Custody of children becomes a major issue when a couple divorces. Worse, these issues can linger long after the settlement in the form of parent alienation-when one parent seeks to keep the other parent from being active and involved with the children they share. In Parental-Alienation Playbook and Three-Quarters Custody, author Julian Andrews presents an overview of parent-alienation syndrome (P.A.S.), how you can recognize when it's happening to you, and how to speak out to defend you and your children. Based on his personal experiences with his ex-wife and their three children, Andrews illustrates how the outdated court system facilitates P.A.S., but also shows how an alienated parent can directly speak out through the legal and court systems. Andrews proposes the concept of three-quarter shared physical custody as a national solution and a bridge against parental alienation forces in the twenty-first century. Parental-Alienation Playbook and Three-Quarters Custody promotes momentum toward three-quarter custody arrangements so parental alienation can become a condition of the past, and children and parents can be free of the divisive nature and consequences that P.A.S. creates.
Parental-Alienation Playbook and Three-Quarters Custody
A Father Speaks OutBy Julian AndrewsiUniverse, Inc.
Copyright © 2011 Julian Andrews
All right reserved. ISBN: 978-1-4620-6341-3Contents
Introduction......................................................................ixChapter 1 Joint-Custody Bid.......................................................1Chapter 2 Addressing Preliminary Statements.......................................4Chapter 3 Combating the False Groundwork..........................................8Chapter 4 Incorporating What Children Reveal......................................12Chapter 5 The Extent of Manipulation..............................................13Chapter 6 Presenting Your Point of View...........................................17Chapter 7 Alienating Parent Creating Division.....................................21Chapter 8 Pushing Back Against Nonsense...........................................26Chapter 9 Process of Alienation Filibustering.....................................30Chapter 10 Final Requests to the Court............................................34Chapter 11 Benefits of Alienation Awareness.......................................39Chapter 12 Powerful Polarizing Alienation.........................................44Chapter 13 Case-Study Analysis....................................................57Chapter 14 Closing Remarks on Three-Quarters Physical Custody.....................59About the Author..................................................................63
Chapter One
Joint-Custody Bid
A couple of years ago, I was in a position, after about five years of being a noncustodial father, to make a bid for joint physical custody. To my surprise, I found my ex-wife and the entire court system very resistant to such a proposal. Although I had career flexibility and a solid relationship with my children, and although the children had expressed a need for me to have increased care and input into their lives (including sports, school activities, and assistance with homework), I found that joint custody was, for reasons I cannot explain, 100 percent off the table, despite my willingness, readiness, and ability as a father and a parent.
What I experienced over the course of that eighteen-month period was a willingness by my ex-wife to do anything to fortify her favorable custody position, including deceiving the family court and misrepresenting virtually every interaction so as to present me as aloof and ridiculously unbelievable. To my astonishment, she and her husband were able to accomplish this by hearsay declarations and deliberate manipulation.
This book is an account of what I provided my attorney to refute a forty-point attack against me. I produced these counterarguments after coming home from work over one year ago. I typed straight through the night from five p.m. to five a.m., and this is what poured out of my heart and into the word processor. Such an outpouring was necessary to answer what amounted to a full-scale filibuster against me in a court hearing; I had to refute the powerful alienation and false claims made against me. When I was through, I realized it could also be a guidebook, since others were likely experiencing the same sort of parental alienation.
My case illustrates the ways in which an alienating parent can utilize the court system to easily place a good parent forty steps behind, forced to answer all kinds of false allegations and general hearsay just to be able to begin any discussion in court. What the alienating parent does is try to bury the other parent with a massive legal document that must be answered in detail, so that there will never be time for the real, actual, meaningful, and truly practical discussions. This happens all across America, and it is an absolute shame.
Before we review the arguments, please know that I have been through four of these court contests with my ex-spouse, and the only way I know to push back against a system that entertains and often promotes this type of hatred and filibustering is to speak up for myself, also in point-by-point fashion. I have represented myself and also used attorneys. The items I put to paper here were not used entirely in court. For the most part, what you will read here is a first draft of rebuttal documents. I am sharing them to show you how I spoke out. In addition to shedding light on the divisive nature of parental alienation, I want to encourage you if you are experiencing alienation to never stop speaking out on behalf of your children's rights to equal parenting—no matter how much of a disadvantage you are put at by the system, which in many cases is purposefully biased and perpetuates itself against you.
If more people speak up about parental alienation and point it out, courts and judges will take note, the system will change, and rights will be upheld. Please do not give up, and please do your part to speak up in the court systems so the people of this country will begin to recognize parental alienation as a significant issue and realize that the fundamental rights of children to keep and maintain bonds with both parents are violated every day. No matter how difficult it can be, what you share does make a difference, to your children and you.
Chapter Two
Addressing Preliminary Statements
The following is a letter I wrote to my attorney as an introduction to the arguments you will read throughout this book. It alludes to a number of incidents in which the defendant, my ex-wife, tried to deceive the court, received money for nonexistent day care, attempted to have me prosecuted, and otherwise did everything she could to discredit me. I include it as an example of how I fought back against false allegations and abuse of process.
Property considerations encourage divorces in society. They are a major reason sole custody is sought. In this way support payments can turn children into physical assets, to be awarded by courts. However, marriage and property issues should be kept separate in formal hearings and actual court divisions, and not be sold off together. People and children are not property.
Date: May 2010 J. Andrews responses to T. Gorman and T. Champion May 2010 Verified Motion Regarding: Parenting Time Parties divorced. Parties separated after Defendant's mother, who works for Upper Mountain County as a Friend of the Court, contacted authorities. Defendant was deceptive in this process, and Plaintiff was found innocent of all charges. Plaintiff spent $15,000 in attorney fees defending himself against Defendant's trumped-up allegations. Plaintiff requests restitution from Defendant for libel and slander. Defendant is a hearsay declarant. Defendant's mother was a notorious person in Upper Mountain County in the 1980s and 1990s, known for punishing noncustodial parents through her occupation as a Friend of the Court and for being very bitter after her own divorce. My situation and ultimate marital split was not much different from many people. In fact many alienation strategies are based on hearsay and unfounded character attacks, sometimes including attempted prosecutions. When child custody is involved the motivations can become apparent. The fact that the defendant mentions this type of incident here is ridiculous, considering Defendant has been demonstrated deceptive in court twice with seven jurors and two judges. What is often a successful parental alienation playbook is for a custodial parent to seek the noncustodial parent's total elimination. This can be attempted by hearsay declarations, character attack, and false accusations. Defendant deceived the court on the existence of day care while in this courtroom three-and-a-half years ago. Defendant, in this courtroom, tried to negotiate Plaintiff's loss of personal freedom in February of 2004 in an attempt to trade the conditions of a status-quo order for dismissal of a no-contact order during the period of an attempted prosecution. The next month, Defendant tried to negotiate, in this courtroom, the for-sale-by-owner of a marital home in exchange for dropping a subsequent prosecution, in which no judge or any jurors believed this defendant here in Capital County. Financial settlement motivations were at play in a highly contested divorce. Eighteen months later, Defendant deceived this judge about false and nonexistent day care until Plaintiff informed this court and the Friend of the Court that the children were not in day care any longer. This judge has seen this defendant's behavior, and Defendant has notification language written in February 2006 regarding the existence of false day care. Page two of the order, halfway down the page, reads: "Defendant shall not be entitled to claim child-care expense for any period subsequent to June 2005, and continuing until such time as Defendant gives notice to the plaintiff and the Friend of the Court." In 2004 through 2005, Defendant took FIA subsidies while receiving full child support from this plaintiff for the three minor children. Defendant has sought to financially injure and cripple this plaintiff.
Our society in divorce does not distinguish the difference between marriage and family. As a result, it essentially punishes the children for the divorce of their parents. This is done by promoting the removal of one parent, oftentimes forcing the father to leave the family structure. This process creates unnecessary emotional adjustments and contributes to child-parent bonds being broken.
Based on years of experiencing painful alienation, I recommend a 25% to 75% shared parenting time split of each children's time. This is more effective than a failed system that provides only half this amount to non-custodial parents, who typically have just four days and nights per month. Seven years ago my youngest son would always tell me how many days and nights he would be spending with me. On our first Easter weekend he cried on the way back home. He would come to my bed when he was almost four years old and tell me to just come home Dad. Those are the things you always remember as a parent. They etch into your heart.
Chapter Three
Combating the False Groundwork
This narrative encapsulates the arguments which I made a couple years ago to support my case toward moving to a joint custody arrangement. I was met by very difficult resistance including an attempted restraining order, which was denied but done as an attempt to protect the sole physical custody situation which was in place at that time. One year prior to the court hearing I attempted introducing the shared custody to my ex-wife, in very open ended terms by saying: "Would you be open to joint physical custody? whereby I keep paying child support for about two more years. Then after we are fully integrated with the kids (for 2 years) at this point the current child support could stop, and I will maintain seeing the children fifty percent of the time." Her response was simply: "I am not ok with joint custody. The JOD, judgment of divorce, remains in place." Being closed minded to joint custody is "parental alienation."
The following is from my arguments in dispute of the points made by my ex-wife, here referred to as the defendant:
Defendant's claim: Since entry of the last order addressing parenting time, there have been changes to the parties and the children's lives that require the re-examination of the visitation schedule. My response: The current orders are adequate for purposes of Plaintiff's parenting time. Plaintiff seeks to move toward a phased joint custody arrangement over a period of two years. Defendant's claim: Plaintiff moved his residence for the fifth time in as many years to within a mile of the Mother and the children's residence. Plaintiff does not provide a suitable residence or environment for the children. Plaintiff certainly has the resources to provide an adequate environment and new beds for the children. My response: The plaintiff has had just two permanent residences in six years (one in Central City 2004-2006 and one in Big River Township 2007-2009). Children always sleep in adequate beds. Plaintiff wants the in-series Friday nights (or alternating Friday week nights) to be restored with the children, as it was provided in the original divorce documents from this court. The alternating Friday nights were eliminated as part of a temporary order during day-care hearings in November 2005 (because Defendant would show up on Friday nights to places Plaintiff said he would not be, and Defendant would tell the children "your father does not want you.") The temporary order was later turned into a permanent order in February of 2006. Plaintiff was misled by Defendant's attorney, and it was not Plaintiff's intent to eliminate the Friday nights on a permanent basis. Plaintiff has electronic files (true copies from the opposing attorney) that show the agreement between the defendant's attorney and the plaintiff in pro per. Plaintiff requests this court to please reinstate the in-series Friday nights, or if Defendant is not willing, then to simply leave the existing order in place. Plaintiff agrees to buy new beds as the Friday nights become restored. The issue here was the defendant was claiming the three beds I provided for the children on their two over night visits per month were not adequate and the defendant was requesting that each child receive new beds. The plaintiff has always seen his children according to the court documents. Plaintiff is making attempts to move toward a joint custody arrangement and is proposing it occur gradually over the course of two years, to become effective in 2012. Further, Plaintiff has maintained 100 percent of his parenting time for the past six-and-a-half years. Defendant makes it difficult to gain additional visitation time with the children.
As an alienated parent goes through the process of addressing issues with a court system and judges, it can become apparent that the system, like the former spouse, is just waiting for and wanting you to give up hope. Often, the process disintegrates into a simple "winner take all" decision. In fact, it appears that this can be an expedient prechosen type of remedy, but one that comes at the expense of a parent's and his or her children's rights. Sometimes, courts simply levy a punitive resolution. One example is Friday nights, which should be a natural course in this case:
Since Plaintiff has been renting an apartment in Cornerstone, Defendant has denied each and every Friday night, which was done intentionally with malice and harm to injure the children and the plaintiff. It has become clear that the defendant is using a persistent campaign to poison the children's relationship with their father. This is called parental alienation. Defendant knew and was informed that the plaintiff was paying an extra $225 per month (of $930 total rent) so that his daughter would have her own bedroom. Defendant sought to destroy this situation. Plaintiff's daughter decorated the walls of this room, and Defendant intentionally and purposefully blocked twelve in-series Friday nights during the entire seven-month duration. This was done with specific intent to alienate all the children from their father. Note: If the defendant or this court will please grant the Friday nights, the justification for new beds is made. Plaintiff respectfully requests consideration in light of the above situation. Plaintiff paid $930 per month rent with much hope and optimism to grow closer to his children. Each and every instance of potential additional parenting time was denied. Defendant's claim was that a restraining order should be issued because the Plaintiff's "behavior" had become unpredictable (to the defendant), and she perceived it as odd in the past few months. My response was that these mischaracterizations and statements represent libel and slander. Defendant has levied false charges against Plaintiff historically, and this court has witnessed it. This is a direct alienating behavior designed to undermine the father. Defendant uses manipulative and controlling tactics to poison the children with her rhetoric against the plaintiff.
Chapter Four
Incorporating What Children Reveal
Often, children reveal and purposefully shed light on things that affect them and make them feel safe and comfortable, as well as situations that are viewed as alarming, unsafe, and potentially dangerous to them.
A stepfather's workload and stress becomes an issue with the following incident reported by my children. Roy Champion, their stepfather, was involved in an incident with one of the children in which the child was in the front seat of Roy's car and did not have a seat belt on. While the vehicle was driving on Queens Way Avenue and taking a left-hand turn onto Mecklenburg, the child realized the front passenger door was not fully closed.
As the car was making a left-hand turn in the intersection, the child (realizing the door was not fully closed) went to open and close the door. When the child did this, Roy had to grab the child by the arm to prevent him from exiting the vehicle onto the pavement. Fortunately, everyone was okay, and we are grateful to Roy for grabbing the child's arm. But this shows the risk of the custodial parents rushing around and emphasizing so many extracurricular activities that safety can be compromised.
Also, I have witnessed and know of a few instances in which two of the children, Madelyn and Michael, have been left home alone by themselves for extended periods of the day, and they have indicated that they were scared. I have asked Tori, my ex-spouse, about this, and she does not respond or acknowledge it.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Parental-Alienation Playbook and Three-Quarters Custodyby Julian Andrews Copyright © 2011 by Julian Andrews . Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
