YOU STOLE MY CHILD (PAS)

You stole my child. You hoped I would go away.You under estimated my love. I will never give up. I will be a voice for my child. I am not alone. There are many like me. By circumstance united. Together we will be heard. We will never stop fighting. - unknown

Parental Alienation Syndrome Is Real and It Needs To Be Addressed

This is not just my story or rather my reality, this is what many Alienated Parents have to endure, it is not gender based either, unfortunately there are many more fathers who are Alienated from their children than what mothers are and this needs to be changed and more awareness needs to shown for this 'Syndrome'. I have come across many people who work for, with and it the courts where they don't even know or understand the term PAS. How are we, as the PAS suffers supposed to get the assistance that we need if what we are going through is not recognized or understood.

My personal mission is to make a difference and to raise more awareness, not only in South Africa but the world. The amazing people who I have come into contact with worldwide who are going through PAS need to be heard. PAS does not stop at the Alienated Parent; it includes grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, lifelong friends etc. I know I don't only speak for myself, I have a constant fear that something could happen to either me, or my children and I wouldn't be able to be there, even if I would be notified. Just the thought of it is terrifying to say the least. My other intention is to get people on-board with me who have the qualifications to assist with legal advice etc, psychologists, parents who have survived PAS. Lastly I am going to be putting a funding/sponsorship into place to assist where funds are needed, like for myself, where I am not able to afford legal representation.

What I have in bold is my own personal journey, the rest is what I have researched and have noted the websites in my plea for petitions. For the privacy and protection of my children, family and friends, I have not included their birth names.

It is very painful that, a proud mother who has taken care of both my children from the time that they were conceived, changing nappies, bottle-feeds, sleepless nights, nursing them for the usual growing up injuries, taking them to the emergency room at all hours of the day and night when necessary, sleeping by their side when they were ever admitted to hospital (sleeping in the mist tent cot when my son was not even a year old), taking care of them when they had Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy Surgery (I can recall all these events as if they happened just the other day), attending all parents meetings, governing body meetings, building relationships with all staff, teachers as well as fellow classmates and parents, where I am still in contact with to this day. Attending and assisting with sports days, responsible for taking them both to the doctors when necessary, keeping their Immunization vaccinations up-to-date. Accompanying them to their extramural activities out of school (tennis, swimming, dancing, modelling, horse riding and karate). Ensuring they were excelling at school, assisting with school work, homework and school projects (where they both were a part of the mathematics program Kumon to help them with their mathematics skills). I took my responsibly as their primary care giver right from the day they were born and I was never absent from any milestones in their lives until their father took them out of my care. Where now I am subjected to such trauma, which is depressing me on a daily basis. I now have to be medicated to function to the best of my ability. I cannot see or have access to my children and further that, the respondents are feeding my children with wrong information; false allegations have been made against me which have given the respondents the capacity to alienate my children away from me as well as their immediate family. I have missed important and sentimental milestones of both their lives. My sons Matric Farewell, I have been excluded from all birthdays, his 21st Birthday, my son receiving his news of passing Matric, school functions, sports days, parent meetings. I have never been notified of any achievements, contacted if they have been ill, my daughters first day of high school. I have never been included in their school progress or received any school reports. I have been excluded with all decision making for both of my children.

The late Dr. Richard A. Gardner, a New York psychiatrist and author of "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide of Legal and Mental Health Professionals," coined the term parental alienation approximately 20 years ago to characterize the breakdown of previously normal, healthy parent/child relationships during divorce and child custody cases.

What Is Parental Alienation Syndrome?

In PAS, one parent deliberately damages, and in some cases destroys, the normal, loving relationship between his or her child and the child's other parent. In severe PAS cases, the alienating parent and child work together to successfully eliminate the previously loved Mom or Dad from the child's life. An alienating parent's behaviour stems from the parent's unresolved emotional issues. The parent uses the child to fill his or her unhealthy emotional needs at the expense of the other parent. PAS experts have identified three levels of alienating behaviour - mild, moderate and severe. In reality, these levels are nothing more than points along a continuum of behaviour. The alienating parent may bounce between levels depending on his or her emotional state. And the parent's emotions are based on a variety of factors - including how well the parent is dealing with those unresolved issues; and how well the child is meeting his or her new responsibilities to the parent.

You might be an alienating parent if you:

Allow the child to talk negatively or disrespectfully about the other parent.
Set up tempting alternatives that would interfere with the other parent's time with the child.
Give the child decision-making power about spending time with the other parent when no choice exists.
Act hurt and betrayed if the child shows any positive feelings towards the other parent.
Use the child as a courier, messenger or spy.
Ask the child to lie to the other parent or betray the parent's trust in the child.
Share the details of the divorce settlement with the child.
Go without dinner and then tell the child the other parent didn't give you enough money for everyone to eat dinner.
Let the other parent worry needlessly about the child.
Infringe on the other parent's time with excessive phone calls or scheduled activities.
If you are concerned that your behaviour might make you an alienating parent, ask yourself this question:

"Did I act this way before the divorce or separation?"

For example, an alienating parent may tell the other parent he or she can't see the child because the child has a cold. But before your divorce or separation, did you quarantine your child from the other parent over a cold? An alienating parent may tell the other parent the child can't come to the phone because he or she is doing homework, watching television or playing with a friend. But when the other parent called home and asked to speak to the busy child before your divorce or separation, did you occasionally ask, "Want me to put him/her on anyway?" Finally, an alienating parent will often call the child when the child is with the other parent and ask the child if he or she is okay - sending the child the message that the other parent isn't up to the task of caring for him or her. But when the other parent was spending time alone with the child before your divorce or separation, did you call the child repeatedly and ask, "Are you okay? Are you sure you're okay? You'd tell me if you weren't okay, wouldn't you?" Divorce is never easy, particularly when there are children involved. Sometimes there will be a tale of divorced couples who amicably share the care of their children and who are effective in raising children who are psychologically sound and happy. If you are blessed to have a sensible ex-partner, an amicable resolution can be achieved. But there are occasions when the reverse occurs and where one parent alienates a child from the other.

About 80% of the complicated disputes about children in court involve a child or children who are being exposed to parental alienation. Historically, the courts have battled with the issues of parental alienation. In recent years, there has been growing emphasis on hearing and exploring the 'voice' and 'wishes and feelings' of the child when making decisions about their welfare. Courts faced with a child who conveys opposition to contact should be vigilant to the possibilities parental alienation at play. Unlike South Africa, some countries have gone much further in identifying the problem: in the US, third parties are put in place to help restore relationships where children have been alienated from one parent and in other countries penalisation for parental alienation range from fines to prison sentences.

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) in the UK started a pilot scheme to bring an end to separated parents poisoning their child against the other parent. Parents who are guilty of manipulating their child in this way may have their child taken away from them and, in the most extreme cases, they may be denied contact. Previously parental alienation has been ignored as a common product of bitterness about a failed relationship, but it is separate from these normal feelings of hurt. Parental alienation is in fact an internationally recognised as form of parental psychological abuse and undermines the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the rights of the child. In Mexico and Brazil, it is even classed as a criminal offense.

Indeed, parental alienation can be a very complex issue as many parents truly believe that they are enhancing their child's life by shutting out the other parent. In other cases, both parents feel as though they are victims of alienation. Although the consequence of genuine parental alienation can be distressing, we must be conscious that there are many cases where a child or parent may need to limit contact with the other parent for lawful reasons. Where an ex may have been abusive in the past, it is understandable that the resident parent takes it upon themselves to warn the child not to get too close.

Parental Alienation is the psychological manipulation of a child into demonstrating unwarranted fear, disrespect or hatred towards a parent and/or other family members. Alienation can include: tactics employed include one parent constantly criticizing or belittling the other, stopping the child talking about the other parent, limiting contact, eliminating any presence of the other parent from the life of the child, encouraging the idea that the other parent does not love the child or presenting the impression that the child must decide between parents or be disciplined, by way of threats or by removing affection and attention. Parents explain situations where they feel their children have been brainwashed against them so that any positive recollections of their relationship have been wiped out.

Extreme examples of parental alienation are generally accepted as being a small percentage of the cases that come before the family court. More common are 'hybrid' or mixed cases which feature a combination of child and adult behaviours and attitudes leading to the child rejecting or resisting one parent.

Parents who attempt to alienate their children from their ex-partners are committing a form of child abuse. The way you treat your children after a relationship has broken up is just as compelling as a public health issue like smoking or drinking. The absence of a law expressly outlawing alienation complicates matters.

Dr Craig Childress, a US psychologist and expert in the field of parental alienation describes parental alienation as a circumstance in which one parent deliberately or subconsciously turns their shared children against the other parent, through various means of manipulation. According to Dr Childress one has to look at the child's behaviour. "It's the child's behaviour that need to be observed. Unnecessary levels of anxiety or fear of the alienated parent can be a sign." Eventually, children can become so indoctrinated and eager to please who they view as the "powerful parent," they may start hating or abusing the targeted parent themselves. According to Dr Childress, parents who indoctrinate children into alienating the other parent are linked to narcissist borderline pathogenic parenting. The symptoms of narcissism include: grandiosity, entitlement, absence of empathy, haughty, arrogant behaviour and delusional belief systems.

Researcher Amy Baker says that parents who try to alienate their child from the other parent subtlety, or not so subtlety gives a three-part message to the child. She says:

"I am the only parent who loves you and you need me to feel good about yourself; the other parent is dangerous and unavailable; and pursuing a relationship with the other parent jeopardizes your relationship with me."

Despite recognition in some of our high court judgements, parental alienation is poorly understood and rarely acknowledged in our family justice system. Whilst there is recognition of the long term psychological impact on the child, there is little research into the sense alienated parents make of their lives when being rejected.

In many cases before our courts alienated parents are exposed to false allegations of domestic violence against their ex-spouse or partner, false allegations of physical, emotional, sexual, abuse or neglect against their child. In Family law proceedings in South Africa, a child's best interests are paramount and therefore allegations of abuse generally result in the instant pause of direct contact with the child while fact finding, safeguarding and clinical assessments are undertaken. It goes without saying that parents who are then unable to see their child experience a presumption of guilt and a need to prove their innocence.

The legal process in determining the trust of such allegations is time consuming. The absence of direct and meaningful contact during this period often prolongs the alienation, making meaningful relationships more difficult and unlikely. One of the key determinant factors in the perpetuation of the alienation process is "time since last direct contact" according to Dr Fiona Fidler an Australian psychologist.

The lack of power that alienated parents experience is found in their experiences with, and opinions of our legal system. There is a belief that the legal process is itself powerless, weak or unwilling to enforce the repeatedly broken contact orders which it has sanctioned.

Research presented by Dr Sue Whitcombe to the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society's Division of Counselling Psychology in London found in a study of 54 parents that have been alienated from their children that they initially had direct contact with their child when their relationship broke down but that contact broke down at a later date. 94% participants had engaged in family law proceedings in the courts regarding their children and 70% reported that their ex-partner repeatedly broke one or more of the court orders in place. As such, many parents feel that their former partner holds all the power. 78% of these parents had not seen their children for more than a year and 72% of the children had been cut off completely from the alienated parent's extended family.

Dr Whitcombe also found that there was a "lack of knowledge and understanding" about parental alienation and this resonated from her own experience when raising the topic with mental health professionals, practitioner psychologists, colleagues in social care and education. It therefore goes without saying that a failure to recognise an alienation dynamic, and differentiate it from justifiable estrangement leads to inappropriate therapeutic or judicial intervention, with potentially long term detrimental repercussions for the families and individuals concerned.

According to Dr Childress the only way to deal with a parent who alienates a child from is to obtain the child's protective separation from the borderline alienating parent. Until one obtains this protective separation, efforts to restore the child's authentic affectionate bonding will simply lead to the child's further triangulation into the "spousal" conflict because of the increasing psychological pressure placed on the child by the alienating parent to maintain the child's symptomatic rejection of the other parent, thereby turning the child into a psychological battleground.

Childress uses the image of a "hostage situation" with a psychologically disturbed and highly controlling narcissistic parent, who can unleash an intense anger and rejection toward the child if the child dares to deviate from the parentally desired responses. He believes that unless one is able to free the child from this hostage situation, one cannot reasonably ask the child to go against the will of the personality disordered "hostage taker" because of the excessive degree of psychological torment the child will be subjected to if the child does show an affectionate bond with the target parent.

Childress also believes that to convince the child to show affectionate bonding towards a targeted parent the alienating parent will increase the psychological pressure on the child to remain symptomatically rejecting the targeted parent. This essentially according to him turns the child into a psychological battleground which will destroy the child. He says further that to begin to restore the child to balanced and normal-range functioning, one must first protect the child from the distorted and pathogenic parenting of the personality disordered alienating parent. No qualified therapist according to him should attempt "reunification therapy" without first obtaining a protective separation of the child from the distorting pathogenic influence of the narcissistic-borderline personality disordered parent.

Essentially, the situation represents the Judgment of Solomon. Two women came before Solomon, each claiming that a baby was theirs. Solomon ordered the child cut in half, and that half be given to each woman. The child's true mother intervened and told Solomon not to cut the baby in half, but to instead give the child to the other woman. Solomon recognized this woman to be the child's true mother since she was willing to give up the child rather than see the child destroyed, and Solomon awarded the child to the true mother.

In attachment-based "parental alienation", the personality disordered narcissistic borderline alienating parent is entirely willing to psychologically destroy the child rather than see the child bond with the targeted parent. Any steps to restore the child's normal range and balanced functioning, will increase the psychological pressure on the child to remain symptomatic, and the narcissistic-borderline parent is willing to psychologically destroy the child in the process if it is necessary to prevent the child from forming an affectionate bond with the alienated parent.

The sad reality is that in many instances an alienated parent is unwilling to psychologically destroy the child and placed in a position where such a parent relinquishes the child to the psychologically disturbed, personality disordered parent, the emotionally and psychologically false parent, because the alienated parent is unwilling to "cut the child in half."

Unfortunately, the wisdom of our legal system often falls short in recognizing a child's true psychological and emotional parent, the parent who is relinquishing the child (i.e., is being rejected and abandoned by the child) because this parent is unwilling to destroy the child in order to possess the child. The time has come for our courts to recognize the false parent, the narcissistically self-absorbed parent who is willing to psychologically and emotionally destroy the child in order to possess the child as a narcissistic object and symbol of his or her narcissistic victory over the other parent.

Regrettably, this level of sophisticated wisdom is far too often lacking from the Court. Childress makes a valid point and believes that the wisdom of our Courts is dependent upon the wisdom provided from mental health in identifying the underlying pathology, and currently our mental health practitioners are woefully inadequate in reliability identifying the pathology associated with attachment-based "parental alienation." According to him the Courts' wisdom is lacking because: "…mental health has failed in its responsibility to the targeted parent and child. The mental health response to attachment-based "parental alienation" needs to change dramatically before Courts will be able to act with the decisive clarity necessary to solve the tragedy of parental alienation."

In a recent matter before the High Court in Pretoria Judge Peter Mabuse delivered a clear message to parents who alienate their children from the other parent, the honourable Judge stated:

"It is humanly incomprehensible why one parent would refuse the other parent the right of access to their own child. "In my view – and here I am not laying down any general principle – a parent should encourage frequent contact between their children and parents".

The reversal of primary care (custody) of the child, because of the resistance of the custodial parent, is, as is apparent from a few judgments delivered in our courts not an unusual occurrence.

In the case of Kok v Clifton the learned judge expressed himself in this regard as follows:

"It is a common-place that it is in the interests of the child of divorced parents that it should not be estranged from either parent, the child should not be placed in such a position as to lose affection for either of its parents, nor that either of the parents should lose affection for and interest in the child. It is of importance to this child, in my view, that the father should retain his affection for the child and his interest in him".

In the case of Germani v Herf, the court was, concerned with a factual situation where father was, despite an order of court that the father was entitled to certain rights of access to his child, refused access to a child by the mother over a protracted period of time. The question in issue in that matter was whether the father proved that the mother's refusal to comply with the court's order was willful, regard being had to the 12-year-old child's steadfast refusal to have anything to do with the father. Having held that the child's resistance has undoubtedly been encouraged by the negative attitude (of the mother) as constantly adopted towards (the father's right to access), the court raised the question whether in such circumstances the court of first instance could have considered awarding custody of the child to the father. In this regard the court remarked as follows:

"A note of warning should, I think, be added here. If appellant's access continues to be frustrated or prevented by first respondent or the child, the court aqua may well have to consider seriously in the light of all the circumstances, apart from any questioning of enforcing the committal order against first respondent, whether the only solution is to award the custody of the child to the appellant, at any rate for such time as it deems fit. That would afford an effective opportunity for father and son to become reconciled".

In the case of Richies v Richies the judge said the following:

"A parent who unnecessarily deprives a child of the opportunities to experience the affection of its other parent and breaks down the image of that other parent in the eyes of the child, is a selfish parent, robbing the child of what should be its heritage in order to salve his own wounds. And regrettably often parents wounded by the marital conflict lose their objectivity and use, as very effective clubs with which they beat the foe, the objects both profess to love more than life itself, their children, who suffered a further problem in the process".

This is an approach also followed in similar circumstances in other countries, such as for example, in a judgment delivered in the Australian High Court of Justice, family division reported as V v V . In this matter the court was also faced with a situation where the mother unilaterally and unreasonably denied the father access to his children. After constant litigation between the parties over a period of 4 years involving 17 court orders and directions of some 16 judges the court eventually, indicating that it was time that litigation should end for the sake of the children, transferred residence of the children to the father.

The Judge stated:

"Unfortunately, the courts at all levels are well accustomed to intractable contact disputes which drag on for years with little or anything to show for the outcome, except numerous court hearings, misery for the parents, who become more entrenched in their positions, wasted court resources, and above all serious emotional damage to the children. These disputes are expensive, they take up a disproportionate amount of time in court, thereby depriving other cases of timely hearing. Constant litigation in respect of residence and/or contact is not only destabilizing for parents and children who become a battleground to be fought over at any cost, it is a process which progressively results in entrenched attitudes as if engaged in a war of attrition. Frequently, as in the current case, it is the mother caring for the children who is against making contact work. I find she has undermined contact to the father over a period of years in circumstances in which the children love their father, want to spend time with him, know him and have a good relationship with him. They also love their mother who in many respects, is a good parent. Had it not been for the breakdown of the parent's relationship, the alienation of their respective extended families and corrupting, corroding effect of litigation battles, I consider that not one word of criticism would have arisen concerning the quality of care given to these children. What has happened is a tragedy because each parent as much to offer".

The following was also said in this matter:

"There is also a perception that courts allow parents with care to flout court orders for contact and permit the parent with residence to exclude the parent from the lives of the children so that the other parent is worn down by years of futile litigation which achieves nothing and only ends when the parent gives up to the struggle, or the children are old enough to make their own decisions, assuming they have not been brainwashed in the meantime".

What is needed in South Africa is a new strategy where children could be taken away from the alienating parent and placed with the 'target' parent when social workers or child care experts detect signs of manipulation. The emphasis should be on allowing the child to maintain a relationship with both parents but if the alienating parent fails to improve their behaviour, their contact with the child should be restricted or, in the most serious cases, refused. A programme should also be implemented similar to what was adopted in the UK called 'Positive Parenting' to help the abusive parent put themselves in their child's position and change their behaviour. There is now scholarly consensus that severe alienation is abusive to children (Fidler and Bala, 2010), and it is a largely overlooked form of CHILD ABUSE (Bernet et al, 2010). Every child has a fundamental right and need for an unthreatened and loving relationship with BOTH parents, and to be denied that right by one parent, without sufficient justification such as abuse or neglect, is in itself a form of child abuse. Parental alienation should not be confused with parental estrangement as there is a huge difference between the two, parental alienation is the result of one parent actively causing hard feelings between a child and his / her other parent, estrangement on the other hand results from one parent behaving badly towards his/her child, this bad behaviour of the parent causes the child to cut contact with the parent. It is not uncommon for an estranged parent to accuse the other parent of parental alienation. Parental alienation is very dangerous to the emotional well being of the children and the continued bond with the alienated parent. It is too often used as an excuse by bad parents to justify their own hurtful behaviour against their children. In both situations the children suffer due to the parents' inability to put the needs of their children first. In terms of section 33 (2) of the Children's Act parents who experience difficulties in exercising their parental responsibilities and rights in respect of a child must, before seeking the intervention of a court, first seek to agree on a parenting plan. The section discourages co-holders of parental responsibilities and rights from approaching the court as a first resort when they experience difficulties in exercising those rights and responsibilities. This section does not compel parents to enter into a parenting plan, it simply instructs them to attempt to agree on one. Looking at this section closely it seems that where one parent refuse to engage in such discussions the court may be approached for then an attempt to agree on a plan was made, even if it was doomed from the start. Section 33(5) instructs a person to seek the assistance of a family advocate, social worker or psychologist, or mediation through a social worker or suitably qualified person in preparing a parenting plan. It is therefore clear that before approaching the court, a person must first seek such assistance. If the other party is not amenable to engage then obviously a court may be approached. Section 35 of the Act criminalises the refusal to allow someone who has access or holds parental responsibilities and rights in terms of a court order or a parental responsibilities and rights agreement that has taken effect to exercise such access. It also criminalises prevention of the exercise such access. Punishment is either a fine or imprisonment of up to one year.

Don't engage in alienating behaviour and become a bad punch line. Your children deserve better. So do you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/family-law/parental-alienation-2/parental-alienation-syndrome-symptoms-and-warnings https://www.facebook.com/groups/61789494087/about/ http://afamilysheartbreak.com/ http://www.divorce-mediation.co.za/parental-alienation/ https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/sinta-ebersohn/parental-alienation-syndrome-is-real-and-it-needs-to-be-addresse_a_22054394/ https://www.divorceattorney.co.za/ https://divorceattorneycapetown.wordpress.com/tag/parental-alienation-syndrome/

*Copyright permission granted