MI - Three siblings in juvenile detention for contempt, Pontiac, 9 July 2015

[MyBelle]

Also not true.

The FBI do not have jurisdiction in other countries. The 'left behind parent' must file using the HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION.
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=24

The country receiving the request will locate the child and initiate proceedings. It is not a 'given' that the child will be returned as there are a few instances where a return to the requesting country will be denied. Including the childs wishes.


The US is one of only 2 countries that have not ratified the treaty on the 'rights of the child' and this is occasionally used as a defense against return. America helped draft the treaty, signed it, but failed to ratify it because the rights of parents were paramount. (The 2nd country who signed but haven't ratified it have no functioning government).

The US have no right to enter other countries to enforce their laws. They have to apply for extradition like everyone else.

Please re-read my posting more carefully. I didn't say the FBI has jurisdiction in other countries, I said they get involved in international parental kidnappings and posted the link to the FBI page. Thanks.

 

[MyBelle]

The supposed parental alienation syndrome isn't even considered an actual disorder.

"And she is skeptical of intensive therapy, noting that parental alienation syndrome is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, considered the bible in the mental health community."

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...oakland-county-family-court-experts/31435087/

Parental alienation is an actual form of child abuse. I've personally seen the effects it has on children.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

The supposed parental alienation syndrome isn't even considered an actual disorder.

"And she is skeptical of intensive therapy, noting that parental alienation syndrome is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, considered the bible in the mental health community."

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...oakland-county-family-court-experts/31435087/

The route to DSM inclusion is not a short one, and rightfully so. However, there is growing consensus among practitioners, including publication in peer-reviewed journals. Many of the dichotomous thinkers whose posts I have read elsewhere point to the lack of DSM inclusion as evidence that alienation is junk science. I think it far more reasonable to say that we still know less than might be desired--particulsrly in terms of therapeutic responses. Some also point out that there are existing diagnoses for children impacted by parental dysfunctions that certainly fit.

I would agree that these children's behaviors do not fit those seen in children who are abused physically--who are frequently very loyal to the abuser and protective of him or her. That is not how these children respond to their father.

 

[jjenny]

These children don't have the need to be "loyal" to their father since they didn't live with him. So I sure wouldn't be expecting the same type behavior as a child actually living with an abusive parent might display.

 

[gitana1]

The supposed parental alienation syndrome isn't even considered an actual disorder.

"And she is skeptical of intensive therapy, noting that parental alienation syndrome is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, considered the bible in the mental health community."

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...oakland-county-family-court-experts/31435087/

That's right. Parental alienation syndrome is a theory created by one psychologist. We are not talking about parental alienation syndrome. We are talking about parental alienation. Two different things. One is a proposed diagnosis, and the other is a descriptor for a set of behaviors that constitute emotional abuse.

I have seen parental alienation firsthand. It's horrible. To pretend it doesn't happen is amazingly naive IMO.

 

[BritsKate]

That is absolutely, 100% NOT what most reasonable judges would do. Not at all. Most reasonable judges would strip custody from the mother and give it to the father and order her to get therapy.

Which is why so many custodial parents, even when there has been a history of domestic violence, are terrified of not following orders to facilitate a relationship between their children and their abuser. I've spoken about this on other threads but I remember all too well my heart being in my throat the whole of my children's visitation with their father - would he hurt them just to hurt me? The only fear that was greater was my losing custody to him altogether.

So, though that experience (and much counseling/volunteering since), I know a bit about emotional abuse too. Abuse is primarily always about control. An abuser will seek to isolate their victim(s) in an attempt to establish and maintain control. Many people erroneously believe emotional abuse is all about verbal attacks but in reality it's a very covert, long-term psychological assault. Emotional abusers use things like guilt, giving their victim the silent treatment, gaslighting, threatening suicide and so, so much more to exert control. It's a pattern of manipulative, dominating, long-lasting behaviors. Sometimes it is so covert that victims themselves don't even recognize it for what it is. Many abusers are resistant to change as change upsets to balance of power.

It isn't difficult at all for me, knowing what I know of this case, to imagine these kids a bit younger with mom in their ear whispering, 'If you really love me, you'll say this....' or 'You're too young to remember what really happened. It went like this...'. From my perspective, her dogged resistance is a bit worrisome and the kids are actually acting the role of living with an abusive parent. An emotionally abusive one.

JMO and FWIW

 

[Margo/Mom]

These children don't have the need to be "loyal" to their father since they didn't live with him. So I sure wouldn't be expecting the same type behavior as a child actually living with an abusive parent might display.

Their behavior with their father is open defiance and challenge of his authority. It is neither the typical pattern--nor does it communicate fear or terror as some claim.

 

[jjenny]

Their behavior with their father is open defiance and challenge of his authority. It is neither the typical pattern--nor does it communicate fear or terror as some claim.

Not everyone is going to be "typical," whatever that means.

 

[MyBelle]

These children don't have the need to be "loyal" to their father since they didn't live with him. So I sure wouldn't be expecting the same type behavior as a child actually living with an abusive parent might display.

BBM. I believe you know your claim is not true.

The fact that the children lived with their father until the mother took them and returned to the U.S. is not a fact in dispute.

JMO

 

[jjenny]

BBM. I believe you know your claim is not true.

The fact that the children lived with their father until the mother took them and returned to the U.S. is not a fact in dispute.

JMO

First of all, children lived with both parents, not just father. Second of all, that happened many years ago.
At the time in court, when children were supposedly exhibiting defiant behavior, they haven't lived with their father in years.

 

[Margo/Mom]

The mother is the one who chose not to follow court orders. Her own actions necessitated additional visits to court so of course the Judge is going to make her pay for it. Not sure why you think the father should pay for her refusal to follow court orders because it has never worked that way and hopefully never will.

All this sympathy toward the abusive mother is baffling considering the very real damage she's inflicted upon 3 children.

JMO

First of all, children lived with both parents, not just father. Second of all, that happened many years ago.
At the time in court, when children were supposedly exhibiting defiant behavior, they haven't lived with their father in years.

So you would agree that the defiant behavior is the result of Mom's influence?

 

[Margo/Mom]

The mother is the one who chose not to follow court orders. Her own actions necessitated additional visits to court so of course the Judge is going to make her pay for it. Not sure why you think the father should pay for her refusal to follow court orders because it has never worked that way and hopefully never will.

All this sympathy toward the abusive mother is baffling considering the very real damage she's inflicted upon 3 children.

JMO

Not everyone is going to be "typical," whatever that means.

It means that the folks who are claiming that the kids are justifiably in fear of their father need to present some more solid evidence.

 

[MyBelle]

First of all, children lived with both parents, not just father. Second of all, that happened many years ago.
At the time in court, when children were supposedly exhibiting defiant behavior, they haven't lived with their father in years.

Doesn't matter how many years ago they lived with their parents together. I merely refuted your false claim the children had never lived with their father.

The defiant behavior they exhibited in court is a result of the emotional abuse inflicted by their mother while in her care and custody.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

These children don't have the need to be "loyal" to their father since they didn't live with him. So I sure wouldn't be expecting the same type behavior as a child actually living with an abusive parent might display.

Kids who are alienated usually don't live with their parents. This explanation does not differentiate between abused kids who live with their abuser or don't. Clearly it is comparing behaviors in the context of abuse versus alienation accusations.

In any event, abused kids are afraid (not openly defiant) of their abusers far into adulthood and long after they are removed from their presence. It appears you may not have experience with either abuse or the abused. You're lucky.

 

[NSS]

The FBI absolutely gets involved in international parental kidnapping cases. That's a big function of the FBI. They don't control the court aspect but they do deal with the investigative, law enforcement process, by investigating here and partnering with entities in foreign countries or on the high seas: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/cac/family-abductions

Snipped for brevity.


If the country abducted to is a Hague Convention signatory, the Hague Convention is the appropriate tool used, the FBI will facilitate this but it is a CIVIL action not a criminal one. Women have been able to use the above quoted page to fight return to the US which criminalizes the taking parent, which prejudices their case before they have been heard in family court. The FBI can liaise with other countries, but they have no power.

Parental abduction, is a civil matter in most countries. The US probably need to decide where they stand on the issue of children and family court, because 'best interest of the child' and 'criminalizing a parent' (who may well be working in the best interest of the child) are at odds.

BTW - I am not saying that is the case here, but I am saying that a lot of Child and Family law (in the US and UK) is great on paper, big on rhetoric, but dismally failing in practice.

 

[NSS]

Kids who are alienated usually don't live with their parents. This explanation does not differentiate between abused kids who live with their abuser or don't. Clearly it is comparing behaviors in the context of abuse versus alienation accusations.

In any event, abused kids are afraid (not openly defiant) of their abusers far into adulthood and long after they are removed from their presence. It appears you may not have experience with either abuse or the abused. You're lucky.

This may be true in most cases, but I have a child with me who is openly defiant because of abuse, complex including physical, emotional, alienation, years of being unheard by 'authorities'. He is receiving help for this, but he is either a wonderfully polite, well mannered, extremely compliant (overly so), or when faced by social workers, his abusers and occasionally myself when I enforce boundaries, he becomes exactly as these children are described, he refuses to drink to the point he becomes constipated.

I don't know whether it is a result of fear of dad, alienation by mum or a fear/dread/lack of trust of the court system (not helped by recent events), whatever the cause someone needs to hear these children, alone and without fear of their information becoming part of a court case or newspaper article. They have NO-ONE to trust, no safe place to turn to vent. ALL of the adults involved need to take a long hard look at themselves here or they are doomed to repeat this dysfunctional cycle as they become adults themselves.

The court should probably start with some thera play, without parental involvement, start weaning mum away from her unhealthy attachment (obsessively possessive IMO) to the children, allow dad to just be in the same room if need be, the kids will tire of not talking. Have a therapist talk to dad and provide him with some open ended small talk for use with the children. Start allowing the siblings to become individuals by promoting separate activities, they are unhealthily 'one unit'.

Oh dear, have monopolized this discussion enough for one night. Gitana, I love your insight, you are one smart cookie. I admire your passion, we have simply been on different sides of the law, I have experienced abuse and fled a country. The courts ruled in my childs favor, but the reality is very different from the 'legal claims and rules'. I then became the voice for 2 littles who were abused and failed repeatedly by the 'system'. They are also now safe here with me. The Family Court worked for me in both cases, in both countries, but I am also aware (as an advocate) that it is often a case of the best read lawyer and not best interest of the child.

 

[jjenny]

Doesn't matter how many years ago they lived with their parents together. I merely refuted your false claim the children had never lived with their father.

The defiant behavior they exhibited in court is a result of the emotional abuse inflicted by their mother while in her care and custody.

JMO

Considering I haven't said that children never lived with their father, you are the one making false claims.

 

[jjenny]

Kids who are alienated usually don't live with their parents. This explanation does not differentiate between abused kids who live with their abuser or don't. Clearly it is comparing behaviors in the context of abuse versus alienation accusations.

In any event, abused kids are afraid (not openly defiant) of their abusers far into adulthood and long after they are removed from their presence. It appears you may not have experience with either abuse or the abused. You're lucky.

One thing I would never do is assume everybody behaves in exact same way.

 

[KaaBoom]

Not so. The oldest child is 15 and U.S. laws do not allow him to drink, drive or to move out of his home.

JMO

15 is old enough to drive in most states, and many children move out of their parents house, legally for all kinds of reasons. Many "children" move away to go to college, before they turn 18. So yes, children can drive, and can live legally out side their parents house. So the statement was 2/3 wrong.

 

[LinasK]

15 is old enough to drive in most states, and many children move out of their parents house, legally for all kinds of reasons. Many "children" move away to go to college, before they turn 18. So yes, children can drive, and can live legally out side their parents house. So the statement was 2/3 wrong.

You're not getting a Driver's License at 15 without parental permission, and you can't legally become an emancipated minor without going before a judge. Big deal if some kids start college at 17- I did, and my parents (both of them) were the ones who moved me.
Not sure what you think you're proving.