from the http://parentingnewsnetwork.com/?p=533

UK Inflicts Human Rights Violation on 12 Year Old

Mar 19, 2010

On March 17^th, 2010, Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Mrs. Justice Baron and Lady Justice Smith at the Court of Appeal ruled that a 12 year old known as Child C would be removed from his mother and should stay in foster care in the West Midlands area for a maximum of 21 days. He would then be transferred to the custody of his father whom the boy calls a “monster.” This will force the young man to move 100 miles away to London. At an earlier hearing, Judge Clifford Bellamy engaged in mother blaming saying he was “not wholly convinced” that the mother, who had “significant influence and power” over the boy, wanted contact with the father to work.

This forced removal of a child from the life he has always lived is NOT because there is anything wrong with the child’s home or mother. It is because the father has inflicted this human rights violation of Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, right to liberty, upon the child via family court. This has been perpetrated on the mother and child using the hypothetical theory of “alienation” which is well known for its use in taking children away from mothers by falsely accusing the mother of this fictitious disorder.

“Parental Alienation Syndrome” theory was originally made up by a pedophile sympathizing doctor named Richard Gardner to cover up claims of sexual abuse. The accusation of alienation is now used in case after case simply to attack a custodial parent forcing them to defend raising their own child. Accusing a custodial parent of alienation is a well known tactic of abusers to take the child away from a home where the child is happy and stable. The act of making the accusation of alienation is in itself an abusive act, because the sole purpose is to vilify the custodial parent in order to take the child away from them.

In the United States, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has issued the following warning about parental alienation in their 2009 publication, “A Judicial Guideto Child Safety in Custody Cases”

C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation

Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding

parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38 

The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’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 child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. 12

It appears that the justices in the United Kingdom are following Old English property laws, rather than treating the young man like a human being. A senior family judge attempted to justify this barbaric treatment by making the preposterous statement, that the child would suffer “emotional harm” if his “alienation” from his father continued.

Parenting News Network™ would like to make sure that the people responsible for this inhumane treatment know that they themselves are inflicting “emotional harm” on the boy by separating him from his mother with whom he has lived with his entire life. This is an example of a complete lack of understanding of attachment, and some education is in order: Attachment 101 should be required reading for the judicial community.

The dehumanized Child C has stated that he will go on a hunger strike and has threatened to jump from his father’s car if forced to live with his father. The father and all those aiding him are inflicting harm on the young man causing him to make these distressed statements. He is clearly indicating that he does NOT want to live anywhere other than where he has been his entire life.

The ruling quoted in the Telegraph states, “Every opportunity must be taken to allow the restoration or some restoration of the relationship between child and father during the last week of the school term.”

It is obvious to many that forcefully taking a child from a mother is a human rights violation that does not serve to “restore” a relationship, but to DESTROY the mother and child relationship at the command of the father. This does not build a relationship, it builds resentment.

The Justices involved in this inhumanity should be removed from their positions and not allowed to inflict harm on any more children.