“What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.”
Parental alienation is well documented throughout complex child custody cases. It is blind to its victims who are primarily children. Not even celebrities or social elites are exempt from parental alienation and cases have ensued where media attention is sparse and incoherent to the facts and truths of this injustice. We want to state the following premise for child custody cases; IF A CHILD IS IN NO DANGER (MENTAL AND PHYSICAL) FROM BOTH DOCUMENTED PRESUMED PARENTS, BIOLOGICAL OR NOT VIA A MENTAL LOVING BOND, THE PARENTS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE CUSTODY AND VISITATION INVOLVEMENT OF SAID CHILD. Depriving a child of another parent is detrimental to the child, and has lasting psychological effects.
What does this mean for traditional custody arrangements in the United States where we have usually the choice of joint, full, or no custody? It means the law needs to presume and order joint custody in all cases unless there is evidence of abuse in a home. If a father is abusing a mother with documented police reports, and evidence then we should assume the father should not have joint custody and other arrangements be made. Children should not be subjected to abuse or given custody to proven abusers, especially if the abuser has committed atrocities with the child present. Special considerations would exist in disability cases where a parent can not care for themselves, however their rights need to be protected and they should have access to their children consistently and frequently at minimum.
Let it be known that Parental Alienation should be considered child abuse when one party withholds a child for the sole purpose of damaging the other parent. The parent committing parental alienation therefore needs justified punishment and consequence for their actions. If we set up a system of laws against parental alienation and then assume joint custody in family law cases where no abuse exists on either party, then children would start benefiting from a scope of protection. They would be allowed to have a relationship with both parents, which is beneficial to their psychological growth and development.
In an extreme case of parental alienation let me cite some of the judges quotes. This was a judge by the name of Honorable Shaller in LA County California who made a temporary ruling for Abbie Dorn. Abbie Dorn is paralyzed and in what is seemingly a semi-vegetative state where she can only community via eye blinks, and smiles. Dorn's husband believed her disability would cause the children mental anguish or lasting psychological effects. Judge Shaller ruled, however, that continuing contact with their mother was beneficial. The mother could not harm the children and therefore access to her children was approved by the court.
"The court finds that even though [Abbie Dorn] cannot interact with the children, the children can interact with [Abbie Dorn] — and that the interaction is beneficial for the children.""They can touch her, see her, bond with her, and can carry those memories with them. "He then ruled, "The court finds that they [children of Abbie] will likely suffer psychological harm that will negatively affect their development and their relationship with their father."
Not only does parental alienation make the children victims and injures a relationship with the opposing parent, but the parent who is alienating the children is also injured. Everyone in the whole picture becomes an injured individual from the actions of a parent who wishes to use a child as a weapon in Family Law Court. We believe more checks and balances need to be had in Family Law Courts, be it a public rating system or open case documents removing sensitive information so the public and officials can weigh in on decisions as well. We need justice for our children who are the victims of parental alienation syndrome. It is abuse pure and simple.