Fathers’ Rights

A Chicago Blog

Archive for the ‘Father’s Rights’ Category

An Alienated Father’s Christmas

Posted by madcap on December 21, 2008

Cross Posted on my new blog www.thoughtsongod.com

I have written in the past about Parental Alienation. While this issue almost never makes it to the 24/7 news spin channels, it is something that affects millions of families here in America, as well as millions more in other countries such as Canada and England.

What is Parental Alienation? This is when one parent, usually the mother, sets out on a campaign to keep the father out of the children’s lives. This can happen in a range of severity, climaxing into what is know as obsessed alienation. An obsessed alienator is just like the terminator, they can’t be stopped. Usually these people suffer from narcissistic and sociopathic tendencies. I call them Terminator Mothers.

The sad thing is that our legal system rolls out the red carpet for mothers to do this. Not fathers, mothers. The gender bias in our courts is profound. Things are starting to change as the courts get bogged down with frivolous complaints, but not fast enough for me.

This will be my first Alienated Christmas ever. I can’t so much as send my daughters a card or give them a call. If I was to write something personally to them in this post, I could be arrested and thrown in jail. So I will not say anything like “Merry Christmas girls,” or “I love you” directly to them. That would be a major violation.

Why? What did I do? After eight years of court ordered visitation how did it end? I moved to Chicago. As soon as my tires left the driveway, mom was once again back in court filing for an emergency order of protection. Emergency Orders of Protection are great weapons for terminator mothers because you do not need any proof of anything. Just fill out the paper work and presto – all visitation removed. Now dad has to hire an attorney, attend multiple court hearings, take off work, pay for hotels and fork out thousands of dollars.

Isn’t that great? Now what happens after all this? You get your visitation back. Not your money, not your time, and not your sleep. This is all part of the strategy used by terminator mothers. Do this, and many other things, as often as possible, hoping that dad will just get tired and go away. And, many fathers do. I’m on the edge myself. I could write a book on the fires I’ve walked through in order to maintain relationships with my daughters.

My terminator has been so crazy, her last attorney apologized to my attorney for his client being so outrageous. Of course he had no problem taking her money.

So, this is Christmas. I wonder how my girls are doing. I’m wishing I could hear their voices. It’s the last Sunday in Advent. I’ll go to church and pray. Not just for myself and my childern, but for all the fathers, childern, and families that are shattered and broken.

Posted in Father's Rights | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Ten Blogs About Fathers’ Rights

Posted by madcap on December 5, 2008

Cross Posted on my new blog www.thoughtsongod.com

These are some of the best blogs on the issue of fathers’ rights…

Broken Bread http://breadandwine.blogspot.com/
Disenfranchised Father http://disenfranchisedfather.blogspot.com/
Standup Today http://standuptoday.blogspot.com/
Fathers Rights: A Guide to Securing Custody of Your Children http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/46243/fathers_rights_a_guide_to_securing.html
A Vote of Confidence in Fathers for Justice
Divorce and Custody Blogspot http://divorceandcustody.blogspot.com/
The Eccentric Father http://eccentricfather.blogspot.com/
Societal Shift in Role of Fathers http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188688,00.html
Masculiste http://michaelcapanzzi.blogharbor.com/blog/FathersRights
Divorced Dad Daily http://www.fathers-resources.com/Blog/tabid/581/EntryID/629/Default.aspx

Posted in Father's Rights | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice

Posted by madcap on October 5, 2008

Cross Posted on my new blog www.thoughtsongod.com

This is a great article on restraining orders and how mothers use them to alienate the father.

Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks

Women’s advocates and the state Attorney General’s office are criticizing a new court ruling which will make it harder for women to get restraining orders against their male partners. Star-Ledger columnist Fran Wood, in her recent op-ed “Don’t soften protection for women,” called New Jersey’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act “one of the best statutes in the country,” and said the new ruling could “diminish the ability of domestic violence victims to get the protection they need.”

Certainly abused women need protection and support, but there are many troubling aspects of the DVPA’s restraining order provisions that merit judicial and/or legislative redress.

Under the DVPA, it is very easy for a woman to allege domestic violence and get a restraining order (aka “protection order”). New Jersey issues 30,000 restraining orders annually, and men are targeted in 4/5ths of them. The standard is “preponderance of the evidence” (often conceptualized as 51%-49%), and judges almost always side with the accusing plaintiff.

Under the DVPA, the accuser need not even claim actual abuse. Alleged verbal threats of violence are sufficient, even though it’s almost impossible for the accused to provide substantive contradictory evidence.

The restraining order boots the man out of his own home and generally prohibits him from contacting his own children. Men are cut off from their possessions and property, and some end up in homeless shelters. Yet most have never even had a chance to defend themselves in court. In recognition of the gravity of these orders, the Hudson County judge, Francis B. Schultz, found the current standard of proof unconstitutional, however, and required the stricter “clear and convincing evidence” standard in the case before him. His ruling was not binding on other judges, but will likely be appealed, which could lead to a decision with a broader impact.

There is a large body of evidence which shows that restraining orders are frequently misused. For example, the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, recently explained:

“Protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…[they are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person….it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”

An article in the November, 2007 issue of the Illinois Bar Journal explains:

“If a parent is willing to abuse the system, it is unlikely the trial court could discover (his or her) improper motives in an Order of Protection hearing.”

These orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

Newark family law attorney Bruce Pitman says:

“Anybody who practices family law sees people who abuse the restraining order process. Some create false allegations or take minor or insignificant acts and use them to remove their spouse or partner from the home for advantage in litigation. Such abuses undermine victims of real abuse and violence who seek protection.”

Opponents of the ruling point to the relatively rare instances where men have killed their female partners as evidence of why the current law should stand. While these cases are heart-wrenching, they do not constitute a viable argument against the new ruling.

For one, the new ruling does not eliminate restraining orders, but merely requires a proper evidence standard for their issuance. Moreover, it is highly questionable whether restraining orders protect genuinely abused women. A violent spouse intent on killing his ex is not going to be deterred from doing so out of fear of violating his restraining order. In many domestic violence killings, a restraining order was already in place. In general, a restraining order is only enforceable against a law-abiding, non-violent man.

Jane Hanson, executive director of Partners for Women and Justice in Montclair, argues that Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz is wrong in ruling that the DVPA violates parents’ “fundamental” right to “be with or maintain their relationship with their children.” Yet when a restraining order is issued, fathers can be (and sometimes are) arrested for calling their own children on the phone or going to their Little League games.

Moreover, by removing the father from the home, a custody precedent is set with mom as primary caregiver and dad as occasional visitor—a precedent which harms fathers’ ability to gain joint custody of their children in divorce proceedings.

Wood calls the current law on restraining orders “an efficient system.” We disagree. Yes, the system is efficient in separating men from their children and their homes. However, it is hardly efficient in delivering justice.

This column first appeared in the Newark Star Ledger (7/28/08).

Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. Their website is www.acfc.org.

Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennSacks.com.

Posted in Father's Rights, politics | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Parental Alienation Links

Posted by madcap on October 5, 2008

Cross Posted on my new blog www.thoughtsongod.com

As you know, I have been fighting being alienated from my two daughters for more than eight years. Recently I moved to Chicago and mom used it as an opportunity to once again attempt to end visitation by filing a report with DCFS, and seeking a two year order of protection that would cut off any and all communication with my daughters.

The DCFS report came back this week and was determined to be unfounded. I can add this to the two separate claims by mom that I molested the girls, and the other occasion where mom claimed I gave my youngest daughter narcotics. I have been attempting to reason with mom, but it looks like I will have to fight her in court once again if I am to maintain any relationship with my daughters.

Over the past two months I have been to many blogs of fathers who are also dealing with terminator mothers like Anna Jurich. This is a crisis that is rampant throughout our country. This will be an ongoing post to which I will be adding links to websites and blogs of fathers who are going through the same struggle. Dealing with mothers like Anna Jurich can be absolutely emotionally and spiritually exhausting, so it is good to be in contact with others with the same struggle.

http://www.fatherwithoutchristmas.com/

http://dcfestival2008.com/

http://www.fathersunite.org/

http://mensfamilylaw.wordpress.com/

http://shekidnappedmychildren.wordpress.com/

Posted in Father's Rights, politics | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

First Alienated Weekend

Posted by madcap on August 31, 2008

This is the first weekend my children will miss with their dad do to the latest alienation attempt by mom. Like I have said before, this has been going on for over eight years. And as I told the kids weeks before I moved to Chicago, mom would spring into action to end visitation at any cost as soon as my car left the driveway. I departed for Chicago on a Friday, and on Monday, mom was getting an order of protection and filing abuse aligations with DCFS.

This is a quote from Judge Leo T. Desmond, from our visitation case some eight years ago. Anna Jurich was claiming that I was unfit to be a father, and that the children should not be allowed to ever see their father again. This is what the judge told Anna Jurich after a long litigation process:

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court commented on the evidence regarding visitation:

“The burden of proof was on her (Anna Jurich) to show a serious endangerment to these children’s moral, emotional, [and] physical health. She has fallen more than woefully short of the mark; she hasn’t even made out a case.

I have got a picture of the front of your house, which I guess I am supposed to conclude from that it’s not a very attractive house, I don’t know. Maybe there is some clutter in there, I don’t know. They have been dancing around the edge of the pen about marijuana. There has been no evidence other than this photograph. And, incidentally, since I was in [sic] the only one in this room besides the [c]ourt [r]eporter and these two people-the lawyers weren’t there at the last hearing-the marijuana wasn’t just put in because of [plaintiff]; it was put in because of [defendant].

So, moving back here, I have got photographs of sores on feet. I have got testimony about a sore eye. I have got a little bit here, and a little bit there. What I don’t have is[-]I don’t have any medical evidence[;] I don’t have any evidence of neglect or abuse. I don’t have any psychological evidence. I don’t have anything. I don’t have diddly squat to show serious endangerment, unless I am just guessing that that might be the case.”

Of course Anna Jurich filed an apeal, and of course she lost that as well. One of the most ironic things about this is that Anna Jurich is a adolescent councilor at Gateway Foundation in Carbondale Illinois! I guess she is realy good with kids.

Posted in Father's Rights, politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Mothers FOR Alienation Blog

Posted by madcap on August 29, 2008

Well all you fathers out in cyberspace land, it looks like the alienating moms found my blog. I’ve been getting traffic from what I will call the “obsessed alienation blog.” Looks like PAS is nothing other than a tool used by abusive fathers to abuse women!!

“I am a mother who has been labelled with PAS–not by any licensed medical
professional–but by a biased judge and my abuser and his sleazy lawyer Poor women do get labelled with PAS and Malicious  Mom Syndrome. I believe PAS is used against women as a form of  intimidation, a weapon used to force the mother to give up the fight or risk  losing everything.”

No point in arguing, just thought it might serve as a good example of how irrational and and twisted the thinking is in an obsessed alternators mind.

Also see:

Misuse of Order of Protection: Mom the Terminator

Posted in Father's Rights, politics | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Parental Alienation In The News

Posted by madcap on August 28, 2008

A Boomer With ‘Grand Wishes’ Changes The Law!

Hoffman, of Newport Beach, California, became the target of alienation by the custodial parent, resulting in a separation from her grandson just a month short of her grandchild’s fifth birthday. Devastated and committed to supporting other disenfranchised grandparents, she started her own support group. That group developed into a non-profit organization, ADVOCATES FOR GRANDPARENT-GRANDCHILD CONNECTION. Bolstered by the ensuing support, Hoffman’s advocacy for preserving the grandparent-grandchild connection intensified into activism in the form of a bill which she lobbied for and sponsored.
Finally, after a year of petitioning and with the support of California Assemblyman Van Tran (R-Garden Grove), all 120 legislators unanimously agreed on the importance of the grandparent-grandchild relationship and passed California Bill AB2517, which was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Aug. 22, 2006 and became law the following January.

Research indicates denying access to the grandparent-grandchild bond is a form of emotional child abuse. FULL ARTICLE

Posted in Father's Rights, politics | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

Posted by madcap on August 26, 2008

My daughters have all of the signs of PAS. After eight years of visitation, staying close to my daughters, I then moved to Chicago last month on a Friday. On Monday, mom called DCFS claiming abuse, and filed for an order of protection. This time my daughters are assisting mom, and my eldest daughter says that she does not want to see her father any more. My youngest says she wants a “break.” I’m almost out of gas with all of this. Only with the grace of God do I get the strength to go on.

Mom has had a campaign for the past eight years, and I thought that if I stayed in my daughters lives, mom would not succeed in her attempt to destroy our relationship. Do not be fooled dads, it takes more than just staying in your kids lives, you must seek professional help as soon as possible. I wish I knew what I know now. Now I’m back to hiring an attorney and fighting in court once again. The visitation that I fought to have was just wiped away with one ruling (a ruling that was granted without me being present! I’m 350 miles away) Moms often use orders of protection to end visitation. I’ll fight on, as I have in the past. I have also became a member of the:

Parental Alienation
Awareness Organization

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)“, posted with vodpod

Posted in Father's Rights, politics, Video | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Court Rulings That Have Recognized Parental Alienation Syndrome

Posted by madcap on August 24, 2008

UNITED STATES (22 States)

Alabama

Berry v. Berry, Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, AL, Case No. DR-96-761.01. Jan 06, 2001
Alaska

Pearson v. Pearson, Sup Ct. of AK., No. S-8973, No. 5297, 5 P.3d 239; 2000 Alas. Lexis 69. July 7, 2000.

Arkansas

Chambers v. Chambers, Ct of App of AR, Div 2; 2000 Ark App. LEXIS 476, June 21, 2000.
California

Coursey v. Superior Court (Coursey), 194 Cal.App.3d 147,239 Cal.Rptr. 365 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug 18, 1987.
John W. v. Phillip W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 899; 1996.
Valerie Edlund v. Gregory Hales, 66 Cal. App 4th 1454; 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671.
Colorado

Oosterhaus v. Short, District Court, County of Boulder (CO), Case No. 85DR1737-Div III.
Connecticut

Case v. Richardson, 1996 WL 434281 (Conn. Super.,Jul 16, 1996).
Metza v. Metza, Sup. Court of Connecticut, Jud. Dist. of Fairfield, at Bridgeport,
1998 Conn. Super. Lexis 2727 (1998).
Florida

Schutz v. Schutz, 522 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3rd Dist. Ct. App. 1988).
Blosser v. Blosser, 707 So. 2d 778; 1998 Fla. App. Case No. 96-03534.
Tucker v. Greenberg, 674 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
Berg-Perlow v. Perlow, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Fl.,Case no. CD98-1285-FC. Mar 15, 2000.
An exceptionally strong family court decision in which five experts testified to the diagnosis of PAS.
Loten v. Ryan, 15th Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, FL., Case No. CD 93-6567 FA. Dec 11,2000.
Kilgore v. Boyd, 13th Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, FL., Case No. 94-7573, 733 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) Jan 30, 2001.
Boyd v. Kilgore, 773 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Prohibition Denied)
Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.
McDonald v. McDonald, 9th Judicial Circuit Court, Orange County, FL. Case No. D-R90-11079, Feb 20, 1001.
Blackshear v. Blackshear, Hillsborough County, FL 13th Jud. Circuit: 95-08436.
Illinois

In re Violetta 210 III.App.3d 521, 568 N.E2d 1345, 154 III.Dec. 896(Ill.App. I Dist Mar 07, 1991).
In re Marriage of Divelbiss v. Divelbiss, No. 2-98-0999 2nd District, Ill.(Appeal from Circ Crt of Du Page Cty No. 93-D-559) Oct 22, 1999.
Tetzlaff v. Tetzlaff, Civil Court of Cook County, Il., Domestic Relations Division, Cause No. 97D 2127, Mar 20, 2000.
Bates v. Bates 18th Judicial Circuit, Dupage County, IL Case No. 99D958, Jan 17, 2002.
Court ruling that the Parental Alienation Syndrome has gained general acceptance in the scientific community and thereby satisfies Frye Test criteria for admissibility.[excerpt]
Indiana

White v. White, 1995 (Indiana Court of Appeals) 655 N.E.2d 523. (Ind. App., Aug 31, 1995).
Iowa

In re Marriage of Rosenfeld, 524 NW 2d 212, 214 (Iowa app, 1994).
Louisiana

Wilkins v Wilkins, Family Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, La., Civ. No. 90792. Nov. 2, 2000.
Michigan

Spencley v. Spencley, 2000 WL 33519710 (Mich App).

Nevada

Truax v. Truax, 110 Nev. 437, 874 P. 2d 10 (Nev., May 19, 1994).
New Hampshire

Lubkin v. Lubkin, 92-M-46LD Hillsborough County, NH. (Southern District, Sept. 5, 1996).
New Jersey

Lemarie v. Oliphant, Docket No. FM-15-397-94, (Sup Crt NJ, Ocean Cty:Fam Part-Chancery Div) Dec. 11, 2002.
New York

Rosen v. Edwards (1990) Tolbert, J. (1990), AR v. SE. New York Law Journal, December 11:27-28.
The December 11, 1990 issue of The New York Law Journal [pages 27-28] reprinted, in toto, the ruling of Hon. J. Tolbert of the Westchester Family Court in Westchester Co.
Karen B v. Clyde M., Family Court of New York, Fulton County, 151 Misc. 2d 794; 574 N.Y. 2d 267, 1991.
Krebsbach v. Gallagher, Supreme Court, App. Div., 181 A.D.2d 363; 587 N.Y.S. 2d 346, (1992).
Karen PP. v. Clyde QC. Sup Ct of NY, App Div, 3rd Dept. 197 A.D. 2d 753; 602 N.Y.s. 2d 709; 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9845.
In the matter of J.F. v. L.F., Fam. Ct. of NY, Westchester Cty, 181 Misc 2d 722; 694 N.Y.S. 2d 592; 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 357.
Oliver V. v. Kelly V., NY Sup. Ct. Part 12. New York Law Journal Nov. 27, 2000.
Sidman v. Zager, Family Court, Tompkins County, NY: V-1467-8-9-94.

Ohio

Sims v. Hornsby, 1992 WL 193682 (Ohio App. 12 Dist., Butler County, Aug 10 1992).
Zigmont v. Toto, 1992 WL 6034 (Ohio App. 8 Dist Cuyahoga County, Jan 16, 1992).
Pisani v. Pisani, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 8th App. Dist. Cuyahoga Cty. 1998 Ohio App. Lexis 4421 (1998).
Pathan v. Pathan, Case No. 96-OS-1. Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, OH, Div. of Dom Rel.
Pathan v. Pathan, C.A. Case No. 17729. Ct. of App. of OH, 2d Dist., Montgomery County; 2000 Ohio App. Lexis 119. Jan. 21, 2000
Conner v. Renz, 1995 WL 23365 (Ohio App. 4 Dist., Athens County, Jan 19, 1995).
State v. Koelling, 1995 WL 125933 (Ohio App. 10 Dist., Franklin County, Mar 21, 1995).
Pennsylvania

Popovice v. Popovice, Court of Common Pleas, Northampton Cty, PA. Aug 11, 1999, No. 1996-C-2009.
Texas

Ochs et al. v. Myers, App. No. 04-89-00007-CV. Ct. of App. of TX, 4th Dist., San Antonio; 789 S.W. 2d 949; 1990 Tex App. Lexis 1652, May 16, 1990.
Virginia

Ange, Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1998 Va. App. Lexis 59 (1998).
Waldrop v. Waldrop, in Chancery No. 138517. Fairfax County Circuit Court,(Va., April 26, 1999).
Washington

Rich v. Rich, Sup Ct, 5th Dist. Case No. 91-3-00074-4 (Douglas County) June 11, 1993.
Wisconsin

Janelle S. v. J.R.S., Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 4. 1997 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1124 (1997).
Fischer v. Fischer, Ct. of App. of WI, Dist. Two, No. 97-2067; 221 Wis. 2d 221; 584 N.W.2d 233; 1998 Wisc. App. Lexis 1534.

Wyoming

In re Marriage of Rosenfeld, 524 N.W. 2d 212 (Iowa App., Aug 25 1994) McCoy v. State 886 P.2d 252 (Wyo.,Nov 30, 1994).
McCoy v State of Wyoming, 886 P.2d 252, 1994.
CANADA (7 Provinces)

Quebec

Stuart-Mills, P. v. Cher, A.J.., Sup. Ct. Quebec, Dist. of Montreal, No. 500-12-184613-895 (1991).
V. (L.) C. H. (E.), 1992 CarswellQue 169; 45 Q.A.C. 100; 1992 R.J.Q. 855; 1992 R.D.F. 316 Cour d’appel du Quebec, Feb 26, 1992.
R.M c. B.R, [1994] A.Q. no 947. DRS 95-09809 No 200-09-000440-948 (200-12-042928-904 C.S.Q.) (Quebec, decision in french only) Oct. 28, 1994
R.F. v. S.P., [2000] Q.J. Np. 3412 No. 500-12-250739-004 Quebec Superior Court (Montreal) Oct. 13, 2000.
Alberta

Elliott v. Elliott, A.J. No. 74 DRS 96-05285 Action No. 4806-10272 Alberta Crt of Queen’s Bench, Jud. Dist. of Lethbridge/Macleod, Jan 25, 1996.
Elliott v. Elliott, 1996 CarswellAlta 95, 193 A.R. 177, 135 W.A.C. 177, 27 R.F.L. (4th) 23 Alberta Court of Appeals. Nov 7, 1996 (Affirmed–Appeal Dismissed)
Johnson v. Johnson, No. 4806-11508a, Jud Dist. of Lethbridge/Macleod, Oct. 09, 1997
Ontario

Rothwell v. Kisko, 1991 CarswellOnt 1326. Ontario Crt of Just. (Gen’l Div.) Docket# 36429/89, Mar 21, 1991.
Davy v. Davy, Ontario Court of Justice (Gen’l Div)Docket 92-gd-21948. 1993 CarswellOnt 1630;1993 W.D.F.L 1535. Oct 7, 1993.
Fortin v. Major, O.J. No. 3805 DRS 97-01672, Court File No. 49729/94 Ontario Crt of Justice (Gen’l Div: Ottawa), Oct 25, 1996.
Demers v. Demers, Ontario Superior Court, Docket: Kingston 54253/96. 1999 CarswellOnt 2621. June 8, 1999.
Orszak v. Orszak, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Docket: 97-FP-234664. 2000 CarswellOnt 1574. May 5, 2000.
Her Majesty the Queen vs. K.C. Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, County of Durham, Central-East Region, Court File No. 9520/01. August, 9, 2002. (Mohan Test)
British Columbia

McLelland v. McLelland, British Columbia Supreme Court Docket: Nanaimo 07907. 1999 CarswellBC 1706. July 2, 1999
Menard v. Menard, Sup. Ct of British Columbia, 2001 CarswellBC 1312; 2001 BCSC 430, Mar 21, 2001.
Nova Scotia

Badakhshan v. Moradi, Nova Scotia Fam Court. 1993 CarswellNS 423;120 N.S.R.(2d) 405; 332 A.P.R. 405. Mar 2, 1993.
New Brunswick

S.O. v. S.C.O, N.B.J. No. 326, Proceeding No. FDSJ-400-98. New Brunswick Crt of Queen’s Bench, Family Division-Jud. Dist. of St. John. Jul 28, 1999.
Jefferson v. Jerfferson, New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench Docket: FDSJ-6408.95. 2000 CarswellNB 15. Jan 18, 2000.
New Foundland

Toope v. Toope, 2000 CarswellNfld 185, 8 R.F.L. (5th) 446, 193 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 313, 582 A.P.R. 313. New Foundland Unified Family Court June 15, 2000.
AUSTRALIA

Johnson v. Johnson, 4806-11508A. FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA, July 7, 1997.
Johnson v.Johnson, Appeal No. SA1 of 1997 No.AD6182 of 1993, 7 July 1997.
GERMANY

Anonymous v. Anonymous, Case No. 2xv178, Rinteln (Circuit Court) Germany, Apr. 27, 1998.
Sch. v. Sch., Kammergericht KG Berlin. vom 30 Mai 2000 – 17 UF 1413/99.
Fundstelle: Fam RZ 2000, 1606 (Heft 24 / 2000 vom 15. Dezember 2000)
“§§ 1671, 1696 BGB: Bedeutung des Parental Alienation Syndroms im Abänderungsverfahren” – Hervorhebungen durch Fettschrift –
Beschluss 17 UF 1413/99 – Volltext der Entscheidung
(136 F11 514/98 AG Berlin (Tempelhof-Kreuzberg Germany)

Anon v. Anon, OLG Ffm vom 13.07.2000 unter Az. 5 WF 112/00,(Germany).
Anon v. Anon, OLG Ffm vom 26.10.2000 unter Az. 6 WF 168/00,(Germany).
Anon v. Anon, OLG Dresden, No. 264 – UF229/02, Aug. 29, 2002 (published in FamRZ: 50(6) 2003: 397).
GREAT BRITAIN

Re: C (Children) (2002) CA (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Thorpe LJ, Kay LJ) 20/2/2002 COURT OF APPEAL REF: 2001/1642. (Great Britain)
ISRAEL

Jane Doe v. John Doe. Supreme Court, Request for Civil Appeal, 3009/92.
Jane Doe v. John Doe. Ashdod Family Court, Family Docket 2182/00. Jan. 26, 2003.
SWITZERLAND

Entscheid der delegierten des Amtsgerichtspräsidenten II con Luzern-Stadt vom 8. Februar 2001 im Verfahren nach Art. 175 ZGB (02 00 210)

Posted in Father's Rights, politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Tribute to Fathers….Parent Alienation

Posted by madcap on August 24, 2008

This is a small collection of videos from fathers who have been cut out of their children’s lives. I will be compiling my own video as soon as I can. For now, I look to God for the strength to have faith that in the end, all will be well; that Truth will triumph over falsehood, Goodness will exceed the darkness, and that Justice will have the last word. If not in this life, than in the life to come.

fathers rights,child abuse,parent alienation

Parental Alienation – The Ultimate Hate Crime

Parental Alienation – From A Child’s Perspective

Parental Alienation – How It Works and Beats the System

The pain we suffer from Parental Alienation

Posted in Father's Rights, politics, Video | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »