Friday, March 26, 2010

Indiana Civil Court Judges: Are You That Stupid or That Corrupt?

Most children I know care for their mothers very, very much. A lot of them would try and protect their mother, just as this son did recently in Indianapolis. Do you think this boy will have loving feelings toward the boyfriend? Should he? What if mom got him in to counseling to not be afraid of the boyfriend anymore, even though he watched him almost kill his mom?

She would bend over backwards to have him not afraid of the boyfriend, and still an Indiana judge would gladly hand over that child to the abuser if they were in a custody battle. It happens all the time here. WHY?

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee and the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications are tired of the corruption/incompetence in family court. Don't you guys know anything about the fact that when a child is afraid of an abuser, it is probably for a good reason? Do you guy subscribe to any ethical rules and practices. Maybe you need to read this from the National Association of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:

2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department

Page 12:
C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34

Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38

The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.

No comments: