Feminist Fraud Factions That Cover-Up the Tyranny against Fathers in Family Court

Feminist Fraud Factions That Cover-Up the Tyranny against Fathers in Family Court


by Shane Flait (2011)

 Fathers are being destroyed under the tyrannical feminist policies of family

court. A massive state industry is based and funded on its anti-father court

judgments. This article overviews the various factions in this industry and

within society that help cover up this tyranny against fathers, family and

freedom.  

 The tyranny

Family court processes and judgments, under divorce and paternity suits,

overwhelmingly deny fit fathers their parental rights to care for and directly

support their children. All constitutional due process is ignored while the state

and the mother virtually kidnap the children from the father and then extort

debilitating and destructive payments - euphemistically called child support –

from him for up to 22 years and for whatever the mother wishes.

This puts the father in a virtual slave position without constitutional rights and

easily thrown in jail if he can’t pay everything demanded by the court. Any

accusation of abuse the mother makes against the father will guarantee this

situation too. It’s a criminalizing process that is also extortive and devoid of

constitutional due process.

 The courts use ‘greater good’ excuse laws – specifically, the best interest of

the child, and the safety of women abuse excuses – pushed, supported, and

maintained by feminist and women’s rights adherents. These laws

unconstitutionally override the fundamental rights and protections that our

constitution is supposed to guarantee to each of us. ‘Greater good’ laws are

always the excuse of tyrannies. Our individual fundamental rights and

protection are supposed to be freedom’s greater good.

 A state-based industry, I call the divorce and domestic violence industry

(DDVI), has exploded over the last 40 years whose funding, directly or

indirectly, relies on the denial of fundamental rights that fathers face in family

court. The DDVI includes the judicial, executive and legislative departments, at

both state and federal levels, and all affiliates that help adjudicate, prosecute,

extort money from, and punish fathers subjected to these tyrannical family

courts. State and nationwide child support payments and the enormous funding

by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) trigger enormous fees,

commissions, penalties, and job security for all components of the DDVI.

 The Feminist Fraud – a wolf in sheep’s clothing

Feminist ideas and adherents have pervaded all aspects of society – education,

business, government, and media. In fact it’s popular for many politicians -

including men – to consider themselves feminists. That’s because they’re for

‘equal rights’ or equal opportunity’ for women.

 But the feminist fraud is the misconception that feminism simply means equal

opportunity for women when, in fact, state-imposed feministic policies,

especially in the judicial processes, have forced feminist sexism against men

and denial of fundamental rights and protections to men and fathers.  A great

deal of feminist-based propaganda had distorted facts to push their agenda of

privileges for women – often called women’s rights – but at the direct denial of

constitutional rights of men.

 It’s based on phony propaganda that men are bad and women are good. It’s a

‘divide and conquer’ strategy. The perversion of our laws and policies has used

propaganda and obscuration of these denials of most fundamental rights.

 True liberty means the protection of individual rights – the unalienable rights

the U.S. was formed to secure for each of us. Communism and Nazism, the 20th

century tyrannies, professed other rights – social rights – as more important

than individual rights. They, of course, needed to impose their ‘rights’ and

‘views’ since they’re ultimately unnatural rights and undermine our natural

liberties. Socialism is the handmaiden of such tyrannies – and more so the

greater socialist policies and mandates pervade society.

 The feministic ‘PC’ intolerance we’ve all come to know reflects the

suppression of any criticism of whatever feministic/women’s policy is being

pushed or imposed. It reflects the mindset that underlies most feminism. That’s

why it’s better characterized as feminazism.

 The fruit of state-imposed feminism is most evident in family court where fit

fathers under complaints from women are virtually criminalized and enslaved

without constitutional due process. No equal opportunity - nor equal outcome -

is allowed to occur in these courts - as feminism in any other circumstance

would demand!  And all procedures are arranged to suppress awareness of this

unjust circumstance.

 Taking place through the family court judgments is the most dramatic re-

engineering of society into a matriarchal tyranny based on enslaving fathers to

perform their (slave) responsibility devoid of their fundamental parental rights,

benefits, and other constitutional protections. The enormous fallout from these

feminist-instigated and maintained policies is shown in the social pathology

children face today and the destruction of fathers and family – and, of course,

freedom.

 The feminist fraud factions that maintain this tyranny against fathers

Imposing state-feminism that denies fathers their parental rights while

propagandizing the ‘divide and conquer’ men-bad / women-good strategy are

three major factions of society. Together, they wield enormous power to

implement this tyranny but at the same time cover up the effective denial of

rights this tyranny relies upon.

 They are:

Government branches led by judiciary by its anti-father and unjust family

court orders. It imposes the greater good excuse laws against men and fathers.
Rights-related Organizations which enforce their view on society through

women's rights and safety of women. These include national and international

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).  They imposed the same type of

‘greater good’ excuse laws and policies that deny to fathers what we consider

as fundamental rights. They ignore fundamental rights of fathers where they

confront feminist/women’s rights issues.
the PC media, which constitutes most of the media, press and TV. They spin

events to to favor a feminist prospective or simply ignore or suppress anything

that exposes the horrendous injustice taking place against fathers especially.
What type of people would cover up such injustice

Three categories of people exist within these factions that keep this tyranny

going – and hidden. They are

1.     Those who work to put the feminist agenda in place - they are willing to

walk over men's and fathers' fundamental rights. They're out there in large

numbers hiding under the feminist fraud - i.e. the lie of 'equal opportunity' or

'equality'.

2.     Those who know that something is very wrong. They can see it and are

afraid to speak up. They don't want to be ostracized, lose a possible promotion,

or lose their jobs for being 'unsensitive' to the propaganda about women's

plight.

3.     Those who are not clear what's happening or don’t want to think about it

- or are simply brainwashed on feminism and can’t or refuse to see the clear

injustice. They just leave it to others and collect their $200 for passing go in

the process.

The first category of people represents the ideologues of feminazism. They are

the leaders and key workers that brought this tyranny into existence and now

enforce its malicious ways. They pervade all three of the feminist fraud

factions listed above.

The last two classes of people are the cowards necessary for any tyranny to

prevail. Such types flourish as the moral character of a society degenerates

and the tyranny grows.

Parental Child Abductors

Parental Child Abductors
According to Huntington, post-divorce parental child stealing has been on the increase since the mid-1970s, paralleling the rising divorce rate and the explosion of litigation over child custody (18). An abducting parent views the child's needs as secondary to the parental agenda which is to provoke, agitate, control, attack or psychologically torture the other parent. It should come as no surprise, then, that post-divorce parental abduction is considered a serious form of child abuse. Psychological maltreatment may predominate or be accompanied by physical abuse and neglect. Abducting parents take the idea that the child would be better off without the other parent to an extreme. Clawar and Rivlin found that would-be abductors often felt frustrated in their efforts to gain access to their child through the legal system and felt "forced" to abduct the child (7). Sometimes, they became so convinced of the terrible scenario they were broadcasting about the target parent that they felt no "choice" but to flee with the child and go into hiding. In order to win the child's cooperation in maintaining concealment, the abductor must continue to brainwash the child with fear of the target parent and what would happen if the target parent should find the abducting parent and child.

Brainwashing in Custody Cases

Brainwashing in Custody Cases:
The Parental Alienation Syndrome

by Kenneth Byrne

Introduction

Divorce is one of the most stressful experiences that most people in our culture will experience in a lifetime. It is often accompanied by strong feelings of bitterness, betrayal, anger and distrust of the former partner. Each party often feels that they are "right" in many of their views on issues about which the couple disagree. When they have children the picture becomes infinitely more complicated. Among many other reactions, there is often a tendency for each partner to want the support or agreement of the child (or children) on critical issues. The more difficulty and intensity of negative feeling between the two adults, the more likely is this to be the case.

In some cases, the desire to have the agreement of the child can become strong enough to verge into brainwashing. By brainwashing I mean an effort on one parent's part to get the child to give up his or her own positive perceptions of the other parent and change them to agree with negative views of the influencing parent. At this intensity the motivation of the parent goes beyond simply getting the agreement and support of the children. Commonly, brainwashing parents are motivated by an opportunity to wreak a powerful form of revenge on the other parent -diminishing the affections of the children.

Typical examples include mentioning obvious weaknesses of the other parent and blaming those as the major source of difficulty between the parents. Nothing is said about the other parent's positive traits. The fact that both parents have contributed to the problem is also omitted.

This kind of communication has at least two psychologically destructive effects. First, it puts the child squarely in the middle of a contest of loyalty, a contest which cannot possibly be won. The child is asked to choose who is the preferred parent. No matter what choice, the child is very likely to end up feeling painfully guilty and confused. This is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, what the child wants and needs is to continue a relationship with each parent, as independent as possible from their own conflicts.

Second, the child is required to make a shift in assessing reality. One parent is presented as being totally to blame for all problems, and as someone who is devoid of any positive characteristics. Both of these assertions represent one parent's distortions of reality. It is as if the child walks outside on a sunny day in summer clothes, and feels quite comfortable. Then one parent says, "Billy, it's raining right now, and it's cold. You have to wear a raincoat and jumper". To appease that parent. the child must act in accordance with that statement, and bend his own perceptions of reality.

Some may argue that such behaviour is simply accommodating to the directions of a parent, something that children have to do all the time. However, in healthy interactions, the child is encouraged to accept a view of reality that is both accurate and adaptive. ("I know you don't want to study, but unless you do you might very well fail the test.")

Adults in the midst of a divorce are not famous for their objectivity, especially regarding their spouse. Typically, over weeks, months and years, the child is exposed to a long series of such distortions. In many cases, directly opposite information is being presented by the other parent. Children caught in this cross-fire inevitably end up with a significant degree of psychological disturbance, not the least of which is a distortion in basic reality testing about the world around them.

In divorces where the parents are unable to find any way to mediate the questions of custody and access, they typically turn to the legal system. In most cases, each seeks the advice of their own solicitor, setting in motion a legal duel. One of the effects of this duel is that each parent senses the need for a list of "horror stories" about the other. The intuitive feeling is that if it can be shown that the other parent is "worse" through a longer and more vivid list of horror stories, then "victory" in the form of physical custody (or greater access in some cases) will be won.

The Parental Alienation Syndrome

In cases of contested custody and access, mental health professionals have been seeing with increasing frequency an extreme form of brainwashing which has been called The Parental Alienation Syndrome (originally described by Dr. Richard Gardner, "Recent Developments in Child Custody Litigation", The Academy Forum Vol. 29 No. 2: The American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 1985). Children who are suffering with this situation have been subjected to an intense and persistent form of brainwashing by one parent against the other. The overt goal is almost always - at a minimum - to dramatically reduce contact by the child with that other parent. Commonly, the goal becomes to virtually eliminate the other parent from the child's life.

Example: Mrs. Litigious complained to her solicitor that her two children, aged five and eight, kept refusing to see their father on access visits, and that with each passing week, they became more tearful and resistant as the visit approached. She wondered whether the mid-week visit couldn't be reduced to every second or third week, or eliminated altogether, in order "to spare the kids all this pressure".

Mrs. Litigious had been married to her first husband, Mr. Cross, for ten years. She divorced four years ago, and is now remarried to Mr. Litigious. The solicitor asked for consultation from a forensic psychologist, Dr. Neutral.

Mr. Cross, father of both children, complained to his solicitor that his former wife was making it increasingly difficult to see his children. It started with him being kept waiting for increasingly longer periods of time when he would pick them up. Recently they had been pouting and saying he was "mean", with the younger echoing the older's complaints. On weekend visits this would last through Friday night and Saturday morning. By lunch time, both children began to seem happier, and the rest of the visit would go fine, until the drive back to mum's house. At this point the kids would again begin to disparage the father, saying for example, "We don't really like you - we only pretended to have a good time".

During his first visit with Dr. Neutral, Joe Cross, aged 8, said that he disliked his father very much, and did not want to seek him as often. When questioned about his reasons for this, he said "He hits me and doesn't let me watch television". The youngster could say nothing positive about his father, yet found a wide variety of praises for mum, with virtually no complaints about her.

Lisa Cross, age 5, virtually echoed her brother's words. Her reasons for not wanting to see her father were that "When I go there he justs sits around and he makes me cook dinner!" She too could find nothing positive about father, and had no complaints at all about mother.

In a joint visit with father and the two children, Joe's complaints were aired. Mr. Cross readily acknowledged that what his son had said was correct, but put it in further context. He limited television to two hours, and made Joe stop when that time was up. On a recent Saturday morning, Joe had balked at this limit, an argument developed, and father slapped him once on the bottom.

In individual visits it soon became clear that Mrs. Litigious despised her former husband. Since the initial separation there had been a continuing feud, with bitter accusations on both sides. She argued strongly that whilst she encouraged and even forced her children to accept access visits, it was they who were now reluctant and unwilling. Her proposed solution was less access time. Her husband, when seen alone, echoed her bitterness. In his opinion it would be better for the children to never see their father, since he had no positive virtues whatever.

Psychological evaluation of Mr. Cross indicated that he was an argumentative and rigid man, who many would see as being somewhat difficult to deal with. He was also seen as a quite adequate father, who offered his children a good deal of love and support, and who was deeply attached to them.

Evaluation of Mrs. Cross found her to be a devoted and competent mother, but a rather immature woman, prone to let her emotions override her judgement.

In a report tendered to the court and to all parties, Dr. Neutral made the diagnosis of Parental Alienation Syndrome, and made specific recommendations for resolution of the matter.

This case illustrates all of the diagnostic symptoms of this disorder in its fully developed form. These symptoms are:

The child shows a complete lack of ambivalence one parent is described almost entirely negatively, the other almost entirely positively;

The reasons given for the dislike of one parent may appear to be justified, but investigation shows them to be flimsy and exaggerated; with younger children, the reasoning is even more transparent;

The child proffers the opinion of wanting less contact with one parent in a way which requires little or no prompting. The complaints have a quality of being rehearsed or practised;

The child seems to show little or no concern for the feelings of the parent being complained about;

The alienating parent, while seemingly acting in the best interests of the children, is actually working to destroy the relationship between them and the other parent. It is not uncommon for this to be further fuelled by new spouses or de factos;

Most importantly, while the children will verbally denigrate one parent, they retain an unspoken closeness and affection for that parent. However, if the syndrome is allowed to develop unchecked, this can be all but erased by the alienating parent.

These symptoms are seen exclusively in children where parents are engaged in a legal battle for custody or access. The more protracted and bitter the dispute, the more this is likely to occur.

The Parental Alienation Syndrome represents the intertwining of a complex series of factors. It certainly goes well beyond simple brainwashing. It is begun and propelled by a host of factors in the alienating parent, including both unconscious and subconscious elements. The child, independent of the brainwashing parent, can have a vested interest in maintaining an overt position against one parent for both conscious and unconscious reasons.

The case above describes the syndrome in a relatively "pure" form. More often, the case is complicated by a host of other factors. For example, allegations of child sexual abuse are being lodged with increasing frequency during custody battles. Often the child will report details of how the other parent (usually the father) has abused the child. Some of these claims are legitimate; many more are manifestations of this syndrome embedded in charges of abuse. Kidnapping of children, often across state or national borders, is being reported with increasing frequency; (speaking at The Bicentenary Family Law Conference at Melbourne in March, 1988, Lawrence Stotter provided the following figures. Between 1973 and 1979, 85 cases of international child abduction were reported to the United States Consular Affairs Office. For the years 1983 to 1988, this figure had jumped to 1,516). On top of the web of legal challenges which these cases present, there is the added element of this syndrome operative in most, if not all, cases.

Professional Misjudgement

I have encountered several cases in which mental health professionals have allowed themselves to become embroiled in these scenarios without appreciating what they were dealing with.

Case 1: At the request of the court, a psychiatrist, Dr. Eager, conducted a custody evaluation concerning Mary, age 6. After one interview with each parent, he recommended that the father have custody and the mother be granted limited access. The court followed this recommendation. The mother lodged an appeal against this decision. After the court made its initial decision, the father asked the psychiatrist to accept his daughter for treatment. Dr. Eager agreed, seeing the girl once weekly with occasional visits with father. However, he did not involve mother in the treatment, and neither father nor Dr. Eager even told her the daughter was being treated.

During the next hearing, the father produced a letter from Dr. Eager which indicated that he was now treating Mary. His letter described how the child told him how frightened she was of her mother, and quoted the girl, then aged six, reporting memories from when she was three about how her mother had hit her. He concluded that "In my opinion Mary's emotional state is still not stable enough to allow her to have access to her mother. I cannot estimate how long it will be before the child would be well enough to begin any sort of regular access." He then commented that "If access must commence, I believe it would be best done in a supervised setting with an independent third party, such as a representative from the State social work department."

Here Dr. Eager treats a child without involving the mother, whom he has already met. He accepts unquestioningly the memory of a six year old of events she couldn't possibly recall, and overlooks any possibility of programming of the child by the father. Perhaps most importantly, based on only one interview with mother, he concludes that the child is too unstable to visit her.

Several questions could be posed. If the mother is so destructive and frightening, wouldn't a natural part of the treatment be the re-uniting of the mother and child in a safe, controlled environment, such as the therapist's office, where there would also be an opportunity to explore more carefully her parenting ability? If deficiencies were found, wouldn't it help the child to have the therapist teach the mother how to parent this girl more effectively? Finally, how can one treat a six year old without involving the mother?

Case 2: A mother brought her two children, aged 5 and 7, to the family GP and described how reluctant they were to see their father during access visits. The doctor provided a letter to the mother's solicitor which said "I have interviewed Billy and Sally at 2:10 pm in my surgery. I have a videotape of the interview if required.

"Both children have indicated they do not wish to see their father. It is my opinion that it is the individual and personal wish of Billy and Sally to decline their father's access. It is also my professional opinion that if such access were granted it would be detrimental to the welfare of the children."

The doctor accepted at face value the statements made by the mother and children. Without consulting the father, who was known to him, he offered this professional opinion to the solicitor for one side. His reasoning appears to be that these children of five and seven are able to determine a matter of the magnitude of whether or not it is in their best interest to visit and thereby maintain a relationship with their father.

In each of these cases a medical professional, using the weight of that authority, offered a written opinion for one parent's "cause" without a careful assessment of the other parent or of the underlying situation between the couple. As closely as I can determine, both professionals seemed well motivated, though naive. In my opinion, their efforts only aggravated already difficult situations. Each seemed to be led into this error by being manoeuvred by one party into becoming an advocate for one side, instead of serving as an impartial examiner.

Guidelines for Solicitors

When faced with parents or children who want to reduce or eliminate access visits, maintain a healthy degree of scepticism. Remember that even children who have unquestionably been physically or sexually abused are usually extremely reluctant to discuss this with a stranger. When a child easily volunteers mostly negative criticisms to a solicitor, mental alarm bells should go off.

Do everything possible to hear both sides of the story. This requires remaining more flexible on occasion. Legal training is designed to instil an adversarial spirit, and parents who use children in this way can quickly stir up one's "mental juices" to "fight for this child". To hear both sides of a story doesn't mean that you can't be adversarial later, if need be. Try to arrange a without prejudice round table conference of the parties and their solicitors.

Chose experts who insist on being involved only as an impartial examiner from the outset. Such experts are less likely to be drawn into becoming advocates. Selecting these people means that you risk getting an opinion . on which doesn't favour your client, and perhaps losing the fight the client is paying you to win. However, it greatly enhances the possibility that you will obtain an opinion which is genuinely in the best interests of the child. Should the opinion favour your client, the evidence of such an expert is far more likely to be found credible by the judge.

Use courtroom litigation only as a very last resort

Litigation is psychologically damaging to children. The more times that the couple goes to court, the more damage is done to children. Aren't there times when court is the only answer? Yes, but they aren't nearly as frequent as the number of cases which actually end up in court.

Consider alternative solutions to the courtroom. When the couple will agree to counselling, this is obviously the preferred solution. However, by the time the couple reaches solicitors, the likelihood of their selecting such a recommendation is only modest. A thorough evaluation by a truly impartial examiner often helps to settle cases before getting to court. Another option is court-ordered counselling, to which all parties agree. To be successful, certain prerequisites are essential. The plan must have the support of both solicitors. Certain changes to the usual rules of confidentiality need to be agreed upon in writing. The therapist must be able to see all parties in whatever combination is considered warranted. New spouses or de factos must be available for involvement. The therapist must have sufficient time to work with the family - these cases aren't worked out in just a couple of visits. It is not essential that the parties want counselling. It is only essential that they agree to a court order, and that they see this as being preferable to a courtroom battle.

Conclusion

The Parental Alienation Syndrome represents an extreme form of brainwashing of children by one parent. It is always seen in the context of disputed custody or access situations. The goal of the brainwashing parent is to get revenge. There is no greater revenge than blocking the other parent from playing a meaningful role in the child's life. The syndrome has clear signs and symptoms and, with appropriate procedures, can be diagnosed and treated. This syndrome is also seen in more complex forms, when it is embedded in situations of alleged child sexual abuse or child kidnapping. It can easily be misdiagnosed by professionals who have not educated themselves about these situations, and misguided efforts at helping can worsen an already bad situation.

Dr. Byrne is a clinical and forensic psychologist in full time private practice in Clifton Hill, Victoria, and is an Honorary Lecturer in the Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash

Biological Parents and Third-Parties

In disputes between biological parents and third-parties, we don’t want decisions to be based on “the best interests of the child”
Posted Monday, January 30th, 2012 by Gregory Forman
Filed under Adoption/Termination of Parental Rights, Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Law and Culture, Not South Carolina Specific, Of Interest to General Public

A review of the excellent news reporting from Allyson Bird at the Charleston Post and Courier, regarding the adoption case involving two year-old, Veronica, her prospective adoptive parents, Matt and Melanie Capobianco, and her Cherokee birth father, Dusten Brown, demonstrates a misunderstanding when a “best interests of the child” standard is applicable.  For custody cases between two biological or legal parents, such a standard is perfectly appropriate.  For custody cases between parents and non-parents, application of such a standard is frankly totalitarian.

The facts of Veronica’s case are tragic.  She was placed with the Capobiancos shortly after her birth.  Four months later Brown, a member of the Cherokee nation and an Oklahoma resident, sought a finding of paternity and custody.  After a recent trial, the family court judge, applying the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (an act which I acknowledge knowing nothing about), ruled in Brown’s favor and ordered Veronica placed with her father.  Brown recently took Veronica from the Capobiancos to Oklahoma.  The South Carolina Supreme Court has accepted direct review of the Capobiancos’ appeal.  Meanwhile supporters of the Capobiancos hold public demonstrations and petition drives, with our state governor, Nikki Haley, telling the press, “My heart breaks for Matt and Melanie.”   Many of the commentators ask how removing a two year old from the only caregivers she has ever known and placing her with a stranger can be in the child’s “best interests,” with the implication that it cannot be.

To which I would retort, “so what?”  Or to be less flippant, “do we really want the state taking children away from their biological parents merely because it believes the child’s ‘best interests’ lie elsewhere?”   In custody battles between biological parents and third-parties, I think most of us would agree that we want to impose a high burden on the state before giving custody to third-parties.

For almost a century the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United State Constitution gives parents a protected liberty interest in raising their children.  For more information on this topic, see “Constitutional Limitations On Family Court Authority To Override Parental Decision Making.”  South Carolina case law recognizes that in order to remove a child from a biological parent and place that child with a third-party, one must first prove the parent is unfit. Kay v. Rowland, 285 S.C. 516, 331 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1985).   Even when the parent tries to obtain the child back from a third-party, the courts do not employ a pure best interests standard but instead employ the four-part test set forth in Moore v. Moore, 300 S.C. 75, 386 S.E.2d 456, 458 (1989).   For more information on this topic, see “When Parents Seek to Reclaim Custody from Third-parties: Moore & Its Progeny.”

Most of us should be glad the courts don’t employ a best interests standard in custody battles between biological parents and third-parties.  If the courts employed such a standard, anyone who could claim to do a better job parenting then we do could, in theory, seek and obtain custody of our own children.  When my own first child was born, my wife and I were new residents of Charleston, South Carolina, and knew few people within the state.  We were both unemployed and deeply in (student loan) debt.  There were many people who were in objectively better circumstances to raise our daughter but, because we only needed to be fit parents to withstand such a challenge, we had no risk of losing custody of her to a third-party.  I suspect many first time parents are in similar situations.  It’s a good thing we don’t allow the government to always employ a best interests standard in deciding our own children’s custody.

Most Americans rightly deplore the child rearing practices of totalitarian societies in which children are seen as the property of the state and are encouraged to spy on their parents and report any parental deviation from the state orthodoxy.  We read fiction such as “Brave New World” as a dystopian warning against allowing the state, rather than parents, to raise children.  Preventing the state from imposing its own judgment of a child’s “best interests” against the wishes of a biological parent may result in occasional tragic stories such as Veronica’s (which might have been less tragic if the Capobiancos had agreed to let her live with her biological father immediately after he sought custody).  Veronica’s case might be ideal to debate the steps that a biological father of a child born out of wedlock should be required to undertake to develop his parental rights.  It might be a useful case to debate the balance between state/federal government and Indian sovereign rights.   But allowing the state carte blanche to place children wherever it wishes upon the state’s own determination of the child’s “best interests” is totalitarian social engineering.

Print  PDF
Tags: Adoption, Capobianco, Charleston Post & Courier, Child Custody, Jurisprudence, Nikki Haley, Paternity

9 Responses to “In disputes between biological parents and third-parties, we don’t want decisions to be based on “the best interests of the child””
Van says:
January 30, 2012 at 8:56 am
We agree on something 100%.

Reply
Jenny Moser says:
January 30, 2012 at 9:03 am
Greg —

Excellent piece and I overwhelmingly agree with you!

Reply
Alexia Pittas says:
January 30, 2012 at 11:08 am
Extremely insightful comments on a difficult issue.

Reply
William Hamilton says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:06 pm
It’s ironic that all these conservatives rushing in to take a side here haven’t considered these issues. Child custody decisions are an extreme intrusion of state power into family life and we need to be clear about the limits. It’s easy to imagine a society were children are routinely taken from parents to obtain better home placements, however there are massive secondary impacts which would produce a society none of us could recognize. Current law recognizes an important distinction.

The Indian welfare act grew out of recognition that huge numbers of native American children were being taken away from their families and tribes, often with very poor results after childhood ended.

Reply
Lilly Collette says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:52 pm
William, I do so agree with you.

Reply
Anna Galle says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:19 pm
I agree! Your post does a wonderful job of showing how good intentions, i.e., the best interest of the child, can have unintended consequences.

Reply
Lilly Collette says:
January 30, 2012 at 12:47 pm
This particular case is relying heavily on uninformed emotion with a stated intent to contravene established laws.

My 5:26 AM comment of 1/26/2012 at http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2012/jan/25/20000-want-to-save-veronica/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:bcd58443-34de-4aed-8b44-427cf3e6a39c

Quoting Nicola Ford: “and no this petition is not legally binding- no one ever said it was or pretended it to be anything of the sort. so yeah a 16 year old could sign it. it does show legislators people are watching them.”

I then asked Ms. Ford, do you really believe that putting our legislators on notice that they are being wathed in this family law case will have any influence on the outcome?

To which Ms. Ford replied: “the the pressure is relentless, yes. i have worked for a us senator, so i have an idea about how it works.”

My dear Ms. Ford as ‘tacky’ as you falsely accuse me of being at least I have been well mannered enough to not seek changes in law through ‘bullying’ members of the lesgislature — not even one you allege to have been employed by.

Reply
Tom Ward says:
February 6, 2012 at 4:22 pm
The most obvious “state” actor in this case is the Cherokee nation, which claims a sort of proprietary right in this child of extremely exiguous Cherokee background. And and the parents being assaulted here are the Cappobiancos, who have been forced to place their daughter in the hands of a Mr. Brown, who despite the genetic connection had signed away his rights to Veronica and thus became the “third party” in the dispute. Totalitarian? Perhaps. But if so, it is you, Mr. Forman, who are defending the totalitarian side.

Reply
Gregory Forman says:
February 7, 2012 at 10:13 am
Mr. Ward:

My blog expressed no opinion on who should have custody of Veronica. I don’t know enough about the case to express an opinion.

The point of my blog wasn’t to argue who should have custody of Veronica. The goal was to explain why analyzing her case from a “best interests” standard was misguided and dangerous. When people take the time to actually consider the jurisprudential concerns that arise from custody fights between parents and non-parents, they begin to realize the danger of allowing the state to apply a “best interests” analysis to such disputes.

Would you dispute that there ought to be a high burden before the state removes children from their biological parents to place them with third-parties?

False Reporting
Penal Code § 11172(a)

Any person reporting a known or suspected instance of child abuse or neglect shall not incur civil or criminal liability as a result of any report unless it can be proven that a false report was made and the person knew that the report was false or was made with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the report.

Any person who makes a report of child abuse or neglect known to be false or with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the report is liable for any damages caused.