Archive for the ‘Help for Indianapolis Moms’ Category
As we prepare for ANOTHER vigil in Washington D.C., again we are seemingly getting no acknowledgement about the severe plight that mothers and children are faced with. Why don’t these folks come out and talk to the mothers who are going though this? Why are mothers left wondering what is going to be done?
Do they even know what is going on…really know what’s going on?
Why don’t they do something?
I wondered this as a child victim of family court, placed with my mother’s abuser (my father). I wonder about this as an abused mother, who hasn’t seen her children in several years now. Why are they handing all this help to fathers (through Fatherhood Initiative grants from HHS), and not helping mothers in the same boat? Not to mention looking the other way on the actual criminal aspect of it. Why not come out of that big white house on Sunday evening and tell us why.
Here is another great opportunity to get some legal questions answered. For further questions, please visit the Indianapolis Bar Association’s website. (The information shows the year as 2010, so I have updated it with the new information below).
Do you need free legal help? You can meet with an attorney to ask basic legal questions at the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Ask A Lawyer event. Free legal advice will be provided by qualified, licensed attorneys as a service to our community. This one-day community event is sponsored by the Indianapolis Bar Association and the Indianapolis Bar Foundation, in cooperation with the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library and Indianapolis Public Schools.
Upcoming Ask a Lawyer Dates
Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 2 p.m. – 6 p.m.
Members of the Indianapolis Bar Association will be available for FREE one-on-one consultations at the following locations:
Brightwood Library, 2435 N. Sherman Dr.
Central Library, 40 E. St. Clair St.
College Library, 4180 N. College Ave.
East 38th Street Library, 5420 E. 38th St.
East Washington Library, 2822 E. Washington St.
Haughville Library, 2121 W. Michigan St.
Nora Library, 8625 Guilford Ave.
Pike Library, 6525 Zionsville Rd.
Shelby Library, 2502 Shelby St.
Southport Library, 2630 E. Stop 11 Road
If you are unable to visit these locations, please call the Indianapolis Bar Association at (317) 269-2000 between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., on April 12 to talk to an attorney.
Less than two weeks to go! Remember, there is a meeting the evening of the 13th at the hostel where many are staying. For information on the hostel…click here.
In it’s eighth year, this next conference will focus on getting battered mothers connected with organizations. It is a powerful event and provides an excellent opportunity to network with other abused mothers dealing with child custody issues and advocates. Here is a video from one of the conferences several years ago, produced by Garland Waller of Boston University:
Battered Women, Abused Children, and Child Custody:
“A National Crisis”
The Eighth Annual Battered Mothers Custody Conference
BMCC VIII: “The Unity Conference”
January 7th, 8th, & 9th, 2011
(Friday evening, 6 p.m. – Sunday afternoon)
(Five minutes away from Albany International Airport)
Reserve early to get the $99 conference rate!
Call: 1-800-HOLIDAY or 518-458-7250
Ask for the Battered Mothers Custody Conference block.
A major focus this year will be to connect battered mothers with organizations working locally, nationally, and internationally to combat unjust family court practices that continue to do untold harm to battered mothers and their children.
For updated details and registration, please visit www.batteredmotherscustodyconference.org.
Watch out for these folks in Indianapolis: Schembs Sweeney. If they are on your ex’s side, they may be up to some shenanigans, or may have a “special relationship” with your judge. Here is a screen shot of their website:
Abusers typically scream about “false allegations.” However, from the American Bar Association’s 10 Myths About Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them, it is noted:
The courts of Marion County typically disregard claims of domestic violence, and even when accepted, don’t care and hand the children to the abuser anyway (this ALSO being noted on the ABA report). Download the ABA document and MAKE YOUR LAWYER READ IT. Most lawyers in Indianapolis won’t care, but this is the lives of your children on the line. Do everything you can to document your case, including hospital reports, tape recordings, pictures, witnesses, anything you can. If it wasn’t for Mel Gibson’s girlfriend Oksana having a tape recorder running, she wouldn’t have caught the vicious rant which included “I want my child, and no one will believe you” as Gibson raged about the attacks he made on her.
Take care of yourself and your children. The lawyers and judges in Indianapolis won’t.
Mothers of children being taken and given to abusers and rapists are tired of not being heard. We won’t shut up, we won’t go away! Here’s a video someone made that has some pictures from the vigil. It’s awesome!
For the love of our children…
Vodpod videos no longer available.
In 1985, PAS was first described by Richard Gardner, a psychiatrist who wrote that adults having sex with children is not a bad thing.
Gardner described PAS as a “syndrome” whereby vengeful mothers employed child abuse allegations as a powerful weapon to punish ex-husbands and ensure custody to themselves. He further theorized that such protective parents enlisted the children in their “campaign of denigration” and “vilification” of the abuser, that they often “brainwashed” or “programmed” the children into believing untrue claims of abuse by the father, and that the children then fabricated and contributed their own stories.
To distance themselves from the discredited theory and its embarrassing originator, proponents of Parental Alienation Awareness Day sometimes claim that Parental Alienation Syndrome and parental alienation are different. In reality, they are often used synonymously and the consequences can be dire. Children can end up in the custody of their abusers.
Since 1985, abusers have come to convince family courts to ignore children’s allegations of abuse by invoking parental alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome. They wrongly claim that mothers are to blame because they are brainwashing their children.
PAS WIDELY DISCREDITED
1996 – The Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family discredited the theory. It stated:
Although there are no data to support the phenomenon called parental alienation syndrome, in which protective parents are blamed for interfering with their children’s attachment to their abusers, the term is still used by some evaluators and courts to discount children’s fears in hostile and psychologically abusive situations. Family courts often do not consider the history of violence between the parents in making custody and visitation decisions. . . . Psychological evaluators not trained in domestic violence may contribute to this process by ignoring or minimizing the violence and by giving inappropriate pathological labels to women’s responses to chronic victimization. Terms such as “parental alienation” may be used to blame the women for the children’s reasonable fear of or anger toward their violent abuser.
2003 – The National District Attorneys Association’s Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse discredited the theory. It stated:
Although PAS may be hailed as a “syndrome” . . . in fact it is the product of anecdotal evidence gathered from Dr. Gardner’s own practice. […] PAS is based primarily upon two notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical research. […] PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law.”
2006 – The American Bar Association’s Children’s Legal Rights Journal discredited the theory. It stated:
PAS’s twenty-year run in American courts is an embarrassing chapter in the history of evidentiary law. It reflects the wholesale failure of legal professionals entrusted with evidentiary gate-keeping intended to guard legal processes from the taint of pseudo-science…. As a matter of science, law, and policy PAS should remain inadmissible in American courts.
2006 – The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges also discredited the theory. It stated:
The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent.
One of the most troubling consequences of Gardner’s theory is that, “PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behaviour of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child.”
As a result, some children placed in the custody of their abusers have committed suicide; others have run away, and countless others have endured the abuse and are permanently traumatized. In recent years, children placed in custody of their abusers have been coming forward to tell their stories and to warn of the danger surrounding the fictitious syndrome.
 Gardner, 1992a; 1992b
 (Gardner, 1992b, p. 162, 193; 2002, pp. 94-95). – Meier, J. (2009, January). Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Research Reviews. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved 3/10/2009, from: http://www.vawnet.org
 Pg 40
 Pg 100
 Bruch, Carol S., Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: getting It Wrong in Child Custody Case in Child and Family Law Quarterly, Vol 14, No 4, 2002: 384.