Hugz
Lee
23rd February 2009
Lee Griffin-Scott
************ ********
Jimboomba 4280
QLD.
Dear Sir.,
This letter is the culmination of a number of years of personal experience and self-education and is both a story and a lesson for all mothers who have been or are in the midst of divorce proceedings. I have experienced the pain of family disintegration, single- parenthood, child support difficulties and yes, the joy of rebuilding and remarriage too. There is a very disturbing phenomenon emerging from a dark source in angered ex-spouses that is becoming widely recognized in legal and medical circles because of its devastating impact.
As a woman, mother, stepmother, wife and divorcee, I have heard and shared experiences of my female and male friends. One trend has disturbed me immensely -- men whose precious relationships with sons and daughters of all ages have been almost or in some cases completely lost. I speak of successful men in their early 40s who have warm hearts, soft voices and deep thoughtful eyes who love their kids profoundly and regularly pay support, but who have not sufficient energy or desire for psychological warfare with ex-spouses seeking revenge. I suspect that there are many (both women and men) who are already beginning to see their own reflections here.
There are two important truths about this issue that most of us would prefer neither to recognize nor discuss: 1) Children make very effective weapons, and 2) sadly, motherhood can have a dark side. Women have the power (and certainly not all of us use it) to punish ex-husbands for perceived unforgivable transgressions.
There are the tried-and-true tactics -- convenient reasons why visits can't take place, ensuring his new partner will never be accepted, psychological punishment for the child who speaks well of a step- parent, locking kids into loyalty issues they struggle with but accept painfully, making Dad feel like the "wallet" and nothing more.
Women do these things with confidence because courts cannot enforce the "soft" clauses of divorce agreements such as "you will consult on matters of education and health." Controlling the behaviours, thoughts or desires of a child is tough to prove and the system has put all its effort into the really important stuff -- collecting support cash.
It gets worse. The psychiatric community has thoroughly researched and documented what has become known as the "parental alienation syndrome." (One reference book is The Parental Alienation Syndrome by Richard A. Gardner, MD.) It is a disorder that is probably most easily recognized in bogus sexual abuse charges against ex-spouses where a parent (most often the mother) convinces a child and the courts that "Daddy touched you, didn't he?"
For some women, it's handy in other ways and is used on kids from tots to teenagers in varying degrees. Here are a few examples of typical parent-alienating statements: "The way your Dad got angry at you over the car, you know that really is abusive" or "You wouldn't believe some of the things your father did/said when we were married É " or "I just don't know how we're going to pay these bills, and look at your father in that nice house," or "I guess your Dad has taken her side against you -- I would never do that to you."
I could go on, but you probably get the point. The strategy is to create a negative image of the other parent consistently and continuously so as eventually to ensure that the child himself will choose to have nothing to do with the target parent.
Women's groups should be proud of the work done to empower their constituents. And parental alienation is perpetrated by fathers as well. However, it is primarily women who seem to engage in this activity as their only means of wreaking vengeance. Although a subterranean type of warfare, it has its victims, and the most critically wounded are the very children one claims to be protecting.
Much of this is understandably difficult to accept since we want so much to live in a world where motherhood is honoured.
The father gives something very special to his children that has nothing to do with the relationship (good or bad) between him and his ex-spouse. We have every right to fear for our communal health and well-being when fathers are prevented from loving and children from being loved.
For some men, the alienation strategy is successful and they silently admit defeat, fleeing emotionally or physically -- some likely become what we refer to as "deadbeat dads," others resigning themselves to whatever sort of relationship is possible from a comfortable distance out of firing range. You can imagine the silent suffering of shattered children who stand dutifully behind their grinning victorious mothers. We have all lost something.
When society vocalizes the need for fathers to take more responsibility, we must wonder how many silent female voices will never admit publicly that they simply won't let them.
There will be a reaction from those with opposing views and examples to support "dead-beat dadism" and "single mum heroism." The real issue, however, is prevention -- what can we do?
Well, aside from raising daughters who have sufficient self-worth to renounce such tactics, if you have a friend, a sister, a daughter-in- law, a cousin who you believe to be in the process of alienating the children from Dad in whatever measure, say something in a kind, gentle and supportive way about the importance of a father in a child's life. You will surely have made a small contribution to the greater good and maybe a big difference in a child's life.
Lee Griffin-Scott
Let's hope they Google your name Leeahn to find out what you're really saying about the children and that someone steps in to save them. See Earlier Post about Leeahn Griffin-Scott
Also goes by various aliases on the net including Griffoscott, cawzforconcern, csavictim1994.
2 comments:
This poster beat me to the comment. I am at the point by now that if a person makes a declaration and cites a book to support the opinion, that person is going to get googled and pipl'd.)
re: "Motherhood has a dark side." So far that dark side is not wiping out entire families when distressed over a breakup, at least per the headlines, which I happen to pay attention to. I have an interest in not becoming one of those families, or my children or people that I love or work with.
Or beheading one's ex (see Buffalo, NY) to make the point more dramatic and as a warning to someone else who attempts to become an 'ex.'
Or, when taking hostages in, say, a classroom, targeting the males first, after sexually assaulting them.
That ideas and practices are "common" has nothing to do with whether they are sound practice, truth-based, or helpful, as witnessed by suggesting that women who have just filed a domestic violence restraining order must then immediately "negotiate" through mediation, or other fuzzy court orders granted (inappropriately so where there has been violence) with a man they sought protection from.
The commonalities between needing to dominate women through physical force, or sexual assault, or their children are self-evident. Where are we (except when armed) most vulnerable, otherwise?
On that matter, I recommend reading a recent post from Lewrockwell.com called "Individualism and Self Defense":
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy52.html This discusses Jessica Gonzales and more.
The fact that a philosophy from a self-published man promoting (as I understand it) pedophilia, at least prior to committing suicide in a gruesome manner still has popularity in family court circles, internationally, is a great testimony to the power of the Internet, associations with private meetings and memberships that hold public office (AFCC) and perhaps -- JUST perhaps -- what this venue ("Family Court" and "Family Law" as professional career) is about to start with. All good (and bad) ideas have a history.
My case: I had a violent, battering marriage and barely got out with all of us alive, no thanks to any church, pastor, family, employer, or health care professional I told about the battering behavior. Thank you, one law center in a major urban area. No thank you to their suggestion that I go for "joint custody" and no thank you for whoever promoted the concept of mandatory mediation when DV is a factor. NAFCJ does not encourage, it just does not make sense!
After like a good girl separating legally and with due process, we were forwarded to a mediator who promptly undid all the protection factors of the existing (all of about 2 weeks old) permanent restraining order with kickout. In other words, a judge endorsed kicking someone out, and a mediator promptly gave the same person 7 day a week unrestricted access to the property. No child support was ordered.
No batterer's programs were granted (though requested and the physical violence spanned many years and at the end, the house was filled with weapons any one of which could've killed us (plural). The reason they did not is that I forced a separation. ....
Daddy was granted weekly visitations, including overnights. That's how "unfriendly" this Mama was to her abuser. I find that a lot of mothers can keep their issues straight.
On one such unsupervised overnight exchange, many years later, Daddy (reluctant to make child support payments, and unable to understand that the word "joint legal custody" was different than the status quo during his controlling, abusive relationship, falsely imprisoned our kids, holding them truant, and having moved to a residence I didn't know about at a time I was pushing (legally of course) to force him to reveal where he was living, which the court had granted me a specific right to know. Sure, maybe there are some women who out of spite do what this man did, but as a woman I find that most of us actually have other creative and productive things to do with our lives. Moreover, after marriage disintegrates, it's not commonly the woman who is financially devastated. She has business to attend to (working, or seeking assistance, or child support if that is the case).
This is an off-the-cuff (straight-shooting) post, after which I will of course probably check the data posted here. My website is familycourtmatters.wordpress.com. Come take a look. I'm a novice at posting / blogging, but we all have to start somewhere...
Part to the long post I just made:
After said overnight sudden alteration in the status of custody (illegally), I myself was unable to see my children more than once a year, for approximately 1-2 days each, separately. One child I didn't lay eyes on for virtually 2 years. This was regardless of what any court order said.
So, yes, although I concede (and know personally) that women have a dark side -- particularly in groups -- possibly (JUST) possibly is that some of us are connecting and communicating about the dark sides of the males we have lived with over time, and decided to do something about it (see VAWA). We are humans, every one of us.
By the way, neither a woman nor a child is property, whether for personal use (including sexual), bargaining power (reducing child support obligations), or investment (various forms of pimping, literal or figurative). Sorry if there was some lack of clarity on this issue. . . . .
That a child comes from a womb he or she was in for nine months, +/- some weeks, and in many cases is then bonded with mother by nursing (again, where possible. In Obamaland, this may not be possible for many more seasons< fear -- what with $15B, I hear, dedicated to "preparing kids for school" (which will then teach them how to join a gang, call each other names, rate each other in various forms, and possibly read without needing remedial English by freshman year in college), it's not likely a whole lot of nursing is going to go on. If so, that Mom is likely to be very stressed, which will affect her milk. Be that as it may, there is a certain attachment at least BEFORE birth that is inherent in the process of "Mom" which I think should be acknowledged here.
Post a Comment