False Allegations Or Parent Alienation Witch Hunt

False Allegations or Parent Alienation Witch Hunt?

From the surface, it looks like someone told a major lie about false allegations to bar contact with a father. Many still believe that Richard Hillman had been acquitted of these allegations but in fact he had tried to sue the doctors that produced findings for emotional harm. This had nothing to do with acquittal. What was presented before the court was prevalent in most child sexual abuse cases: Not enough evidence to prosecute. An appeal was launch by his lawyer to question whether a duty of care was owed to Mr Hillman who made on allegations that the investigation was not thorough before a conclusion was made. The appeal was dismissed. No part of his evidence relied on acquittal and perhaps if it did, the duty of care may have been overturned. Instead he had persisted with allegations that his ex partner was suffering from depression and thus prompted the false allegations of child abuse. The link between depression and false allegations

is frayed apart from Dr Gardener’s work which had promoted pedophilic philosophies in his books when he coined the term, “Parent Alienation Syndrome”. More research provides substantial links between trauma and depression than false allegations. No doubt it would be traumatic to discover a child to have been abused by their own father. I am yet to be presented with a case that has substantiated false allegations. Unfortunately for those who have not been able to present the evidence that at times requires more than some homicide cases suffer the silence greater than others. Better to err on the side of the Childs rights to protection than the rights of a potential abuser. The question I pose to those who prefer to err on the side of the potential abuser is: Why would such people want laws that bar the other parent from investigating child abuse? If the alleged abuser is so sure that they are innocent, wouldn’t they encourage investigation? In his submission to the family court reform recommending shared parenting and pro contact above all else he states, “At CHILD: Abuse targeted at the child is the only abuse that can be considered in rebutting Joint Parenting: ( a ) If abuse is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, 50/50 Joint Parenting should start immediately. ( b ) In the Family Court 'not proven' and similar statements should be replaced with'not guilty.' ( c ) The Family Court on the child's behalf should immediately investigate possible false allegations and appropriate sentences should be made on the offending party as a matter of urgency”

In no part of the document were there antidotes in protecting children from child abuse nor were there any recommendations to recommend investigation of any kind. Whilst it tended to dance around the issue, the formula that was presented encouraged a move away from considering any abuse at all. In another case found listed on a men’s rights site under the heading, “False allegations” was a case where facts were not substantiated either way, but costs were made against the mother for failing to provide a reasonable amount of evidence that her child was abused and the custody was reversed as initially prescribed by Dr Richard Gardner. What determined that the allegations were false were: “There are inconsistencies in relation to the mother’s story in relation to what happened in 2002. In her first interim affidavit sworn 10 December 2002, at paragraph 2(d) the mother says that the child was lying naked on the bed. However in Dr W’s report at page 7 the mother says that the child was dressed in a Tshirt but was not wearing a nappy.”

The detail of what the baby wore was more of a priority above what had occurred. It does not necessarily “prove” that there were false allegations but rather speculates with a confirmatory bias. There is however a body of evidence that demonstrates victims of trauma suffer from memory loss and furthermore that the anxiety of triggering such memories can block access. What is more likely, is that the mother is suffering from secondary trauma, commonly known as an occupational hazard for counselors and advocates. The allegation itself did not target the father directly as she informed the court of her concerns of him masturbating next to the bed and clearly states that there was no interference at that time. If she were vindictive as the painted by the court and of the father, the allegation would surely refer to something immediately explicit. After this disclosure, she refers later as, “silly” is also used against her as if the court, its lawyers and the law had no interference upon this statement. Whilst externally and internationally, mothers are stating that they are fearful of informing the courts due to the punishments available for parents who do not meet the courts requirement of evidence. Punishments have rarely been public, but the ones that have included isolation of the child from their mother, costs awarded to the father and imprisonment. The orders here promoted Gardeners suggestion of custody reversal where the mother was the primary care giver for most of this child’s life and it was suddenly reversed upon allegations that were made that were not substantiated either way. Another factor that was used against her was her use of an interpreter where to her credit, had used the interpreter less than she had probably needed. The opinion of the court reporter was that because she used the interpreter less, because she didn’t need one. Guidelines in the use of interpreters for counselors and psychologists recommend the use of interpreters even in the event that the client may demonstrate English speech as counselors are not qualified to determine the bilingual levels. No language expert demonstrated either way in this case. The mother was also self representing. Another aspect was that she had asserted that she had not tried to prevent contact. The judge referred to an Apprehended Violence Order as something that reduces her credibility, yet there was no question as to whether the mother understood the AVO as a means to interfere with contact. Orders of these kinds are made to protect the safety of victims; some can be made during the relationship where the offender is ordered to cease from acts of violence. Family Court Judges are immersed into family matters away from the courts that provide these orders and lack understanding and experience of why these orders are made. The timing is often immediately after the violent incident where the experience is fresh and disturbing. The behaviors’ of

perpetrators can be witnessed in clusters where attempts to monopolize the situation are visible. The security guards are always alert and often target blind spots of the court as they could guarantee this is where it will next occur and it often does. The front line experiences of the community, advocates and workers are the reasons behind the international development of these orders, yet undermined by these courts to the victims detriment. The murders that flash across their television screen fades in the background of their scope as these judges continue to penalize victims as if it were they who were perpetrating. A trophy case of the father’s rights when referring to false allegations is Lane and Arthurs as it includes the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome that is accepted by the family consultant and the judge. Parental Alienation Syndrome has not been accepted by any psychological, psychiatric or scientific organization on a global level. Despite the use of Janet Johnston’s work called, “Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome” it remains junk science. The mother was not represented in the case against a top lawyer firm, “Gorden and Slater”. In this case, the mother proposed at first that the children have unsupervised contact with the father and ignored the history of domestic violence by him towards her in the past on affecting the children. Two months later a notice of child abuse was filed after allegations from two girls aged 8 and 10 were made in regards to the father. The order changed to , “No contact”. Evidence was given by the stepfather and a psychiatrist named, “Dr Q”. The father gave no evidence; he did not need to as the family reporter went out of their way to provide opinion on behalf of him. Many excuses are made under the heading, “Approach” to justify what is in reality not justifiable. There was no real evidence in any stage that the children had made false allegations. There were statements made by the family reporter that were clearly bias, so much so that the judge refrained from giving too much weight upon the diagnosis of parental alienation syndrome. A very hypercritical view is then presented to divert the concerns and facts about this case under the heading, “Contact, Why have it?”. I note that in the second judgment, the order is of no contact to the mother, “The children will go into the care of their father immediately. Ms P agreed it would be appropriate they be informed of the decision and she also agreed to do so. To that end, I directed at the conclusion of the hearing on Thursday last that Ms Arthurs take the children to the Mediation facility at the Registry at 2pm Tuesday at which time I indicated judgment would be delivered.” “The children’s contact with their mother is to be as follows: (i) the children are to have no contact with their mother [or their step-father, Mr Arthurs] for a period of two (2) months from the date of these orders; (ii) upon the expiration of the period referred to in (i) and for a period of a further six (6) months, or such

lesser or further period as the parties agree, the children are permitted to have contact with their mother [which may include their step-father and sister G] once per week, provided it is supervised at a recognised Contact Centre and provided further such facilities are available and the Centre’s eligibility requirements are met; (iii) upon the expiration of the period referred to in (ii), as agreed between the parents and, failing agreement, as determined by Court order. 4. The father is permitted: (i) to take the children interstate for holidays”

The father absconded with the children and has not had contact with their mother for three years. No action to rectify this has been taken by the court to date. To my knowledge, the Mauritius is a not a Hague convention country.

On the courts Website, it contains a Parental Alienation Syndrome Fact Sheet. In searches, this use to arise instead of the judgment’s that visitors would overlook any recent cases involving the junk science being used when it shouldn’t be. Recently, it has been taken down and no wonder considering the promotion of it without any official scientific organization accrediting it as a valid diagnosis. Being largely debunked in the scientific community, it is no wonder this judiciary is burying its content in the sand.

It also states that in Lane and Arthur’s case, Parent Alienation was rejected: Recent Family Court cases dealing with alienation An example of some recent cases where PAS has been rejected or not accepted as a concept includes: Lane & Arthurs [2006] FamCA 87 In this case the judge ultimately determined that whilst she declined to accept that the children were affected by PAS, she did consider the children had been alienated from the father as a result of a combination of factors including the mother's behavior. The judge noted “I do not find it helpful for opinion to be presented with this label attached to it under the rubric of work so notoriously controversial as ‘PAS’ and without any discussion of the body of reputable work virtually discrediting it.”

Despite the fact that some lawyers have built a data base of evidence and cases beyond the secrecy laws, we are willing to do the same. I have no doubt that there is more than enough evidence for class action on negligence towards children and victims of family violence. Please visit our “Contact Us” page and we will get back to you on updates. Whilst there are

class action lawsuits building or occurring around the globe, some may require more numbers to proceed on a solid ground and we ask for your patience. If you are a law firm interested in representing, please contact us with a brief history of class action experience and outcomes.