8, 2008 appointment, it would consider
Miller’s request for sole decision-making and residential responsibility.
On August 25, 2008, following a hearing, the court recognized that
although the parties “agree that they have made considerable progress since
the [May] hearing . . . in reunifying the minor children with [Miller],” that “good
news quickly degenerated into a heated argument about the next step in the
process.” Miller wanted temporary primary residential responsibility of the
children so he could bring them to New York to complete the reunification
therapy, while Todd contended that request was “decidedly not in the children’s
best interests.” The court stated that it understood that Miller is convinced
that Todd
has alienated the children and is responsible for the children’s
estrangement from him; he may be right, but that does not change
the fact that the children will require time to adjust to the
change(s). The process of restoring his contact with the children
has begun [and] is proceeding reasonably well, and the children’s
best interests require that he be patient with the process.
As for Todd, the court stated that she
continues to be unwilling to recognize the damage she has done to
the children’s relationship with their father. She offers no real
practical suggestions for how to continue the restoration of the
relationship; rather, she leaves it up to him to work out the
arrangements, presumably by his traveling to New Hampshire to
continue the reunification therapy.
Accordingly, the court set forth a schedule to allow Miller to continue the
reunification therapy and appointed a guardian ad litem.
8
In October 2008, Miller filed an ex parte motion again seeking
modification of residential responsibility “made necessary due to the fact that
[he] ha[d] not had any contact with his children since August 14, 2008.”
Following a hearing on the motion, the court stated that it remained “convinced
that [Todd] is not invested in the process of reunifying [Miller] with the parties’
minor children.” The “uncontroverted evidence” demonstrated that Miller had
not seen the children since August “for reasons entirely unclear to the court,”
that Todd had offered parenting time to Miller for a couple of days in August
“but then reneged,” and that Todd neither met Miller in New Hampshire when
he came to pick up the children, nor did she bring the children to New York.
The court noted that Miller was not blameless in that he “unreasonably insists
that his reunification with the children be done on his terms, and his
impatience with the process has now caused the second reunification therapist
to withdraw from this case. He chose both therapists, but his conduct has
made their work nearly impossible.” Concluding that only a specific schedule
of parenting time would guarantee Miller’s contact with the children, the court
set forth a visitation schedule.
In March 2009, the guardian ad litem filed an ex parte motion to cancel
the custodial time the children were scheduled to have with their father during
the weekend beginning March 20, 2009. The motion indicated that “[o]n
3/18/09 Janet Todd told the GAL that the children disclosed to her
inappropriate touching by their father . . . during their last custodial time with
[him].” In response, the trial court scheduled a hearing and, in the interim,
ordered that the “father shall not have parenting time.” At the hearing, the
guardian stated that Todd claimed Lindsay reported that “daddy touched her
pee-pee. She told him not to and he did it anyway, and that there was also a
threat in there that if they told anyone, he would kill their mother.” Following
the hearing, the court ordered that Miller’s parenting time was not suspended
but ordered the guardian ad litem and Todd to report the disclosures to DCYF
“immediately.” DCYF investigated and closed the matter as unfounded. In a
letter to the parties, DCYF recommended that both Laurel and Lindsay engage
in individual therapy and that the parents participate in a Child Impact
Seminar to understand “the impact it has on children to have a relationship
with both parents.” DCYF also stated that “[i]f we shall get another report in
with further concerns for Lindsay and Laurel and they have not started
therapy, [t]he Division for Children, Youth and Families may be forced to take a
different course of action.”
In April 2009, the guardian ad litem filed a statement with the court
indicating that Laurel’s first grade teacher had reported that on April 20 Laurel
began to cry in class and disclosed that during her most recent visit with her
father he said that he was going to hurt her mother and there was nothing she
could do to stop him. In response, Miller filed a motion to modify custody of
9
the children due to new acts of child abuse. Following a hearing, the court
denied the motion. The court noted that it understood
that [Miller] fears that this new allegation, when combined with
previous ones and the recent one in March, is a “slippery slope”
spiraling into new and more serious ones. The court will carefully
consider all that has happened before March and since. The Final
Hearing is scheduled in July, only two months away. Until then,
the court does not find a risk of imminent harm to justify the
uprooting of the children, especially so close to the end of the
school year.
Following a three-day hearing, the master issued his recommendations
regarding custody, which were approved by the trial court on September 8,
2009. The master found that in 2005 the court had “suspended father’s
parenting time because of mother’s allegations that he sexually abused Laurel”
but that “DCYF investigated and ultimately made no findings of sexual abuse.”
The master found that Dr. Ward’s “thorough and extraordinarily perceptive”
parenting assessment included the conclusion “that the girls are being exposed
to something that undermines their relationship with father.” The master
found that Miller’s expert, Dr. Garber, shared this conclusion. The master also
found that Todd “believes that ‘something sexual definitely happened (to
Laurel) by [Miller]’” and that Dr. Ward “opine[d] that mother ‘influence(d) her
children with her negative beliefs about (father) . . . (and) did not protect the
children from her feelings.’”
Regarding the children, the master found that they have lived primarily
with their mother in New Hampshire for nearly five years, where they have
attended school. He found that they have friends in New Hampshire and a
close relationship with their maternal grandparents. In addition, he found that
although they have reestablished a healthy bond with their father, have made
friends in New York, and enjoy their time with their father’s brother and
mother, a move to New York would be a drastic change requiring them to leave
most of what they have known during their formative years and would not be
in their best interest. Accordingly, the master concluded that “the girls’ best
interests require that they continue living primarily with their mother in New
Hampshire.”
Miller raises three issues on appeal. First, he argues that the trial court
erred in awarding Todd parenting responsibility when she has “engaged in a
sustained campaign to alienate the children from [him], and to interfere with
his parenting rights, by making multiple accusations of sexual abuse.”
Second, he argues that the trial court erred in not providing him a timely
opportunity to view videotaped interviews with Laurel. Third, he argues that
Supreme Court Rule 3 providing for mandatory review of appeals involving
10
married parents but discretionary review of appeals involving non-married
parents is unconstitutional.
The trial court has wide discretion in matters involving custody and
visitation. In the Matter of Choy & Choy, 154 N.H. 707, 713 (2007); see RSA
461-A:20 (Supp. 2010) (“Any provision of law that refers to the ‘custody’ of
minor children shall mean the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities
as provided in this chapter.”).
Our review is limited to determining whether it clearly appears that
the trial court engaged in an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
This means that we review only whether the record establishes an
objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary judgment
made, and we will not disturb the trial court’s determination if it
could reasonably be made.
Choy, 154 N.H. at 713 (quotation and citations omitted). We review a trial
court’s statutory interpretation de novo. Id. at 711.
“When determining matters of child custody, a trial court’s overriding
concern is the best interest of the child.” In the Matter of Martin & Martin, 160
N.H. 645, 647 (2010), cert. denied, 79 U.S.L.W. 3329 (Jan. 24, 2011). RSA
chapter 461-A, the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act, states that
“children do best when both parents have a stable and meaningful involvement
in their lives.” RSA 461-A:2, I (Supp. 2010). Accordingly, it is the policy of this
state to “[s]upport frequent and continuing contact between each child and
both parents” and to “[e]ncourage parents to share in the rights and
responsibilities of raising their children.” RSA 461-A:2, I(a), (b). The Act
codifies the “best interests of the child” criteria, setting forth twelve factors that
the court must consider, including:
(e) The ability and disposition of each parent to foster a positive
relationship and frequent and continuing physical, written and
telephonic contact with the other parent, except where contact will
result in harm to the child or to a parent.
(f) The support of each parent for the child’s contact with the
other parent as shown by allowing and promoting such contact.
(g) The support of each parent for the child’s relationship with
the other parent.
RSA 461-A:6, I(e)-(g) (Supp. 2009) (amended 2010).
11
“Across the country, the great weight of authority holds that conduct by
one parent that tends to alienate the child’s affections from the other is so
inimical to the child’s welfare as to be grounds for a denial of custody to, or a
change of custody from, the parent guilty of such conduct.” Renaud v. Renaud,
721 A.2d 463, 465-66 (Vt. 1998). “[A] child’s best interests are plainly furthered
by nurturing the child’s relationship with both parents, and a sustained course
of conduct by one parent designed to interfere in the child’s relationship with
the other casts serious doubt upon the fitness of the offending party to be the
custodial parent.” Id. at 466. As we have recognized, “the obstruction by a
custodial parent of visitation between a child and the noncustodial parent may,
if continuous, constitute behavior so inconsistent with the best interests of the
child as to raise a strong possibility that the child will be harmed.” Webb v.
Knudson, 133 N.H. 665, 673 (1990); see also In the Matter of Kosek & Kosek,
151 N.H. 722, 728 (2005).
In addition, many courts have held that unfounded allegations of sexual
abuse made by one parent can be grounds for granting custody to the other
parent. See, e.g., Young v. Young, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957, 962 (App. Div. 1995);
Hartman v. Hartman, 621 N.E.2d 917, 920 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993), appeal denied,
631 N.E.2d 708 (Ill. 1994); Mack-Manley v. Manley, 138 P.3d 525, 531 (Nev.
2006); Turner v. Turner, 689 N.Y.S.2d 269, 270 (App. Div. 1999).
In Beekman v. Beekman, 645 N.E.2d 1332, 1336 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994),
the court reasoned:
Although a court grants one parent custody and the other
visitation, the children need to know that they are loved by both
parents regardless of the antagonism the parents might feel for
each other. It is the duty of each parent to foster and encourage
the child’s love and respect for the other parent, and the failure
from that duty is as harmful to the child as is the failure to provide
food, clothing, or shelter. Perhaps it is more harmful because no
matter how well fed or well clothed, a child cannot be happy if he
or she feels unloved by one parent.
When a court makes a custodial decision, it makes a
presumption that the circumstances are such that the residential
parent will promote both maternal and paternal affection. The
residential parent implicitly agrees to foster such affection, not out
of any good feeling toward the nonresidential parent, but out of the
need of the child for both parent’s love. Where the evidence shows
that after the initial decree the residential parent is not living up to
the court’s presumption and is attempting to poison the
relationship between the ex-spouse and the child, this is a change
of circumstances that warrants a modification of the prior custody
12
decree. Unsubstantiated allegations of abuse are the worst kind of
poisoning of the relationship.
The trial court’s order in the case before us does not cite RSA chapter
461-A, nor does it mention the application of the statutory factors to the specific
facts before it. There is no clear indication in the court’s order whether it
considered “[t]he ability and disposition of each parent to foster a positive
relationship . . . with the other parent,” RSA 461-A:6, I(e), “[t]he support of each
parent for the child’s contact with the other parent,” RSA 461-A:6, I(f), or “[t]he
support of each parent for the child’s relationship with the other parent,” RSA
461-A:6, I(g), in determining the best interests of the children. See In the
Matter of Rossino & Rossino, 153 N.H. 282, 284 (2006) (trial court’s
determination as to custody apparently did not take into account actions of the
wife and impact of wife’s repeated lawsuits on husband’s ability to maintain
contact with his children).
Based upon the record before us, the negative ramifications of Todd’s
unfounded belief that Miller has sexually abused his children, and continues to
do so, are several and serious. First and foremost, the false allegations of abuse
significantly interfered with Miller’s visitation and deprived him of any
relationship with his children for years. Further, as a result of the false
allegations, both children have been subjected repeatedly to invasive physical
examinations, they have been interviewed by DCYF and law enforcement, they
have been evaluated by Dr. Ward, they have had two guardians ad litem and
they have twice participated in reunification therapy. These actions were not in
the children’s best interests. See Watson v. Poole, 495 S.E.2d 236, 239 (S.C.
Ct. App. 1997) (numerous physical examinations and counseling sessions for
unfounded sexual abuse are not in the child’s best interest); Ellis v. Ellis, 747
S.W.2d 711, 715 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) (mother’s attempt to deprive child of
opportunity to know and love father by interfering with father’s visitation is not
in child’s best interest); Theisen v. Theisen, 405 N.W.2d 470, 474 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1987) (mother created and maintained atmosphere of unwarranted
suspicion and accusation regarding conduct of father toward children resulting
in psychological damage); C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 879 So. 2d 1169, 1178 (Ala. Civ.
App. 2003) (not in child’s best interests to be raised by a mother so bitterly
opposed to child’s father).
Despite Todd’s admissions that she does not know whether any of the
alleged incidents actually occurred, that she has no evidence that Miller has
done anything wrong, and that she may not believe the allegations herself, there
is no indication in the record that Todd’s conduct of pursuing unfounded
allegations of sexual abuse will cease. See Theisen, 405 N.W.2d at 472
(mother’s repeated attempts to alienate the children from their father and her
pattern of conduct, having existed over the years, is unlikely to change); cf.
Renauld, 721 A.2d at 467-68 (mother’s reports of alleged sexual and physical
13
abuse of son by father, although unsubstantiated, were wholly reasonable and
her actions were transitory, unlikely to be repeated, and subject to cure).
The trial court awarded custody to Todd primarily because the children
have spent the majority of their lives with her and that is where they are most
comfortable. However, it was because of the unfounded allegations of sexual
abuse that Miller was denied any contact with his children for over two years
and had little opportunity to establish a home life with them between 2004 and
2009. This raises the question whether Todd has benefitted from her
misbehavior. In Begins v. Begins, 721 A.2d 469, 470-71 (Vt. 1998), the
children’s relationship with their mother deteriorated following the parents’
separation due to the fact that the father unfairly blamed her for the parties’
marital problems and made disparaging remarks about her lifestyle. The trial
court concluded that the boys’ hostility toward their mother, encouraged and
fueled by their father, precluded an award of custody to mother. Id. at 471.
Although the court found that father did not “deserve to win custody,” it
concluded that it had no choice but to award custody to him. Id. (quotations
omitted). The Vermont Supreme Court rejected such reasoning. Id. at 472. As
the court stated:
Although obviously well intended, the court’s decision effectively
condoned a parent’s willful alienation of a child from the other
parent. Its ruling sends the unacceptable message that others
might, with impunity, engage in similar misconduct. Left
undisturbed, the court’s decision would nullify the principle that
the best interests of the child are furthered through a healthy and
loving relationship with both parents.
Id.; see Mack-Manley, 138 P.3d at 528 (trial court found children’s best
interests not served by ignoring mother’s unsubstantiated child abuse and
neglect allegations); Young, 628 N.Y.S.2d at 963 (trial court’s decision
noticeably silent as to mother’s false allegations and it was clear the court failed
to consider evidence that mother willfully interfered with father’s relationship
with the children).
Dr. Ward’s report, characterized by the master as “thorough and
extraordinarily perceptive,” contains several conclusions particularly relevant to
Todd’s inability to foster a positive relationship with Miller and to support the
children’s contact with him. These include her conclusions that Todd caused
Laurel to believe that she has been sexually abused by her father, that it is
likely that Todd influenced her children with her negative beliefs and did not
protect the children from her feelings, that Todd’s parents have “wholly and
adamantly” accepted that Miller is a pervasive negative influence on the
children, and that Todd’s mother is active in helping her daughter prove that
Miller sexually abused the children.
14
We conclude that the award of parental rights and responsibilities must
be vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration in light of this opinion.
On remand, the trial court must consider the factors set forth in RSA 461-A:6,
I(e)-(g) in determining the children’s best interests in this case. Also, the court
should consider the applicability of the recent amendment to RSA 461-A:6, IV
(Supp. 2010). It is within the trial court’s discretion to take into consideration
any additional circumstances that may have occurred while this appeal was
pending.
The second issue Miller raises on appeal is whether the trial court erred
in not providing him a timely opportunity to view videotaped interviews
conducted by the Child Advocacy Center in Portsmouth with his daughter
Laurel. However, Miller’s attorney conceded at oral argument that this issue is
moot. Accordingly, we need not address it further.
The final issue raised is whether Supreme Court Rule 3 is
unconstitutional because it provides differing treatment to married and
unmarried parents with respect to issues involving children.
Supreme Court Rule 3 provides in part:
“Mandatory appeal”: A mandatory appeal shall be accepted by the
supreme court for review on the merits. A mandatory appeal is an
appeal filed by the State pursuant to RSA 606:10, or an appeal
from a final decision on the merits issued by a superior court,
district court, probate court, or family division court, that is in
compliance with these rules. Provided, however, that the following
appeals are NOT mandatory appeals:
. . .
(9) an appeal from a final decision on the merits issued in, or
arising out of, a domestic relations matter filed under RSA Title
XLIII (RSA chapters 457 to 461-A); provided, however, that an
appeal from a final divorce decree or decree of legal separation
shall be a mandatory appeal.
Having exercised our discretion and accepted this appeal, we hold that
the question concerning the constitutionality of Rule 3 as applied to this case is
moot. Any consideration regarding amending Rule 3 should be accomplished in
accordance with the rule-making procedures set forth in Supreme Court Rule
51, thereby providing the public, the bench and the bar an opportunity to offer
comments and suggestions.
Vacated and remanded.
DALIANIS, C.J., and DUGGAN and CONBOY, JJ., concurred.

Great Decision

2010-06-14T14:03:00.002-08:00

Justice Robert A. Ross

Decided: May 25; 203699-02

The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the "best interest of the child," when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.

Parental access, commonly referred to as "visitation," is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170. In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:

1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;

2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law 750,753;

3. Tort action for custodial interference;

4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240.

While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.

While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), inasmuch as a Court's finding of willful interference "per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit" (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), when a pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conduct must [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.

The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O' bdoherty@chat.nyc.amlaw.corp Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be "an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding - - the "strong likelihood of unfitness" becomes a "factor" that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.

Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006; Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769. Under the circumstances of this case, this Court's finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children's best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties' children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. The Court granted defendant's motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.

The parties' Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties' Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from "alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant," or to "hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so." Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children's education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to "exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact," "to foster a feeling of affection," and not to "do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children's opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children's love and affection for the [Defendant]."

To sustain the defendant's application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party's rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both.

In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties' stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.

CONTEMPT

The Court's findings here were based, in part, upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and their character, temperament and sincerity. Matter of Carl J.B. v. Dorothy T., 186 AD2d 736; see, also, Klat v. Klat, 176 AD2d 922; Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499. I have also considered the extensive post-hearing submissions of each of the parties and the attorney for the children.

Here, the defendant's burden of proof in this matter was met so overwhelmingly, as to exceed the burden of proof required (see, Bulow, supra). Instead, it was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" [cf., Rubackin v. Rubackin, 62 AD3d 11]. The acts perpetrated by the plaintiff were not only in willful violation of the Stipulation of Settlement, as incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce, but such as to demonstrate a continuing and calculated effort to violate the parental access of the defendant to the infant issue. The movant here demonstrated that the plaintiff violated a clear and unequivocal Court order, thereby prejudicing his rights. See, Judiciary Law §753[A][3]; Vujovic v. Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490. The specific findings of fact are detailed herein, and considering the extent, nature, and continuing pattern of alienation perpetrated by the plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiff's conduct was calculated to and did, in fact, impair, impede or prejudice the rights and remedies of the defendant herein. See, Silverman v. Silverman, N.Y.L.J., 11-22-95, p. 26, col. 1; McCain v. Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216; Hoglund v. Hoglund, 234 AD2d 794.

FACTUAL FINDINGS ANDINSTANCES OF ALIENATION

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

CHANGE OF CUSTODYPROCEEDING TO BE HELD

There was no request in the moving papers for a change of custody. During the course of the extensive hearing held before me, application was made by the defendant for an immediate change of custody. It is improper for a trial court to take action and grant relief without appropriate notice to one of the parties affected. Such notice during the course of the proceeding for undemanded relief does not constitute adequate notice, and could serve to prejudice the plaintiff. Siegel Practice Commentary, McKinney's Consol. Law of New York, Book 7B, CPLR 3017.6. The Court did not grant the relief for a change in custody in the course of the hearing for contempt. However, Domestic Relations Law §240 provides that upon an application, the Court may modify a previous direction with respect to the right of visitation "after such notice to the other party… .and given in such manner as the Court shall direct." See, Domestic Relations Law §240. The request for a change in custody during the course of the contempt hearing clearly has provided adequate notice by which to schedule a hearing. The request during the hearing to amend the motion to conform to the evidence presented at this hearing, is now granted, to the extent of ordering a prompt hearing on a modification of custody. Heintz v. Heintz, 28 AD3d 1154; cf. Sipos v. Kelly, 66 AD2d 1022. See, also, Fisk v. Fisk, 274 AD2d 691.

The parties are to appear before me on June 4, 2010 to be heard on selection of a forensic examiner and to be heard on allocation of fees. See, Uniform Rules §202.7; also see, Ragone v. Ragone, 62 AD3d 772; Domestic Relations Law §237(d)(4). The scheduling of the modification of custody hearing will be facilitated at that time.

THE COURT'S ROLE INADDRESSING ALIENATION

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].

SENTENCE

An imposition of sentence upon a finding of contempt should contain a language permitting the contemnor an opportunity to purge. See, Heyn v. Burr, 19 AD3d 896; Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733; Cooper v. Cooper, 21 AD3d 869. Under the circumstances here, where determination is made of a past violation of an order of parental access/joint custody, there can be no purge since it is no longer within the plaintiff's power to perform the act. See, Kruszczynski v. Charlap, 124 AD2d 1073; Young v. Young, 129 AD2d 794. Moreover, the use of remedial intervention - - parenting coordination/counseling - - during the course of the trial was unsuccessful, and even if re-utilized here, the Court cannot condition release from imprisonment upon future compliance. See, Martinez v. D.S.S., 44 AD3d 945.

Accordingly, and after careful consideration of the circumstances of the nature and extent of the multiple instances of violation of the court order, the plaintiff is sentenced to a period of incarceration for six weekends, to be served on the first and third weekends of each month for the months of June, July and August, 2010. Prior to these weekends of the plaintiff's incarceration, she shall transport the children to the defendant's home to assure their continued care and well being. See, Marallo v. Marallo, 128 AD2d 710; Gordon v. Janover, 238 AD2d 545; Munz v. Munz, 242 AD2d 789; Kruszczynski v. Charlap, supra; Barcham-Reichman v. Reichman, 250 AD2d 609.

COUNSEL FEES

Given the finding of a willful violation of the Judgment of this Court (Stack, J.) Dated March 26, 2004 [erroneously dated as 2003], and given the fees requested ($134,352.92 for defendant's counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children's fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees, shall be the object of a hearing to be held before me on June 4, 2010. While the parties consented to such determination on submission, the issues presented lend themselves to the Court's assessment of the parties' finances. To facilitate a complete record, a hearing is ordered herewith. See, Judiciary Law §773; Gordon v. Janover, supra.

On the Court's own motion, this decision and order will be stayed until June 4, 2010 to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to seek Appellate Review, if so advised, and it is

ORDERED, that the plaintiff, L. R., is adjudged to be in civil contempt of the Judgment of Divorce dated March 26, 2004; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties and their counsel shall appear before me for sentencing on June 4, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., which date may not be adjourned without written order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED, that the plaintiff, L. R., is sentenced to a period of six weekends imprisonment in the Nassau County Correctional Facility, pursuant to the schedule set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED, that this order and execution of this sentence shall be stayed until June 4, 2010; and it is further

ORDERED, that this decision shall be deemed an order and/or warrant of commitment pursuant to and in accordance with Judiciary Law §772; and it is further

ORDERED, that a copy of this Decision and Order shall be served upon the Sheriff of Nassau County and/or the Warden of the Nassau County Correctional Facility to facilitate the schedule of weekend incarceration, to be imposed as follows:

Friday, June 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, June 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, June 27, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, July 9, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, July 23, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, July 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, August 6, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.;

Friday, August 20, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, August 22, 2010 at 6:00 p.m;

and it is further

ORDERED, that this Court finds that the conduct of the plaintiff was calculated to, or actually did, defeat, impair or prejudice the defendant's rights or remedies.

This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

1. This witness retired from his position, and returned to New York to testify at this hearing.

Decision of the Day

Family Law

Lauren R. v. Ted R.

203699-02

Supreme Court, Nassau County

Justice Robert A. Ross

Decided: May 25

Kristin Update...

2009-12-04T10:40:00.001-09:00

UPDATE...

Well folks... My time has nearly run out and I've now accepted that I'll never see my darling little girl again. She is and always will be the light of my life. I'm a bit disappointed in her now, though. She clearly knows absolutely nothing about me...she was only four when she was torn from my life. Yet, she has accepted what she's been told, the family wagon train has been circled and I'm not allowed to even know where. Ah, such is life, huh? I have walked a lot of fires in my lifetime, yet I can not understand how anyone could teach and support such hate. And, to rip a child away from their father, that's surely something you can burn in hell for...I'm not sure, but Kristin was going to Harding University in Arkansas...and now to Oklahoma Christian University in Oklahoma City. What kind of religion do these places teach...? I know she's very smart and absolutely gorgeous, so that's a good thing. While I don't know her boyfriend, Chris, he's sure a fine looking young man. I'm only concerned that as Kristin matures, she'll feel regret for not contacting me... Not to worry girl...I truly understand and will forever watch over you.I love you Kristin and think of you every day. Dad

Kristin

2009-06-01T11:02:00.002-08:00

My lovely daughter, Kristin, is now 19 years old. I have not been allowed to see her for 15 years. I eventually found her...sent her stuff, letters, and so on. But, she has never tried to contact me. I have no idea where she is now...I assume she's in some university. In any case, I can't send her money or any of the fun things that a Dad spoils his daughter with... And, the most hurtful thing...clearly, she doesn't want to know me, see me, or have any contact with me whatsoever. I truly wonder how a parent, or any individual for that matter, can teach a child such hate, to forsake their own father...? That's the kind of stuff you burn in hell for I think...

I have forgiven all concerned and have stopped trying to contact my daughter. I'm a bit more at peace with myself, but still hurt when I realize I'll likely not get to see her graduate from college, get married, have children, and so on. Sometimes it gets particularly difficult when I think of her. I am most concerned now that as she matures, she will learn the truth and then become resentful of her mother. I'm not sure how to get across to her how important it is to forgive, not be resentful... Perhaps she will read some of this stuff one day.

I have pretty much spent my life fighting for those that couldn't fight for themselves. I like to think, as an Infantryman both enlisted and as an officer, that I helped someone, somewhere. And that the military and wars did not make me a cold-hearted, unfeeling monster as her mother believes. Isn't it unbelievable that over time, lies become the truth? I used to believe in justice...I don't anymore. So, it is particularly important that you fight for justice. Remember, we don't learn from the things we do right...we learn from what we do wrong.

And...everything happens for a reason. At the time we might not understand why, but somewhere in the future it becomes more clear (hopefully). And, it will always work out like it's supposed to...never give up faith.

So, war wounds have pretty much taken me out now...I'm getting to the point in life that I'm not able to properly continue the fight. I love you Kristin...

Thanks for all the support, love, and blessings. David

Really Good Stuff by Gary Jacobson

2009-04-15T14:15:00.002-08:00

Vietnam Picture Tour: Wife of the Man ~ From Vietnam

This poem by Gary Jacobson was written for a wife dealing with her man come from Vietnam ... but applies equally to all mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, friends, lovers ... in fact all who love those who suffer scars from that terrible watershed of innocence, that critical time when men changed when they saw too much and did too much...

It is my hope that all can understand, and translate the words relating to them and their loved one from Vietnam. I hope all can find some comforting solace here in these words for heroes, who indeed gave their lives for what they believed.

Song playing: Ciari Dejavu.

Wife of the Man
From Vietnam

http://namtour.com/wife.html
© 2004 by Gary Jacobson

Life can be so very hard
At the drop of a hat frenetically marred
When in love and living
Hell and heaven pursuing
As the wife of the man
Still fighting battles from Vietnam.

A vet’s wife has to be emotionally willing
With gathered strength daily moodiness encountering
War's madness enduring to go the whole nine yards
Never knowing what hand is dealt by his fickle cards
Borne tolerance on special dates walking on egg shells
Tip-toeing through life on pins and needles.

Veteran wives have to be students of PTSD
Know well its ins-and-outs you see
Bearing with stamina seeming apathetic indifference
Directing in moments you least expect violence
Triggered by a churning, stifling, suffocating sound
In a crowd suddenly confining, in confusion milling round.

Time and again you must with fortitude exonerate his guilt
His suffering from surviving war’s battles in psyches built
His guilt assuage, wondering why brothers had to die, not me
His vital force forever infected by Nam’s tumultuous melee
For he's seen carnage deeper than the normal eye can see
Reality lying just beyond the senses his life decree.

Forget about that word "normal"
For a 19 year old boy who’s seen death’s face abysmal
Normal does not apply... I’ll tell you why...
He lived with wall-to-wall putrid fear unfathomable
He lives with profound misery he doesn’t understand
Senses still short-circuited send him round the bend.

What a poor wife deals with can make her want to scream
For always he contrasts one world with the other extreme
Back and forth, one foot here, then back there...ad nauseum
Back where he learned to kill...or be killed!
To react quickly without thinking, to bring harm...or be harmed!
To act with violence...or be victim to violence!

Men seduced by war's barbarously bizarre world
See horrors in dreams, sights and smells unfurled
Reliving memories of what they saw, what they did
Forever imagining devastation to fractured souls deep down hid.
Fragile boyhood’s innocence lost in Nam’s destruction
Men wasted in the ugly business of killing’s confusion.

Existence entire became an obsession of Nam’s survival
Killing the man, their Vietcong archrival
Living earned by murdering
Just to get back to “the world” in dreams they clung to
These brothers-in-arms bonded through and through.
Only those who've ridden the beast can begin to understand
The depth of a brother's love comprehend.

Yet while they were gone,
Fighting for their country in hell and beyond
“The world” they so loved, turned against them
Dishonored and spit upon them
So those returning with so much to get off their chest
Could not lay this evil war demon to rest.

Therefore, trusting no one, they turned to isolation
Demons eating at their weary soul’s conflagration,
O the unholy desecration!
Still lost forever between that world, and this
Painful memories tear at life’s moments of bliss
Hiding deep Nam’s unhealed scars
Invisible to the human eye suffering a world of scares.

Fighting to maintain his very mortality
Given youth's painstakingly taught morality

By parents and church painstakingly taught for eternity
He learned the soldier’s art of immorality!

Spent life in Nam balancing his moral budget to cope
Living there with no morals, no conscience but hope.

Sent to a place he just had to survive

To stay alive...

Boys became some kind of men

In Vietnam

Where war embeds on its young princes

A new set of new senses.

Where conduct disallowed back home

...is customary

The killing just something you had to do

...mandatory.
Killing in the precarious quagmire

Specters of death floating in war's ring of fire.

Vietnam became the catalyst for constant internal war
Way down deep in the soul, themselves they abhor
Forever unforgiving themselves for surviving
Themselves...and those closest to them...punishing.
Bearing guilt...feeling always Out of step, out of rhyme
Lost in this new generation’s pace in time.

To many people, Veterans appear almost catatonic
Warily obsessing on a thousand yard stare lethargic
Driven to times they must be alone
Yet at other frightening times they cannot be alone
They're skeptical of authority that let them down in war’s charade
By people they most loved, fought for, trusted, betrayed.

Veteran wives can only support their men
Try with wisdom of Solomon to understand them.
Learn to give more than received, a woman’s touch bestow
For often veterans need more love than wives ever know
For wives must know, learning to live again...is killing him
For Nam's memory still lies repressed, still biding deep within.

Though they desperately want to, and know that they must
Is it any wonder they find it so hard, again to trust
To merge back into society they offered their very lives for
That left them wounded, bleakly forsaken on a foreign shore
Society’s gang totally embarrassed by them
Offering no ticker-tape parades, for them...

Veteran wives must learn the three C’s
These thoughts must run through them easy as a summer’s breeze.
Create their problems...they did not!
Control how time and events effect them...I cannot!
Cure them...I alone cannot!
Veterans must heal themselves with therapeutic lessons taught!

For he’s now witness to cruel war’s deadly cost
Seeing just how much of “him” is irrevocably lost.
Learn to forgive him, caring not who is wrong or right
For true love has imperfect eyesight.
Close the unforgiving mouth, for right sorts itself out
When you tune sensibilities to the primal shout!

A wife must keep vets they’ve selected
To “this World” connected...
Listen with open ears
To make more pleasant after-war years
Hear behind his manly voice the fears...
Caress his wetted tears...

Vet families find it so hard to find their cloud nine
Often unable to have friends, who did not too walk the line
Friends...veterans feel they can’t afford them
For back in the day...they lost too many of them.
The hatreds, the fears, the guilt, too often combine
Strangling hearts intertwined in Nam’s awful jungle vine.

How can a still young wife hope to cope
With war’s inbred horror grope...
To keep her man, her family...herself, able
Searching for a sane life that’s half-way stable?
She must have the soul of a saint's sense
To turn bubbling hate to love with patience...
Then find within, even more patience!

O how did she get herself into this precarious situation?
How did she find a vet to bestow her adulation...?
To emerge as the wife in love with the man
Still fighting battles from Vietnam!

She loved him...

All you can do is simply love him.

************

Just A Walk In The Park

A novel packed with beaucoup memoirs, blended with facts happening to myself, or soldiers just over the hill ... with 150 color pictures of Nam combat.

These were times that defined men's souls; times that set the foundation and tenor for all life to come, eternally affecting our FOREVER, as well as generations of lives surrounding our life. Vietnam was our delineating moment, after which, in Shakespeare's words, "Life is but a walking shadow."

This book will thrill you with heart-stopping action, fear and danger ... death floating in sweet-and-sour air ... but then, you don't want to live forever, do you?

My Thousand Yard Stare, beaucoup poetry with over two hundred full color pictures and graphics in this book of my comrades-in-arms, and other unit battle pictures.

Either book may be ordered at:

Gary Jacobson, 6325 so Old Hwy 191, Malad, Id 83252

jacobs@atcnet.net

Buy my books instantly at, http://namtour.com/marketplace.html

with the security and ease of PayPal or your choice of credit cards. If you wish it signed by the author, email me.

I appreciate your vote for "Vietnam Picture Tour!" as a "Top Military Site," at "Veterans Topsites." Just Click this link to vote:
http://www.worldwidetopsites.com/php/in.php?id=knights
Thanks to your generous support, Vietnam Picture Tour is presently in 2nd place on "Military Topsites," so whether you vote once, every day, or now and then...

I sincerely Thank You!

Please share this with vets. your friends, and those who need to know...

Gary
Gary Jacobson

"Vietnam Picture Tour," http://namtour.com/namtour.html A walk in "the park" grunts called Vietnam, with the 1st Air Cavalry on combat patrol. Experience chilling reality to leave the sweet and sour taste of "the Nam" pungent on your tongue, the smell of "the Nam" acrid in your nostrils, and textures of "the Nam" imbedded in you as though you were walking beside me in combat.

My poignant poems directory, pictures and artwork to show the essence and feeling of war on young "boys next door," http://namtour.com/nampoemsNpix.html

"Realm Of Poetry," Poems of love and romance, spirituality and meditation, Golden Oldies, comedy, Quests of the regal knight Richard Lionheart to the crusades and seeking the Holy Grail, dueling dragons, frolicking fairies, and comedy ... and also links to my site of riding that bestial ogre called war ... http://namtour.com/P/RealmOfPoetry.html

Parental Alienation is a form of Child Abuse

2008-04-24T12:00:00.000-08:00

Parental Alienation is a form of Child Abuse

Parental alienation involves the systematic brainwashing and manipulation of children with the sole purpose of destroying a loving and warm relationship they once shared with a parent.

Parental alienation and hostile aggressive parenting deprives children of their right to be loved by and showing love for both of their parents. These selfish, vindictive and malicious actions by the alienating parent (the parent who is responsible for the manipulations and brainwashing) is considered a form of child abuse - as the alienating tactics used on the children are disturbing, confusing and often frightening, and rob children of their sense of security and safety.

Most people do not know about Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting until they experience it. Parental Alienation Awareness Day is put forth to help raise awareness about this growing problem of mental and emotional child abuse seen mostly in cases of divorce or separation.

We need your help to protect the innocent, ...the children.

We need your help to educate and make aware to the public the effects of Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting.

If you've been effected by Parental Alienation or know someone who has, or are a past victim of a parent who exhibited Hostile Aggressive Parenting and Alienated from one parent, please write and tell us your story. We will add your story to our letters page for everyone around the world to publish in their local magazines, newspapers, etc. Please remember to keep your story to the telling of the loss, love, and heartache. Please refrain from excessive anger and verbally assaulting the alienator(s) in your letters.

The aim of the awareness day is to make the judges, police officers, phychiatrists, lawyers, as well as friends and family of the people abusing their children by HAP and alienation tactics to become aware of this growing problem and form of abuse.

With awareness comes education and understanding, and the power to stop the abuse of innocent children caught in the crossfire of people they love.

About Us

Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting Awareness day was started by a group of concerned people who either are victims of these issues, or became aware of them because people they care about are victims.

Because most people do not know about PA & HAP until they experience it, the idea of a Parental Alienation Awareness Day is put forth to help raise awareness about this growing problem of mental and emotional child abuse.

Our goal is to educate the general public, the schools, police, counselors, religious leaders, and more, about this growing problem. Our goal is education. We believe that with education comes understanding, and the will and power to stop the emotional and mental abuse of children.

We plan on accomplishing this by having professionals/experts speak on these issues on April 25th, by publishing articles, handing out flyers, and pamphlets, screening movies, and offering workshops wherever possible.

We are also collecting letters from people experiencing Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting. The goal of these letters is to show the public the turmoil that these children, and families go through. We encourage our letter writers to write with compassion and love, and as little anger as possible.

Parental Alienation Awareness Day - April 25th, 2006

To find out more about us, or if you would like to join in our efforts, please contact Sarvy Emo at sarvy@parental-alienation-awareness.com.
To volunteer your help, email us at volunteer@parental-alienation-awareness.com
To get more information, email us at info@parental-alienation-awareness.com
To suggest a link, email us at links@parental-alienation-awareness.com
To submit an article, email us at article@parental-alienation-awareness.com
Professionals and experts, email us at email us at experts@parental-alienation-awareness.com

Media :

Contact Sarvy Emo
Phone: 416-840-5654
Email: sarvy@parental-alienation-awareness.com
www.parental-alienation-awareness.com/default.asp

Parental Alienation Day

2008-04-24T11:27:00.000-08:00

Parental Alienation Day is April 25 2008
The Parental Alienation Awareness Organization is sponsoring a Webinar Series on a Number of Relevant Topics Related to Parental Alienation

For More Information: http://www.paawareness.org/webinarsignup.asp

Parental Alienation Awareness Day Recognition Campaign

2008-04-08T13:07:00.000-08:00

We are looking for volunteers to ask their local Governor, MP or government officials to proclaim or officially recognize April 25th as Parental Alienation Awareness Day

Go to Package
Each area can have more than one representative.
For US States, please contact Kim Griswold at kim@paawareness.org to become a State Representative.
For CANADA, please contact Robert Samery at robert@paawareness.org
For other countries, please contact Sarvy Emo at sarvy@paawareness.org

US Governor's Package (same procedure can be used for other Countries as well)
SUMMARY

View your governor's/MP's website and contact their office. Click here for the US State Governor's information, and here for Canadian MP's list.

There will usually be a proclamation procedure on the website, or, if not, call the governor's/MP's office and ask to speak to the proclamations department to get procedures. Even if there is information on the website, it's a good idea to contact your governor's office and speak to a real live person. Exchange names, and ask about their proclamation procedure.

Take this opportunity to provide information to the person at the governor's office about Parental Alienation Awareness Organization, Parental Alienation, its behaviors, how they affect children and families, and, perhaps your own experience with Parental Alienation. Remember to be clear, concise, and to the point. Show no anger, but be factual and informative.

Usually the minimum requirements are petition and proclamation wording. They may also want statistics, references, and articles, see below on links to print that information.

Click here for a sample petition letter

Include Sample Draft of Proclamation

Inquire as to how they want the information sent (e-mail, Fax, etc.) Be sure and provide contact information.

Inquire as to approximate time for the proclamation process.

About half way through the process, contact the governor's office again to inquire about the status of the proclamation and to answer any further questions.

We ask that you use the included proclamation and petition wording, as it has been found to be the most effective.

If your governor issues a proclamation for April 25th, we also ask that you forward it (or a copy) to Parental Alienation Awareness Organization. We, in turn, will issue a press release, with a thank you to the governor.

Please feel free to contact us, or provide your governor/MP's with our contact information if there are any questions.
You may also want to include:
Include the proclamations from other locations.
Alabama - Governor Riley
Connecticut - Governor Rell
Florida - Governor Crist
Georgia - Governor Perdue
Indiana - Governor Daniels
Iowa - Governor Vilsack
Kentucky - Governor Fletcher
Maine - Governor Baldacci
Mississippi - Governor Barbour
Montana - Governor Schweitzer (recognition)
Nebraska - Governor Heineman

The Islands of BERMUDA

Include the Proclamation by the Presidents of the United States of America declaring April as Child Abuse Prevention Month.
Click here for a copy of the proclamation by President Bush.
Click here for a copy of the proclamation by President Clinton.

Include flyers and brochures about Parental Alienation Awareness Organization, founders of Parental Alienation Awareness Day
Flyer #1
Flyer #2
Flyer #3
Children's Rights
PA & HAP Brochure

Include articles on Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting:
NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
Parental Alienation Awareness Day 2006 a Success Worldwide
International Parental Alienation Awareness Day A major Success
Parental alienation awareness day
Parental alienation gets a day
Parental Alienation is a form of Child Abuse?
Click here for more articles you can print
PAS, When Children Get Caught in the Middle
Parental Alienation Articles
Alienating a Parent
Court Rulings on PA/S

Print out some statistics
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/related.cfm
http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
http://www.biblenews1.com/marriage/marriags.htm#Top
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=347051
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/cmfacts.htm

Get endorsements from the family court programs and social services
This is easier than it sounds. Most family court programs and Social services know about Parental Alienation, although they may not call it that, and are sympathetic with our cause.
Click here for a suggested script in speaking with Court, government, and social service personnel
Click here for a sample endorsement letter

Do a search on google for Children's Social Services in your local area. There are a number of agencies and organizations where you can get endorsements to present to your governor.

Click here for the Governor's website for contact information

Kristin

2008-03-29T13:16:00.000-08:00

Well, everyone...I just wanted to tell you all that my darling daughter, Kristin, turned 18 the 27th of March. Imagine, my little girl is now an adult--at least a young woman. I sure have trouble realizing that too. I sure wish I could have been there for her birthday. This is the first birthday that I haven’t sent her a present, or even a card. I figured she didn’t want any contact with me... I surely hope I am wrong about that. Gosh, I love and miss her.

A must watch...

2008-03-26T15:19:00.000-08:00

http://www.whatkindofworlddoyouwant.com/videos/view/id/706270

Resentment...and Forgiveness

2008-03-21T12:55:00.000-08:00

When you hold resentment toward another, you are bound to that person or condition by an emotional link that is stronger than steel. Forgiveness is the only way to dissolve that link and get free. Resentment is like a glass of poison that a man drinks; then he sits down and waits for his enemy to die.

A Sober Thought

2008-02-27T11:19:00.000-09:00

The Honorable Judge Gomery of Canada stated, “Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught. A parent who would teach a child to hate the other parent represents a grave and persistent danger to the mental and emotional health of that child.”

Jim Hueglin http://jimhueglin.blogspot.com/

Bereavement Without End-A Plea From Alienated Parents Everywhere

2008-02-27T11:10:00.000-09:00

The death of a child is indisputably one of the most incredibly horrible tragedies one can imagine. Whether by sudden accidental circumstance, or by a more lengthy cause as in illness, the loss of a child is undeniably painful to experience. Painful to the parents, parents to the family, and painful to anyone related to the child. Never knowing the laughter of that child again or the tears, the joys and the accomplishments is a pain no parent should ever have to endure, and yet it happens. No one is to blame. It just happens. Imagine the same pain and the same sense of loss, with one exception-the parent is very much aware that the child is alive. The effects of Parental Alienation Syndrome are very similar to the loss of a child due to accident or illness. For the parent who has been alienated from their child, the bereavement does not end. How do we know? Each alienated parent separately, and all of us collectively have lived with both the cause and the effect of Parental Alienation for countless years. Like a terminally fatal childhood disease, Parental Alienation rips the innocent child from your arms slowly. You witness the suffering. You witness the effects. You can feel the impending doom is inevitable, but you are powerless to do anything about it. You try remedy after remedy hoping that one will finally rid your child of the "disease". You work like a person possessed in order to finance the efforts, and when the final blow comes, it is emotionally devastating. You question yourself. You blame yourself for the loss. You tell yourself you should have done more. The very sad part of the story, is it is not unique. There are hundreds of thousands of children and parents affected by PAS. We beg of those with the power to make people aware of this devastatingly horrible phenomena, to please do all they can to educate people on its effects, and to change the laws to protect the innocence of the children involved. Only then can we truly hope to keep children safe from the harmful side effects that are inherent with Parental Alienation itself. It's killing the spirit of family everywhere.

Jim Hueglin http://jimhueglin.blogspot.com/

Evaluating Hostile Aggressive Parenting

2008-02-12T13:19:00.000-09:00

This will take about 15-20 minutes to complete, but when finished it will give a clear indication of whether the person is suffering from Hostile Aggressive Parenting.

What is Hostile Aggressive Parenting?

2008-02-12T13:00:00.000-09:00

What is Hostile Aggressive Parenting?

- Symptoms of HAP

- Underlying causes of HAP

- Observable effects from
exposure to HAP

- Severe HAP

- Addressing & dealing with HAP

- Role of the community

- Sanctions for HAP

- How to help

- HAP documentation (PDF)

Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP) is defined as : A general pattern of behavior, manipulation, actions or decision-making of a person (usually a parent or guardian) that either directly or indirectly; 1) creates undue difficulties or interferences in the relationship of a child with another person (usually a parent or guardian) involved with the parenting and/or rearing of the child and/or, 2) promotes or maintains an unwarranted unfairness or inequality in the parenting arrangements between a child’s parents and/or guardians and/or, 3) promotes ongoing and unnecessary conflict between parents and/or guardians which adversely affects the parenting, well-being and rearing of a child.

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is most apparent in child-custody disputes and is used most often as a tool to align the child with one of the parents during litigation over custody or control of the child. However, HAP can be present in almost any situation where two or more people involved in a child’s life are at odds with each other over how a child may be raised or influenced by the parties. HAP can be present to some extent even when couples are still living together.

Although Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is often confused with Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a term coined by Dr. Richard Gardner, HAP and PAS are not the same. HAP refers to the behaviors, actions and decisions of a person, whereas, PAS relates to the psychological condition of the child. In the vast majority of cases HAP is the cause of PAS.

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is not limited to the biological parents but also applies to any guardian - grandparents, extended family members, daycare providers and to any other person who may be involved in caring and rearing of a child. In some cases, it may even involve a parent in dispute with the child’s grandparents, sometimes the parent’s very own parent! Any form of interference to a normal, healthy relationship between a child and a person (most often one of the parents) caused by another person or agency having some control or influence over the child, is wrong and ultimately causes emotional and psychological harm to the child. Throughout this document the word “parent” shall be considered synonymous with “guardian”.

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is a very serious and damaging form of abuse and maltreatment that parents and even other family members can engage in. HAP is most often identified in individuals with controlling and bullying personalities or those with mild to severe personality disorders. HAP can be a factor in all types of parenting arrangements including sole maternal custody, sole paternal custody and joint custody. Interestingly, it is sole custodial parents who are most often reported to practice Hostile-Aggressive-Parenting, especially in its most severe form.

In general, parents exhibiting Hostile-Aggressive-Parenting have not succeeded in getting on with their own life and remain, instead, controlled by their negative emotions and continue to exercise power and control over their ex-spouse's life, their ex-spouse's parenting and to a large extent, over the children of the relationship as well. HAP parents will blame everyone else except themselves.

High degrees of conflict during custody settlements and litigation are almost sure signs in these affected families. Hostile-aggressive parents are unable to appreciate the needs of their child and in many cases view their child as a possession belonging to them and no other persons have any right to the child, especially not the child’s other parent or other persons that the HAP parent does not like. Hostile-aggressive parents will use the child as a weapon against the other spouse and family members whenever they have the opportunity. A parent engaged in Hostile-Aggressive Parenting will also take comfort in that the community in general will choose not to get involved, probably because they don’t know what to do. Angry and vindictive HAP parents are often able to bring a reign of terror and revenge on to a non-custodial parent and their family, their goal being to get them out of the child’s life or at the very least to severely damage their child’s relationship with the other parent and other parent’s family.

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is considered by many health care and legal experts unhealthy, anti-social, abusive behavior which is emotionally damaging and contrary interest of a child. Simply stated, it is dysfunctional parenting, emotional child abuse parent who is the target of Hostile-Aggressive Parenting, a form of discrimination.

Symptoms of Mild Hostile Aggressive Parenting:
http://www.hostile-aggressive-parenting.com/symptoms_of_HAP.asp

Parental Alienation Awareness Day -- April 25th

2008-01-27T14:14:00.000-09:00

Happy New Year to all, and I hope you are off to a good start. We are beginning our Parental Alienation Awareness Day/April 25th with our Governor's campaign.

We are again looking for representatives to ask their governors to proclaim April 25th as Parental Alienation Awareness Day. We are pleased that the governors of the states of Florida, Indiana, Connecticut, Montana, Kentucky, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and Nebraska have issued either proclamations or recognitions of April 25th as Parental Alienation Awareness Day.

The process is fairly easy and straightforward, and PAAO has the proclamation wording and petition request, along with statistics, articles, and much information about Parental Alienation. The requirement, however, is that a proclamation must be requested by, and sent to, a resident of that state.

We are calling on our United States residents to request proclamations from their governors so that everyone in every state will be made aware of the pain and damage parental alienation behaviors do to our children and families.

If you are interested in helping us get proclamations from our governors for April 25th, please respond to robin@paawareness.org, and I will be happy to send you the necessary information for your state. Patience and perseverance are key.

Let's make 2008 the year that all children will be able to give and receive all of the love they deserve.

Robin Denison-VP and co-founder

Parental Alienation Awareness Organization (PAAO)

robin@PAawareness.org

http://www.PAawareness.org

A thank you to all patriot veterans this Veterans Day… We shall never forget!

2007-11-09T10:54:00.000-09:00

Throughout our history, America has been protected by patriots who cherished liberty and made great sacrifices to advance the cause of freedom. The brave members of the United States Armed Forces have answered the call to serve our Nation, ready to give all for their country. On Veterans Day, we honor these extraordinary Americans for their service and sacrifice, and we pay tribute to the legacy of freedom and peace that they have given our great Nation.

I want to believe that some of our politicians are just blinded to the truth of what we are facing, but reality tells me that there are some in politics who hate everything that this country stands for and want to see us defeated, again, by our enemies. But this enemy is unlike any that we have ever faced. May God help us to stand for what we believe, or we will certainly fall before the onslaught of radical Islam.

The soldier understands well the counsel of Ecclesiastes 3:1-3—“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal.”

Regarding Vietnam and the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I have never regretted a minute of my service in Vietnam. That’s because I did not see the war the way the media portrayed it. I saw it through the eyes of the people that I lived with, the people of Vietnam who wanted to live free in peace.

In an analysis of the media’s Vietnam war coverage, General Vo Nguyen Giap, Vietnam’s most decorated military leader, wrote in retrospect that if not for the disunity created by John Kerry, Jane Fonda and their ilk, and promoted by the U.S. media, Hanoi would have ultimately surrendered.

Vietnam will not be a failure if we learn the lessons of that conflict. Politicians cannot run the war—the generals must lead and lead well. The majority of people in Iraq and Afghanistan want peace and freedom, but the media’s portrayal of that critical conflict is just as prejudiced as it was during Vietnam—maybe more so. The Left, with the media’s help, may force the same scenario in Iraq that they forced in Vietnam, with the same consequences for the entire region. The vast majority of our Armed Forces in the region both understand and support our mission.”

To all fellow Patriots who have served our nation with courage and great sacrifice, I offer my heartfelt gratitude. You have honored your oath to “support and defend... so help me God,” as do those on the front line in the war with Jihadistan today. You have kept the flame of liberty, lit by our Founders, burning bright for future generations.

Today, nearly 24 million (eight percent) of our countrymen are veterans. Of those, 33 percent served in Vietnam, 18 percent in the Gulf War, 14 percent in WWII and 13 percent in Korea. About three percent served in Iraq and Afghanistan and other counter-terrorism theaters. More than 25 percent of those veterans suffer some disability.

Please pause at 1100 EST this Sunday to pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families—especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.

Remember Veterans...

2007-11-09T10:29:00.000-09:00

Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.
What is a Veteran?

Some veterans bear visible signs of their service: a missing limb, a jagged scar, a certain look in the eye.

Others may carry the evidence inside them: a pin holding a bone together, a piece of shrapnel in the leg - or perhaps another sort of inner steel: the soul's ally forged in the refinery of adversity.

Except in parades, however, the men and women who have kept America safe wear no badge or emblem.

You can't tell a vet just by looking.

He is the cop on the beat who spent six months in Saudi Arabia sweating two gallons a day making sure the armored personnel carriers didn't run out of fuel.

He is the barroom loudmouth, dumber than five wooden planks, whose overgrown frat-boy behavior is outweighed a hundred times in the cosmic scales by four hours of exquisite bravery near the 38th parallel.

She - or he - is the nurse who fought against futility and went to sleep sobbing every night for two solid years in Da Nang.

He is the POW who went away one person and came back another - or didn't come back AT ALL.

He is the Quantico drill instructor who has never seen combat - but has saved countless lives by turning slouchy, no-account rednecks and gang members into Marines, and teaching them to watch each other's backs.

He is the parade - riding Legionnaire who pins on his ribbons and medals with a prosthetic hand.

He is the career quartermaster who watches the ribbons and medals pass him by.

He is the three anonymous heroes in The Tomb Of The Unknowns, whose presence at the Arlington National Cemetery must forever preserve the memory of all the anonymous heroes whose valor dies unrecognized with them on the battlefield or in the ocean's sunless deep.

He is the old guy bagging groceries at the supermarket - palsied now and aggravatingly slow - who helped liberate a Nazi death camp and who wishes all day long that his wife were still alive to hold him when the nightmares come.

He is an ordinary and yet an extraordinary human being - a person who offered some of his life's most vital years in the service of his country, and who sacrificed his ambitions so others would not have to sacrifice theirs.

He is a soldier and a savior and a sword against the darkness, and he is nothing more than the finest, greatest testimony on behalf of the finest, greatest nation ever known.

So remember, each time you see someone who has served our country, just lean over and say Thank You. That's all most people need, and in most cases it will mean more than any medals they could have been awarded or were awarded.

Two little words that mean a lot, "THANK YOU".

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag."

Know These People...?

2007-08-13T13:52:00.000-08:00

I'm Looking For Friends...

I'm looking for some friends I've lost contact with:
Richard Moore -- I used to work for him...

And

Judy Pierson (maiden name) Went to school with me in Delta Junction, Alaska. Graduated Ft. Greely HS "62".

Anyone know them, tell them to email me.