The So-Called Parental Alienation Christian View: Don't Go Trying to Get All Religious on Us Now

Ask yourself: Can you tell the difference between a nice wholesome Christian family and one who is not? And if so, what is/are the difference(s)? Don't fool yourself for the sake of trying to be holier than thou. We see Christian families on the news everyday for a variety of incidents that aren't so wholesome. But, someone will say they aren't Christian enough, they have backslid, they aren't really Christian, etc.

In Monika Logan's attempted appeal to the Christianity in you, she begins with this excerpt by Judith Wallerstein, a "scholar" whose works has been repeatedly misrepresented:
I discovered a well- known scholar’s excerpt, by Judith Wallerstein that reads, “We’ve seriously underestimated the long-term impact of divorce on children [and]…the numerous ways a child’s experience differ when growing up in a divorced family.”I am blessed as I do not know what it is like to be a child of divorce. I was raised in an intact home.
First off, the long-term impact isn't necessarily the divorce. This has been stated countless times in research. It is the conditions that existed prior to the actual divorce and then extend thereafter. Divorces don't happen in a vacuum. Children are often witnesses and participants of dysfunctional behaviors that pre-existed in the "intact" family. And what is an "intact" family anyway? Merely one that hasn't divorced? Divorce is only a legal procedure in which the government is involved. Intact doesn't mean better, or non-dysfunctional. As outsiders, we can only know what families choose to reveal to us. Everyone has a public and private face, even Christians.
Lastly, I am keenly aware that Churches frowns upon divorce and that Parental Alienation (PA) is misunderstand .I was taught that God hates divorce (see Malachi 2:16 NIV), but also was taught that God forgives. He is a God of grace and one that allows for second chances.
Churches frown upon divorce because of the inherently patriarchal and sexist attitudes that exist within its membership--amazingly, the same attitudes we see outside of the church. That God hates divorces but forgives is evidence of the contradictory nature of the Bible. People use whatever part of the Bible they see fit to support their opinion.
The idea of divorce does not occur to newly marrying couples.
It doesn't?
Divorce was also not Gods original intention. God allowed a clause about divorce to be included in the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1). God wanted to prevent men from dumping their wives for frivolous reasons. Subsequently, I started to wonder about children who dump their parents for frivolous reasons
Did God say anything of "allowing" women to "dump" their husbands? And what exactly would be regarded as frivolous reasons? Great segue to her opinion.
In some divorces, especially vitriolic divorces, one parent attempts to turn the child against the other parent. The parent desires to wreak havoc on the other parent’s relationship with the child; a few methods include cruel words and the allure of material gifts. Messages made by parents that are perpetual and poisonous produce troubled kids. Eventually, the relentless actions and words of embittered parents pay off. These kids’ discard relationships of once-loved parents and treat their parents as their worst foe.
Are these vitriolic divorces the same as the "high-conflict" ones? If so, we cannot make any assumptions about why this level of vitriol exists in a family. Again, remember, that families choose to reveal what they want to reveal. We cannot know what the child's original feelings were about his or her parent(s) unless we were a part of that child's inner world. Troubled kids are produced by a lot more than poisonous messages--troubled kids need an environment in which there are few resources/little support. Troubled kids are not treated like people but rather objects. Troubled kids' emotions and space are not validated or respected. The truth is, we cannot know the depth of feeling any child once had for his/her parents, based off our own observation, or the word of the other parent.
Sadly, many Christian parents whose kids reject them feel alone in their shame. Many believers fall prey to the idea that good parents always have good kids. They frequently support this standard by one preferred scripture, “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it” (Proverbs 22:6, NIV). Other scriptural lessons are discarded, such as Job or Aaron’s sons as seen in Leviticus 10.
Many kids reject their parents, even non-Christian ones. This is on account of a range of behaviors of that parent. Is it so hard to understand that just because someone is the parent, blood-relative, etc, that there is no guarantee that the temperaments will match...that they will have similar interests as their children? Love is not guaranteed to be reciprocated, nor can you dictate how someone else loves you. Children are people. How should we treat children? Well, Monika cites Proverbs 22:6, but a few verses later in, 22:15, it says this: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." She also mentions that Christians disregard Leviticus 10, where you can also find this part: “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.” (20:9) Hmmm.
Divided homes breeds deception, deceit, and disparagement. Common Christian advice is that parent’s post-divorce should keep the same chores, discipline, and rules. This guidance is helpful, but is not applicable to cases of PA. Dr. Warshak points out… “your children are being manipulated to serve as vehicles to express their other parents hostility…” (p.38). Parent’s in these cases do not care about the rejected parent’s wishes or their children’s best interests. It is a form of emotional abuse.
Non-divided homes breed the same things. How do you deal with it in those cases? The emphasis shouldn't be placed on thehome though, it is the people involved in the situation. Kids thrive with consistency and thus the same schedules should continue as possible. But we don't really hear that these days. All we hear is joint-custody--a situation that breeds no kind of continuity other than being a timeshare product. Separated parents can share parenting, where parenting was once shared before. Separated parents should not split 50-50 custody, where there was no 50-50 split in the child's time previously.

Children are being manipulated by parents who come to the sudden realization that, without the other parent's assistance, he/she has no real connection to his/her child. That parent did not build, maintain, and continue to foster a relationship with his/her own child. So now, in absence of any support, that parent refuses to understand the current dynamics are based on the past. And so that parent's escape, is to blame "alienation" on the parent to whom the child is closer. The parental alienation tactic allows an otherwise physically, emotionally, or spiritually absent parent to experience the absolution that is provided in Christianity.

In the cases where that parent was the abuser in the family, often times we cannot know because it was that same nice, wholesome, upstanding Christian neighbor. Abusers do seek to undermine the child's relationship with the parent to whom he/she is closer. This phenomena is not parental alienation. Parental alienation theorists are trying to mix all the definitions up in order to obscure an agenda--that the parental alienation tactic is historically based on a cover for child sexual abuse. Even in the original definition of parental alienation, if domestic abuse was present, parental alienation could not be considered as a "diagnosis." The definition continues to expand.
Alienated children often resemble children that are diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Warshak, 2010, p. 27). These kids are angry, resentful, spiteful and vindictive . The only difference is that their unwarranted behavior is towards one parent, not both. I do not think Parental Alienation is the thorn in our flesh (see 2 Corinthians 12:17). Target parents are often humble enough. Parents and children need support, prayer, and love. Prayer is also needed for ex-spouses’ as many are un-happy and lonely after an un-wanted divorce. We should reserve judgment for God.
In an interesting conclusion, Monika tries to merge psychology with one more Christian rambling. Kids in any type of dysfunction are angry and resentful. As they fail to see any resolution to their problems, these kids can become spiteful and vindictive. These traits are not limited to the kids. And without careful inquiry we are not in a position to know whether that behavior is warranted, or not. We are also not in a position as outsiders to force our beliefs upon these children, especially in cases where domestic abuse may be the underlying cause. We are only looking at the signs and symptoms as they are revealed to us. What we can offer is support and belief in the children's words as they choose to present it to us. They need one positive adult with whom they can bond, and that adult should be his/her preferred parent.

As for the ex-spouse, some are un-happy, some are happier. Some are lonely, some re-partner quickly, some have no intention of partnering, some are dedicated to their child[ren], some have completely other interests. We don't need to assume. But by placing psychology into the dynamic of families, we are serving as judges. What would God think about that? Hopefully the Christian God is different from the God that Catholic priests and children are referring to. Then again, if He believes in parental alienation, maybe not.


Canadian Therapists and Lawyers Want to Limit Your Right to File Charges Against Assessors in Child Custody Cases

As if it weren't hard enough to get some sense of justice in the court system, particularly family court. Now the court whores and their supporters want to further limit what you can do in your court case. And, they are re-framing the issue as a "major social and legal problem"...because if they say it, then it is so. Here is what the group proposes as possible solutions:
-Require that a judge approve any disciplinary complaint, ensuring that it is more than merely an attack on the assessor's conclusions.
(yeah, because the judge doesn't come with his/her own set of biases. good one!)
-Require that the complaint be approved by both parents, again making it less likely the grievance will be just another appeal by the losing party.
(yeah, because the "high conflict" cases in which court whores are typically utilized, the parents are good at sharing in the decision-making. great one!)
-Set up a vetting process within regulatory bodies that would throw out vexatious complaints before they are formally investigated.
(yeah, because another body of persons [who will be likely friends of these court whores] will better be able to determine what is vexatious, or not. best one!!)

If Canadians let this one fly, they can kiss their rights good-bye! See article here.

Understand Parental Alienation. Read Between the Lines. There Are HUGE Spaces...

Let me borrow from a post I just did on this matter:

A father was convicted of child pornography offenses a couple of years ago.

His wife left him.

Subsequently, the father has been trying to get access to his children.

The court previously found that he had behaved inappropriately in bed with one of the children.

But JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN ordered that the two children, who are girls aged 8 and 10, spend weekends with their father.

Eldest daughter is afraid.

To facilitate the father's rights, JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN orders that:

1. the girls sleep in the same bedroom (to "support" each other), and
2. the father place a lock on the bedroom door for the girls
3. the father have an adult friend stay overnight when the girls are present

Additionally, some UNNAMED Family Court counselor has stated that the girls don't pose a risk to the father, at their current ages, when they are awake, clothed, and together.
Wait a minute!"Awake, clothed and together"? Isn't that the spiel they give us women-folk for rape-prevention measures? Never mind that this notion of security is false in stranger rapes and so should be presumed to be false for non-stranger rape as well.

Guess who supports JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN's order?
John Abbott from the fathers' rights group Blackshirts says the court has taken all precautions to protect the children.

"What we have here is a situation where there's no real allegation that the court has found against the father molesting his own children," he said.

"And we have to keep in mind that alienating children from parents is a very serious matter."
Alienation. Parental alienation. We keep telling you. We keep trying to show you what this is about. Parental alienation is a claim made by fathers, to benefit fathers, that masks child sexual abuse--just as false memory syndrome has done to adult survivors.

This case doesn't have a gawddamn thing to do with alienation. The father is convicted of child pornography. The daughter doesn't want to visit overnight. The court is overruling the child's desires and best interest in the name of the father.

In the words of Dr. Richard Gardner, father of parental alienation syndrome:

“There is no question that abuse cases are ‘turn ons’ for the wide variety of individuals involved in them, the accuser(s), the prosecutors, the lawyers, the judges, the evaluators, the psychologists, the reporters, the readers of the newspapers, and everyone else involved— except for the falsely accused and the innocent victim . . . Everyone is getting their ‘jollies,’ except the two central figures, who are not only getting little if any sexual pleasure out of the whole thing but whose lives are being destroyed in the process.”

“Judges are not free from the psychopathological mechanisms. . . They too may have repressed pedophilic impulses over which there is suppression, repression, and guilt. Inquiry into the details of the case provides voyeuristic and vicarious gratifications. . . Incarcerating the alleged perpetrator may serve psychologically to obliterate the judge’s own projected pedophilic impulses.”

Special care should be taken not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home "should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile."
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 537)

The child should be told that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. "The sexual exploitation has to be put on the negative list, but positives as well must be appreciated"
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572)

Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare's Hamlet, who said, "Nothing's either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 59)

"In such discussions the child has to be helped to appreciate that we have in our society an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters"
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572).

"He must learn to control himself if he is to protect himself from the Draconian punishments meted out to those in our society who act out their pedophilic impulses."
Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill , NJ: Creative Therapeutics. (pp. 585-592)
And there is another case (like I said before, one of many): Yet ANOTHER family court outrage: 6-year-old girl ordered to live with dad despite child porn fears (Sydney, Australia)

God bless the children.

See Also:
Fathers rights people praise decision to grant unsupervised visitation to convicted sex offender dad (Hobart, Tasmania, Australia)

Children Have A Right to A Relationship with Their Father. I'd Like to Thank Judge Robert Benjamin on Behalf of the U.N.


Does watching child porn match you a bad father? Maybe, maybe not. But who'd like to bet their own children on it? Any volunteers?

No, seriously.

A father was convicted of child pornography offenses a couple of years ago.

His wife left him.

Subsequently, the father has been trying to get access to his children.

The court previously found that he had behaved inappropriately in bed with one of the children.

But JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN ordered that the two children, who are girls aged 8 and 10, spend weekends with their father.

Eldest daughter is afraid.

To facilitate the father's rights, JUDGE ROBERT BENJAMIN orders that:

1. the girls sleep in the same bedroom (to "support" each other), and
2. the father place a lock on the bedroom door for the girls
3. the father have an adult friend stay overnight when the girls are present

Additionally, some UNNAMED Family Court counselor has stated that the girls don't pose a risk to the father, at their current ages, when they are awake, clothed, and together.

How considerate.

Think I'm kidding? See article here.

A summary of the rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Article 3 (Best interests of the child): The best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them. All adults should do what is best for children. When adults make decisions, they should think about how their decisions will affect children. This particularly applies to budget, policy and law makers.

Article 4 (Protection of rights): Governments have a responsibility to take all available measures to make sure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled. When countries ratify the Convention, they agree to review their laws relating to children. This involves assessing their social services, legal, health and educational systems, as well as levels of funding for these services. Governments are then obliged to take all necessary steps to ensure that the minimum standards set by the Convention in these areas are being met. They must help families protect children’s rights and create an environment where they can grow and reach their potential. In some instances, this may involve changing existing laws or creating new ones. Such legislative changes are not imposed, but come about through the same process by which any law is created or reformed within a country. Article 41 of the Convention points out the when a country already has higher legal standards than those seen in the Convention, the higher standards always prevail.

Article 5 (Parental guidance): Governments should respect the rights and responsibilities of families to direct and guide their children so that, as they grow, they learn to use their rights properly. Helping children to understand their rights does not mean pushing them to make choices with consequences that they are too young to handle. Article 5 encourages parents to deal with rights issues "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". The Convention does not take responsibility for children away from their parents and give more authority to governments. It does place on governments the responsibility to protect and assist families in fulfilling their essential role as nurturers of children.

Article 6 (Survival and development): Children have the right to live. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.

Article 9 (Separation from parents): Children have the right to live with their parent(s), unless it is bad for them. Children whose parents do not live together have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this might hurt the child.

Article 12 (Respect for the views of the child): When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account. This does not mean that children can now tell their parents what to do. This Convention encourages adults to listen to the opinions of children and involve them in decision-making -- not give children authority over adults. Article 12 does not interfere with parents' right and responsibility to express their views on matters affecting their children. Moreover, the Convention recognizes that the level of a child’s participation in decisions must be appropriate to the child's level of maturity. Children's ability to form and express their opinions develops with age and most adults will naturally give the views of teenagers greater weight than those of a preschooler, whether in family, legal or administrative decisions.

Article 19 (Protection from all forms of violence): Children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents, or anyone else who looks after them. In terms of discipline, the Convention does not specify what forms of punishment parents should use. However any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable. There are ways to discipline children that are effective in helping children learn about family and social expectations for their behaviour – ones that are non-violent, are appropriate to the child's level of development and take the best interests of the child into consideration. In most countries, laws already define what sorts of punishments are considered excessive or abusive. It is up to each government to review these laws in light of the Convention.

Article 34 (Sexual exploitation): Governments should protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. This provision in the Convention is augmented by the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

Article 36 (Other forms of exploitation): Children should be protected from any activity that takes advantage of them or could harm their welfare and development.

Contact us

Our mission is to enable journalists and media producers to tell the stories of the world's children, while creating greater public awareness, emotional involvement and social participation. Through our video products and partnerships we advocate for the protection of children's rights, mobilise political will and material resources, respond in emergencies and promote the equal rights of women and girls.

We encourage you to browse our website. Become informed on new issues, inspired by what you learn and then take whatever steps you can to make a difference in building a better world for children. Please contact us if you have any further questions. Email Tanya Turkovich: [email protected]

This case is one of many, internationally, involving fathers' rights to their children. We can't all be lying.
In the words of Judge Robert Lemkau (California):

And you have an ex parte request calendared for tomorrow which I am advancing today. One of you is lying, and I am very concerned...

...I am inclined to deny you ex parte request. I feel that, if you're lying, there's going to be adverse consequences...

...I'm denying your request, ma'am. I think— there's insufficient evidence in my mind...

...Well, ma'am, there's a real dispute about whether that's even true or not...

...I'm going to deny it, ma'am. My suspicion is that you're lying, but I'm going to keep the custody orders in full force and effect...

...I reviewed it and that's why I'm -- my supposition, ma'am, is that you're lying, but if I'm incorrect, you can always bring another ex parte motion but don't misrepresent the situation. If you're lying about this, there's going to be adverse consequences. My supposition is that you are lying...


Glenn Sacks Really Thinks He is Hot Shit Right Now In "Refuting" the Killer Father Statistics

In Glenn Sacks' latest drivel, he tries to slam a recent article about fathers being the main severe abusers and killers of children. As usual, Sacks seemingly carefully dissects the article by pulling apart the statistics and citing other reports. Upon first glance, it would appear that he indeed is presenting a more balanced viewpoint amongst skewed data. And Sacks' simple-minded followers won't give it a second thought. They never do. They will chime with their leader.

But check this out--you see, this same crowd will argue that women "win" custody battles at least 85% of the time (even if there was no battle for custody, even if the father wasn't present, even if the father agreed to the arrangement), leaving a mere 15% of fathers with custody of their children. And so fathers, in general, have much less contact with their children--in intact and "broken" households.

Keeping this in mind, let me let Liz take this home:

(emphasis mine)


Male versus Female: who is more likely to perpetrate child abuse
(When doing the math, adjust the figures as your actual study shows them.)

Do you believe that women are "more likely" than men to abuse children? That's incorrect. According to the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect there are more incidents of abuse of children (including both physical abuse and neglect) perpetrated by women than by men. But that does not tell you the "likelihood" that you are looking for, which is the percent of women caregivers who commit child abuse versus the percent of men caregivers who commit child abuse. More women than men care for children, and more children are cared for by women than are cared for by men. So if the "statistic" you are looking for is not raw numbers of incidents (which merely would be the "likelihood" that any given incident of abuse has been perpetrated by a man or a woman), and if you came to this page because what you really want to know is whether women or men are more likely to be dangerous when they are caring for children, whether it is women or men who are "more likely" to abuse children, then you need to do some math. The raw numbers of incidents by themselves don't tell you this. So let's do the math:

Assume that at any given time, 90% of all children who are in the care of one caregiver are in the actual (not "constructive") physical care of a woman (parent, grandparent, teacher, babysitter, day care provider, nurse, etc.), and that 10% are in the care of a man. (This is a conservative estimate.)

Assume that when a couple together are caring for children (e.g. married parents, grandparents, or a parent and stepparent), if the man perpetrates abuse it's extremely unlikely that the woman also will not be charged with either accomplice physical abuse or failure to protect (neglect), so these statistics are a "wash" and we are not considering them. (In reality, it's next to never that men are charged for abuse perpetrated by a woman when there is a couple caring for a child, Rusty Yates case in point, but this anomaly favors men and artificially increases the relative portion of total abuse reported as being perpetrated by women, so we will err in that direction. We also are ignoring "gang" abuse and other kinds of individual incidents of reported abuse involving two or more non-coupled adults against children, which are, at any rate, relatively rare.)

Note that each counted incident of reported abuse is per occurrence per child, and not per perpetrator. (So that, e.g. one woman caring for 4 kids who didn't send them to school or didn't take them to the dentist when she should have in the opinion of some DCF worker is responsible for four reported counts of neglect-type abuse "perpetrated by a woman," whereas one man's rape of one child would be one count of abuse in the reported statistics.)

Assume that per caregiver, when they do care for children, women on average care for 2 children while men care for 1 child. (Women are much more likely than men are to care for groups of children rather than one child, and even when men do care for more than one child at a time, women are much more likely to care for large groups, both in a parental capacity in families in which there are more children as well as third party caregiving.)

Assume that for every 80 women who routinely directly care for children alone and spend significant time with them, there are 20 men who directly care for children alone and spend significant time with them. Thus, in the population of all persons who routinely care for children on their own, of every 100 persons, 80 are women and 20 are men, or put another way, there are 4 women caregivers for each 1 man caregiver. (Do not confuse this statistical base with the 90% children figure, above, which reflects individual women caring for more than one child at a time. If you are surprised at this 80-20 figure, and assumed it should be closer to 50-50, thinking of "parents," remember that children in the active care of a couple together are being statistically eliminated as a wash -- a simplification that in these calculations will err in favor of men -- and also don't forget the vast numbers of unwed and divorced mothers who care for children without male assistance, the stepmothers who care for children while fathers are away or at work, and the sex of third party caregivers.)

Assume (without regard to kind of abuse, and without correcting for qualitative differences by removing or differentiating add-on and minor neglect charges from affirmative acts of physical abuse), that counting reported incidents of abuse shows that 70% of all incidents of abuse were committed by women and 30% were committed by men. (This is grossly skewed to err in favor of men, see below.)

Set up a ratio to compare men- versus women-perpetrated abuse. Thus:

Based on the foregoing, women abusers occur at a comparative rate of 70/80 in the population where the numerator is percent of incidents of abuse, and the denominator is total woman population caring for children; and men abusers occur at a comparative rate of 30/20 in the population where the numerator is percent of incidents of abuse, and the denominator is total man population caring for children, or, in order to more easily compare this ratio with the woman abuser ratio, making the denominators equal, 120/80.

The total abuse would be 120 + 70, or 190. Therefore, in any given population of child caregivers, adjusted to reflect greater likelihood of women being the caregiver, men represent 120/190 of total incidents of abuse perpetrated and women represent 70/190 of that total. The comparative likelihood that a man is the abuser then is represented as .63, and that a woman is the abuser as .36.

In other words, using these conservative figures, and without yet correcting for the fact that for each woman caregiver there are more children and without recognizing different kinds of abuse, in the population of all caregivers, men are nearly twice as likely to abuse children as are women.

Now adjust for actual numbers of perpetrators.

The incidents of abuse in women's 70/80 above ratio actually represent only 35 individual women caregivers (because each woman is caring for an average 2 children.) The incidents of abuse in men's 30/20 ratio above represent 30 man caregivers (because, above, they have an average of 1 child to care for compared with 2 children cared for by a women.) Because we are looking to compare perpetrator information gleaned from statistics using incident reports for each child, a different statistical population base, we need to adjust for this.

Based on the foregoing, then, individual women perpetrators actually will be represented by a ratio of 35/80 and men perpetrators will occur with a comparable frequency of 30/20, or, adjusting the denominators so that we can better compare the ratios for women and men, we have a ratio of 120/80 for men compared with 35/80 for women. Individual men then represent 120/155 of total individual abusers, and women are 35/155 of total individual abusers.

Thus, the adjusted likelihood that a man is an abuser is .77, and that a woman is an abuser is .23. In other words, the "twice as likely" calculation was premature; individual men caregivers are 2.34 times more likely (or 3.34 times as likely) as a woman is to be an abuser.

Compare the above two calculations with the National Clearinghouse statistics that "[a]mong children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers."

Now adjust again to take into account time and opportunity.

While we cannot say that if an abuser cares for a child for more time, it's more likely that abuse will be perpetrated by that abuser, it does seem reasonable to suppose that it has some effect. The assumed fact, above, is that any given time 90% of children who are in the care of one caregiver are in the care of a woman, or stated another way, women are performing 90% of child care once children in the care of couples are eliminated from consideration (the statistical wash.) If there is a direct correlation, and if men perpetrate 30% of child abuse, then men perpetrate abuse 30/10 of the time, and women perpetrate abuse 70/90. Adjusting the denominators, per time men are caring for children, we get a whopping 270/90 for men. That makes men 3.86 times as likely as women to perpetrate abuse given the same amount of time in caregiving. If we now correct this figure to adjust for actual numbers of individual caregivers this represents, remembering that there are, mathematically, 4 women caregivers (above) for every 1 man caregiver, we also properly should adjust the time/opportunity ratios to account for that.

So per individual, men abusers are represented by a risk ratio of 1080/90 compared with women who are 70/90.

So what we have calculated thus far is that, IF, according to incident reports, 70% of all child abuse is committed by women, then adjusting for the different statistical populations and applying our stated assumptions, men are 12 times as likely as women to perpetrate abuse against children, or put another way, they are 1100% more dangerous to children than are women.

However, this calculation still errs on the side of being too conservative. We haven't corrected for kind of abuse, or seriousness of outcomes.

In addition, the raw figures actually don't show that 70% of all incidents of child abuse are perpetrated by women -- even when including reported "abuse" such as accomplice abuse, failure to protect, and minor neglect such as leaving a child unattended where no harm has occurred. They don't show that.

The statistics you will see from, e.g. the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect show that child abuse perpetrated by women represents (depending on report) between 50-70% of total abuse, usually closer to 50%. And if we remove from those reports, those minor neglect charges without notable outcomes and charges such as "failure to protect" that women -- and notably battered women -- but very few men tend to be charged with, we probably come down to something closer to 50-50, if it is even that much, if indeed women are the perpetrators of even 50% of total numbers of real abuse and neglect. Which means that in reality, men are not "12 times as likely as women to perpetrate child abuse" but some multiplier significantly greater even than that. In other words:

Children are at astronomically greater risk of physical abuse in the care of a man than in the care of a woman.

Yeah, yeah. I know. Liz is a member of the the feminazi clan that is trying to achieve world domination through the emasculation of men and pollution of the family court system.

So, we'll try this one is from Silverside:
The Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (also known as NIS-3), put out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is getting up there in years. Although it's offficially a teenager as of this month--it was first published in September 1996--NIS-4 has yet to appear as it is (apparently) still a work in progress.

According to NIS-3's less-than-modest Forward, "The NIS is the single most comprehensive source of information about the currrent incidence of child abuse and neglect in the United States. The NIS-3 findings are based on a nationally representative sample of over 5,600 professionals in 842 agencies serving 42 counties."

While there may be more be more recent research on child abuse and neglect, it's necessarily more limited in geography and scope compared to NIS-3. So NIS-3 is still a major player by sheer heft alone.

I often see NIS-3 quoted by various mother advocates and fathers rights people, though usually the data is only pulled from NIS-3's rather confusing and rambling executive summary which is readily available at the HHS website. More than once I've been tangled up in the convoluted syntax, and I see other people get lost in it too. The entire study, we are grimly told, is not available on-line and must be ordered through the mail.

Well, gentle readers, I must make a confession. As I am a secret wonk at heart, I ordered the damn thing and got it jammed (and I mean jammed) in my mailbox yesterday.

So what does it say? Oh, NIS-3 is just packed with grisly data on mean mommies and dastardly dads. Everybody has picked over the raw numerical data on child abuse perpetrators and their gender and relationship to the child and what it all presumably means when moms are the majority of caretakers (or assumed caretakers) in both married couple and single-parent households.

Frankly, it's not terribly clear what it all means, and that's why everybody quotes it (or distorts it) for their own purposes.

Interestingly enough, when you turn to the section on family characteristics, the NIS-3 starts to make sense, though most of that data is not in the executive summary. That's because they take all the raw numerical data and crunch it in a way that's meaningful, which is incidence rates per 1,000 children.

Okay, before the less mathematically gifted among us have conniption fits, this is not really that fancy or complicated. This kind of data adjustment is done all the time. To know that Green City had 147 deaths from lung cancer last year, while Orange City had 361 doesn't tell us anything useful about cancer concentrations or about which City has relatively sicker or healthier citizens. Unless we know the population of those cities and how many people die per year, and express those numbers in terms of lung cancer deaths per 100,00o or something similar, we can't make any valid comparisons. So if I can tell you that Orange City had 50 lung cancer deaths per 100,000 while Green City had 100, we're now onto something interesting for further research.

So let's revisit the old question of abusive fathers versus abusive mothers with this in mind.

Fathers rights people often remind us that married couple families do better than single-parent households in nearly every measure of child abuse and neglect, which on the face of it is true. I suppose the public policy implication is keep everybody married with a man in the house (how we will do this is never made entirely clear--outlaw divorce?), and child abuse will lessen.

This is basically a variation of the BMW fallacy, or confusing correlation with causation. Here's how it goes. BMW owners are nearly uniformly well-to-do successful professionals with six figure incomes who own their own homes. So--if somebody who's low-income manages to buy a BMW, will they be financially successful?

No, they will be broke. Saddled with more car than they can afford and with more financial troubles than ever.

So it is with marriage. People who are happily married tend to stay married and tend not to have families plagued with abuse, drug or alcohol issues, mental health problems, and other stuff like that. Married people who do have these problems in their relationships will tend to split up over time and form single parent households.

So the question is not comparing single parents with married households, but comparing the relative safety of father-headed households and mother-headed households, even though the numbers of these households are not the same. (And not because of the family courts. Most mother-headed families are that way by default, not by design or legal proceedings.) Hence, we convert the child abuse data from each type of household type into incident rates per 1,000 children.

So what do we have then? Let's start by taking a peek at maltreatment (i.e. abuse and neglect) under what's called the "harm standard." Under the "harm standard," children were considered to be maltreated only if they had already experienced harm from abuse or neglect. (The other standard is the "endangerment standard," which is children who experience abuse or neglect that puts them at risk of harm, combined with kids who are alreadly harmed by abuse or neglect.)


Let's start with overall maltreatment (abuse and neglect combined).

Children living with their only their mothers experienced maltreatment under the Harm Standard at a rate of 26.1 per 1,000 children.

Children living with only their dads? 36.6 per 1,000.

As NIS-3 notes, "This rate is more than two and one-third times higher than that of children in two-parent families."

Oops. So much for the theory that keeping a dad--any dad--in the family somehow confers protection from that nasty abusive mommy.


What about abuse as such?

Children living with only their moms: 10.5 per 1,000.
Children living with only their dads: 17.7 per 1,000.

Here's what NIS-3 says about that: "Children in father-only families had more than twice the risk of abuse as defined by the harm standard compared to children living in both-parent families. Their risk was more than one and two-thirds that of children in mother-only families, a marginal difference in this maltreatment category. Thus, the pattern in connection with abuse essentially reflects the higher risk of children who live with only their fathers."


Physical abuse is a subcategory under abuse.

Children living with only their moms: 6.4 per 1,000 children.
Children living with only their dads: 10.5 per 1,000 children.

Here's what NIS-3 states: "When specific types of abuse under the Harm Standard are examined, it is apparent that the findings described in the previous paragraph stem from the disproportionate incidence of physical abuse among children in father-only households....An estimated 10.5 per 1,000 children living with only their fathers were harmed by physical abuse in 1993, which is more than two and two-thirds higher than the incidence rate of 3.9 per 1,000 for children living with both their parents. Children in mother-only families were not statistically different from those in both-parent households in their risk of physical abuse under the Harm Standard."


Let's turn to neglect now.

Children living with only their moms: 16.7 per 1,000 children.
Children living with only their dads: 21.9 per 1,000 children.


Emotional neglect is one of the subcategories under neglect. What do the numbers say now? Frankly, I figured moms would get nailed on something as nebulous as emotional neglect, but I was wrong.

Children living with only their moms: 3.4 per 1,000 children.
Children living with only their fathers: 8.8 per 1,000 children.


How about severity of injury? The data was said to be statisically unreliable for Fatalities, so let's turn to Serious Injuries.

Children living with only their moms: 10.0 per 1,000 children.
Children living with only their dads: 14.0 per 1,000.

And Moderate Injuries?

Children living with only their moms: 14.7 per 1,000 children.
Children living with only their dads: 20.5 per 1,000.

I'm not sure if there's enough data geeks among you to go into maltreatment under the "endangerment standard" (see definition above), but I will go into it briefly anyway. Suffice it to say that the pattern is very much the same, except with bigger numbers.


All maltreatment (abuse and neglect) for children living with only their moms: 50.1 per 1,000 children.
For children living with only their dads: 65.6 per 1,000.


All abuse for children living with only their moms: 18.1 per 1,000 children.
For children living only with their dads: 31.0 per 1,000.


Physical abuse for children living with only their moms: 9.8 per 1,000 children.
For children living with only their dads: 16.5 per 1,000.

As NIS-3 concludes, "Similar to the pattern described above in relation to Harm standard physical abuse, children who live with only their fathers are at a marginally higher risk of physical abuse than those who live with two parents. (The father-only household is associated with two and one-third times greater risk.)"

So there you have it straight from the NIS-3 mouth.

Not good enough? Perhaps Guterman and Lee can drive this in the ground:
Consideration of the role that fathers play in the risk for future physical abuse and neglect is long overdue. A growing body of evidence has pointed out that fathers, as well as father figures, are highly represented as perpetrators of physical child abuse, particularly in its most severe forms (e.g., Brewster et al., 1998; Krugman, 1985; Margolin, 1992). For example, Sinal et al.'s (2000) review of inflicted closed-head injury (shaken baby syndrome) cases in North Carolina reported that 44% were perpetrated by fathers and 20% were perpetrated by mothers' boyfriends, in contrast to 7% perpetrated by mothers. Similarly, a review of child-maltreatment-related fatalities in the state of Missouri reported that while 21% of identified perpetrators were biological mothers, 23% were biological fathers, and 44% were unrelated males in the household (Stiffman, Schnitzer, Adam, Kruse, & Ewigman, 2002). Given that fathers provide on the whole, substantially less direct child care than mothers (Margolin, 1992; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, & Hofferth, 2001), these proportions of fathers and possible father surrogates as perpetrators of sever child abuse appear as rather startling.

You all should really investigate your leaders--the ones that spend their time sending all of you to investigate other things...You're totally getting played while he's playing Daddy and you're losing your children.

'Killing Me Softly' Will Never Have the Same Meaning

Director of 'Killing Me Softly' Fugees Video Charged with Impregnating 3 Daughters, Rapes All 5

By Ruth Manuel-Logan on Mar 12th 2010 2:24PM

The man who was accused of allegedly raping five of his daughters, three of whom who bore six of his children is finally unmasked. He is award-winning director Aswad Ayinde, aka Charles McGill. Ayinde is most noted for directing the "Killing Me Softly" video by The Fugees.

The 51-year-old director, who also describes himself as a soft drink entrepreneur, faces 27 charges, including aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, lewdness, child endangerment, aggravated criminal sexual contact and criminal sexual contact and the list goes on. Ayinde is also being held on a $1-million bond.

There are five trials scheduled for each of the daughters he allegedly raped and abused. The first begins next month, according to prosecutor Lisa Squitieri. The daughter's names have not yet been released, and their present whereabouts are unknown.

The serial malcontent, prosecutors state, is a religious fanatic, who is obsessed with creating a pure bloodline - his reasoning for raping his children. The majority of the alleged molestations took place in an abandoned East Orange, New Jersey, funeral home, where apparently the family had squatted for quite some time. Court records state that the Ayinde girls were violated from the 1980s to 2002.

Ayinde allegedly beat his children in to submission incessantly with objects like wooden boards. According to police reports, he even used steel-toed boots to kick them. The children, who were home-schooled, never attempted to escape or alert anyone of their nightmarish situation. Ex-wife Beverly Ayinde, who has nine children with the offender, claims she would have been beaten if she even uttered the word "pedophile." Yet the woman never turned her demented spouse into authorities the rest

I want readers to know that in cases like this, often times the mother gets charged for crimes as well. It doesn't matter if she was a victim herself. Furthermore, it seems that social services had been investigating this family at one time or another, and yet these disgusting actions were somehow allowed to continue. Social services...child protective services....they serve to take your children, and get government money for it. They rarely help or protect children when it really counts, particularly when intrafamilial sexual abuse is involved.

Check out this case in Britain:

Care failings allowed British Fritzl to get daughters pregnant 18 times

* Father abused daughters over 35 years
* Family seen by over 100 professionals
* Social services apologises to women

A MAN raped his two daughters and fathered nine babies with them during 35 years of physical and sexual abuse.

And he escaped detection because care professionals missed numerous chances to intervene.

Agencies involved with the family repeatedly failed to take action even though the father was accused of incest on seven separate occasions, with a further 12 reported incidents of violence.

Today authorities issued an unreserved apology to the abused women.

The 57-year-old man, from Sheffield, England, was jailed for life in November 2008 after one of his daughters accused him of incest.

The man, who cannot be named, admitted 25 rapes and four indecent assaults, with the attacks beginning in 1980.

If his daughters refused his advances, they would be punched, kicked and sometimes held in the flames of a gas fire.

The case echoes of that of Josef Fritzl, the Austrian who imprisoned and raped his daughter.

Between 1975 and 2008 the family came into contact with 28 different agencies and more than 100 more here

Believe the children.

Strumming my pain with his fingers,
Singing my life with his words,
Killing me softly with his song,
killing me softly,
With his song telling my whole life
With his words,
Killing me softly,
With his song

Yo,put cha hands together for l L boogie yah yaey yaey
l boogie up in here (u know how we do)

One time, One time, (one time) hey yo L you know you got the lyrics

I heard he sang a good song, I heard he had a style,
And so I came to see him and listen for a while.
And there he was this young bwoy, stranger to my eyes,

Strumming my pain with his fingers,
(one time,one time)
Singing my life with his words,
(two times. two times)
Killing me softly with this song,
killing me softly,
With his song, telling my whole life,
With his words,
Killing me softly with his song.

I felt all flushed with fever,
Embarrassed by the crowd,
I felt he found my letters then read each one out loud.
I prayed that he would finish,
But he just kept right on-

Strumming my pain with his fingers,
(One Time, one time!)
Singing my life with his words,
(Two Times, two times!)
Killing me softly with his song,
Killing me softly
With his song,
Tellin' my whole life
With his words,
Killing me softly, with his song

Yo L-Boogie, boy L boy L, take it to the bridge

(busted) la la la la la ....wooooah.. laaaaahhh... woooah..laaaaahhh Ah ah Ah ah Ah ah Ah

Strumming my pain with his fingers,
yes he was Singing my life with his words,
killing me softly with his song,
Killing me softly with his song,
Telling my whole life with his words,
Killing me softly with his song.

Frequently Asked Question: What Is Parental Alienation?

Fathers and Families says:
Parental Alienation is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of divorce/separation and/or child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) of a parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the targeted parent. Parental Alienation is also sometimes referred to as “Parental Alienation Disorder” or “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” To learn more, click here.

Let's think about this a bit.

What is a [mental] disorder?

(emphasis mine)
a psychological or behavioural pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture.
If parental alienation is a disorder that arises in such a specific occasion (divorce/separation and or child-custody dispute), can it be a disorder any more than the situation that created this disorder? In other words, is divorce/separation and or a child-custody dispute a disorder (causes distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development of culture)?

Of mention is that Fathers and Families omitted the term "high conflict" which is usually contained in operational definitions of parental alienation syndrome/disorder. This could be intentional as "high conflict" places an even greater limit on the category of "divorce/separation and or child custody disputes."

Denigrate speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate someone's character. treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage: to denigrate someone's contributions to a project.
Let us now decide whether or not a child of a divorce/separation and or child custody dispute may have any valid reason(s) to react in such a manner against his/her parent(s).
(Remember that this denigration is said to have arisen since the divorce/separation and or child custody dispute.) How do we decide if the reasons are valid? How do we even get these reasons from the child? Who is to discover said reasons? And what makes them qualified to qualify or quantify what another being is experiencing, expressing, or failing to express?


This is an interesting word that gets tossed around. Here are a set of the steps involved:
1. Assault on identity
2. Guilt
3. Self-betrayal
4. Breaking point
5. Leniency
6. Compulsion to confess
7. Channeling of guilt
8. Releasing of guilt
9. Progress and harmony
10. Final confession and rebirth
We must decide if the child goes through these steps on his/her own, solely on account of the contributing parent, or via a combination of the two. We also must know if any or all of these steps were a result of the divorce/separation and or child custody dispute, or if they began prior to this point. This is critical.

BUT, the key things to remember with brainwashing are:
Each of thes­e stages takes place in an environment of isolation, meaning all "normal" social reference points are unavailable, and mind-clouding techniques like sleep deprivation and malnutrition are typically part of the process. There is often the presence or constant threat of physical harm, which adds to the target's difficulty in thinking critically and independently.
Is this scenario present, or possible? This would mean that the child does not attend daycare or school, no extracurricular activities, no dance and piano...the child has no friends, no cousins or other confidants...In addition, the child isn't being fed or otherwise cared for properly. In fact, the child is being neglected and potentially physically abused with this parent. Doubtful that this child is being overlooked by others unless he/she is completely cut off from the outside world.

We must ask, can we have a parent doing this to a child, and yet these torture techniques have only begun since the divorce/separation and or child custody dispute? And this parent can maintain this total domination somehow, suddenly and exclusively? And that this is effective in children of any range...from birth to 18?

the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together, so that the presence of one feature alerts the physician to the presence of the others.
Is parental alienation a syndrome or a disorder? Is one more convenient or applicable than the other? We must remember that a disorder " is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture."

  1. If the child is not experiencing any distress or disability, is he/she suffering from a disorder?
  2. If the distress or disability is expected [given the situation: divorce/separation and or child custody dispute], is it a disorder?
  3. If the distress or disability is a part of normal development [for a child] or culture [of (high conflict) divorce], is it a disorder?
  4. If this "is thought" by whom? Who is doing the thinking: the doctor, the parent, the other parent, or the child?

See Also: Parental Alienation and Loving Relationships: Questions We Must Ask