How Divorce Wars Take A Toll On Kids
Children Are Often Caught In The Middle Between Feuding Parents
Quote
"It's easy to teach a child to hate. Courts are now recognizing this is a serious problem."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Warshak, author
(CBS) Children often get caught up in their parents' divorce battles, forced to take sides. As Tracy Smith reports, "parental alienation" can take a serious toll on kids.
Experts tell Smith that a child easily picks up the hostile cues of one parent toward another. And whether those cues are subtle or intentional, either way the child suffers and can carry that burden into adulthood.
One girl who loved both parents very much but got caught in divorce crossfire is Victoria Peters.
Her parents also loved her — so much that they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and five years battling in court to win custody.
"It was gut wrenching," remembers Victoria's father, Kevin Peters. "The whole thing was strange."
Franny Carney, Victoria's mom, says, "It's hell. It's like living in hell."
It was not an ordinary custody case.
Victoria's father claims that for years, while his ex-wife had full custody, she led a campaign to turn his daughter against him, what some experts refer to as "parental alienation."
"It's easy to teach a child to hate. Courts are now recognizing this is a serious problem," explains author Richard Warshak. "The children's affections are being poisoned against the other parent."
Kevin says the alienation campaign began with last-minute changes to his scheduled visits with Victoria.
"It was always an excuse that, on my weekend, there was some reason she couldn't come," Kevin says.
But Franny says she did not deny him visits.
"My daughter was locked in a closet when I called," Kevin tells Smith. Her mother would say, 'Lets go get in the closet. It's your dad.' "
Months went by. Kevin lost his temper. The police were called. His visits then had to be supervised. But even then, he says, his ex-wife continued to prevent him from seeing Victoria.
Franny contends that Kevin, who suffers from chronic depression, was emotionally unstable.
"I was frightened of him, ya know? When he was out of line, me and my daughter hid in the back of the bathroom," Franny says.
As charges mounted against Kevin, a court-appointed evaluator had to decide: Were these charges real or was there a concerted effort by Franny to turn Victoria against her father?
"Parental alienation is one of the common dynamics that occurs in high-conflict cases," says Daniel Stockley, a parental evaluator.
"The mother had difficulty, in this case, of letting go of, almost like an obsessive thought, that the child was at risk," says Stockley.
(At 8 years old, Victoria is skilled in the language of diplomacy. "I like living with my mom and I like living with my dad, so ..." she tells Smith.
But sometimes children are forced to take sides.
"I couldn't love my mom and my dad at the same time. I felt bad," says Michelle Martin, an adult child of divorce. Michelle says she was alienated from her father as a child.
"It shocked me how quickly and dramatically I changed my opinion of him. I would have nothing to do with him," she recalls.
According to experts, Michelle's case is typical because, when pressed, she couldn't tell anyone why she was so angry.
"He hadn't done anything to hurt me. And so, when I was asked for details, I didn't have them," she says. "I still, to this day, have to live with the mean things I said to him. The letters that I wrote to him. There are things I did purposely to hurt him."
Victoria, who was caught in a similar crossfire, had been in therapy since she was 3, frequently accompanied by her mother. It wasn't until the therapist's notes were finally subpoenaed that a disturbing pattern emerged that turned Kevin's case around.
"The telltale one is 'My mom says there's a side of my dad that I've never seen before, real mean.' And the therapist says, 'Have you ever seen that side?' 'No.' 'Do you believe it's there?' 'Yeah, I always believe my mom,' " says Kevin's attorney, Robert Fry.
Page after page of citations documented Victoria's growing fear and distress.
"The evidence was overwhelming that the relationship with the father was beginning to suffer," says Stockley.
In April 2005, in a startling decision, the court found that "an immediate change of custody appears to be in the best interest of the child" and Kevin was awarded full custody of Victoria.
"I was excited and stunned a little bit at the same time," Kevin remembers.
Ironically, it is Franny Carney, who now, because of what the court saw as alienating behavior, cannot see her daughter without a supervisor.
"I raised her for seven and a half years. I was involved in every area of her life," Franny says.
The court did not deny that she was a conscientious parent but the ruling made clear Victoria needed to see both her parents. The daughter Franny fought so hard to protect is living with her father
"I just come in to the house and I sit down and I cry," says Franny.
Victoria is reluctant to talk about any of it now. "I just mind my own business.
I love them both. It doesn't matter whose side I am on," she says.
As for Kevin, he's just happy for every moment he has with his daughter.
"I don't want her to think I'm a Superman or a hero or anything. I just want her to, you know, say 'My dad did what he was supposed to do,' " Kevin tells Smith, crying.
Experts say alienation can happen with both moms and dads. But this concept is still very controversial because charges of parental alienation have been used falsely in the past to defend fathers who really are abusive. And if the courts believe them, the abusive dads can get their children back.
www.EqualParenting.org
Sunday, 17 September 2006
Encouraging signs in Oz after family law reforms
Fathers benefit from new family law rules
Reporter: Sabra Lane
MARK COLVIN: New family law rules came into effect two months ago, designed to give children more time with their non-custodial parents, most often the father. The new regime's known as "shared responsibility".
The courts are starting to hand down judgements under the new laws. It's too early to assess overall trends, but there have been some interesting decisions and it seems fathers are getting a benefit from the changes.
A week ago, the Federal Magistrates Court ordered that a mother could not move her children interstate because it would stop the children from having a meaningful relationship with their father.
Another judge recently ruled that a father who'd previously had access to his child just once a fortnight should now have custody during school holidays, on special occasions like Easter and Christmas, and on birthdays.
Sabra Lane reports.
SABRA LANE: Family bust-ups can be really ugly with lengthy, bitter court battles costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Legally, reporters can't identify individuals involved in family court matters.
This man, known as BJ, was one of the first cases under the revamped family laws.
His voice has been disguised to keep his identity secret.
Before July BJ saw his child just once a fortnight.
BJ: I want to be in her life. I want to see her grow. I want to do homework. I want to take her out. I want to take her to school. I want to go to excursions. I want to do everything with her.
Just because you separate and you divorce doesn't mean the father hasn't got a right to see his child.
SABRA LANE: But the Family Court recently ruled that had to change.
BJ explains how often he sees his daughter now.
BJ: Half of school holidays, special occasions, birthdays, her birthday, Christmas, Easter, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday after school.
SABRA LANE: Two years ago the Federal Government held a parliamentary inquiry into child custody.
It heard research that one in four children from broken homes only had contact with their dads once a year.
The inquiry resulted in new laws where courts had to consider giving equal time with both parents where possible, or substantial and significant time to non-custodial parents.
Barry Frakes from legal firm Watts McCray helped BJ with his case.
BARRY FRAKES: He really felt that the court had heard what he had to say and recognised the need for the child to have a real relationship with him, which was more than a visitor kind of relationship.
The court doesn't talk about 'access' any more, it talks about the time and makes sure that there is a 'meaningful' relationship.
So important events, holiday times, but also just the day-to-day stuff that happens during the weekdays is also important to kids.
And so the arrangements for that child in that case meant that the father could be really part of her life, day-to-day.
SABRA LANE: BJ battled his wife in court for three years, and until May this year he handled his case without a lawyer.
While happy with his ruling, BJ encourages other dads to resolve their problems without lawyers.
BJ: Do not go to court. It cost me $100,000 to fight in court. Communication is the most important thing. Leave solicitors out of the conflict.
SABRA LANE: Lawyers are also analysing another decision handed down last week by the Federal Magistrates Court.
It ruled a mother couldn't move her two children interstate, more than 1,000 kilometres from their father, because re-locating to another city would deprive the children any chance of a meaningful relationship with their dad.
Barry Frakes also represented the father in this case.
He says research prior to the new legislation, showed most contested relocation rulings favoured the parents who wanted to move.
BARRY FRAKES: In 76% of those cases the court permitted the relocation. In this case, the court decided that it wasn't in the best interests of the children to permit a relocation, and in the circumstances I think that reflects the direction of this current legislation, that it's going to be harder for a person who wants to move to satisfy a court that the children will still have a meaningful relationship with the other person when they're not seeing them for many months at a time.
SABRA LANE: Principal Solicitor with Women's Legal Services NSW, Janet Loughman, says she's not surprised.
JANET LOUGHMAN: We've been expecting the pendulum to swing, I suppose.
They're very difficult cases, weighing up really difficult competing interests but our experience has been that the courts are always more willing to place restrictions on the movement of the resident parent, usually a mother, than they are to place similar restrictions on contact parents, usually fathers. So I suppose, not a surprise.
SABRA LANE: Women's Legal Services NSW now wants further changes to the Family Law Act, particularly in relocation cases.
While courts place the child's needs first, Janet Loughman says they should give equal weight to the emotional well-being of the parent whose freedom is restricted.
JANET LOUGHMAN: We're pushing for an additional factor to be taken into account in these kind of cases, so that sufficient weight is given to the link between the welfare of the child and their primary carer, whether that be the mother or the father, and the effect of the refusal to allow a relocation also should be part of that decision.
SABRA LANE: Barry Frakes believes we could be witnessing a major change in Family Law, with courts now favouring fathers.
BARRY FRAKES: In some respects, people would think that the decisions might have been made under the old law in the same way, but I do think that the judgements themselves reflect that the court is taking seriously the need for fathers to have a meaningful relationship with their children.
MARK COLVIN: Lawyer Barry Frakes ending that report from Sabra Lane.
www.EqualParenting.org
Reporter: Sabra Lane
MARK COLVIN: New family law rules came into effect two months ago, designed to give children more time with their non-custodial parents, most often the father. The new regime's known as "shared responsibility".
The courts are starting to hand down judgements under the new laws. It's too early to assess overall trends, but there have been some interesting decisions and it seems fathers are getting a benefit from the changes.
A week ago, the Federal Magistrates Court ordered that a mother could not move her children interstate because it would stop the children from having a meaningful relationship with their father.
Another judge recently ruled that a father who'd previously had access to his child just once a fortnight should now have custody during school holidays, on special occasions like Easter and Christmas, and on birthdays.
Sabra Lane reports.
SABRA LANE: Family bust-ups can be really ugly with lengthy, bitter court battles costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Legally, reporters can't identify individuals involved in family court matters.
This man, known as BJ, was one of the first cases under the revamped family laws.
His voice has been disguised to keep his identity secret.
Before July BJ saw his child just once a fortnight.
BJ: I want to be in her life. I want to see her grow. I want to do homework. I want to take her out. I want to take her to school. I want to go to excursions. I want to do everything with her.
Just because you separate and you divorce doesn't mean the father hasn't got a right to see his child.
SABRA LANE: But the Family Court recently ruled that had to change.
BJ explains how often he sees his daughter now.
BJ: Half of school holidays, special occasions, birthdays, her birthday, Christmas, Easter, Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday after school.
SABRA LANE: Two years ago the Federal Government held a parliamentary inquiry into child custody.
It heard research that one in four children from broken homes only had contact with their dads once a year.
The inquiry resulted in new laws where courts had to consider giving equal time with both parents where possible, or substantial and significant time to non-custodial parents.
Barry Frakes from legal firm Watts McCray helped BJ with his case.
BARRY FRAKES: He really felt that the court had heard what he had to say and recognised the need for the child to have a real relationship with him, which was more than a visitor kind of relationship.
The court doesn't talk about 'access' any more, it talks about the time and makes sure that there is a 'meaningful' relationship.
So important events, holiday times, but also just the day-to-day stuff that happens during the weekdays is also important to kids.
And so the arrangements for that child in that case meant that the father could be really part of her life, day-to-day.
SABRA LANE: BJ battled his wife in court for three years, and until May this year he handled his case without a lawyer.
While happy with his ruling, BJ encourages other dads to resolve their problems without lawyers.
BJ: Do not go to court. It cost me $100,000 to fight in court. Communication is the most important thing. Leave solicitors out of the conflict.
SABRA LANE: Lawyers are also analysing another decision handed down last week by the Federal Magistrates Court.
It ruled a mother couldn't move her two children interstate, more than 1,000 kilometres from their father, because re-locating to another city would deprive the children any chance of a meaningful relationship with their dad.
Barry Frakes also represented the father in this case.
He says research prior to the new legislation, showed most contested relocation rulings favoured the parents who wanted to move.
BARRY FRAKES: In 76% of those cases the court permitted the relocation. In this case, the court decided that it wasn't in the best interests of the children to permit a relocation, and in the circumstances I think that reflects the direction of this current legislation, that it's going to be harder for a person who wants to move to satisfy a court that the children will still have a meaningful relationship with the other person when they're not seeing them for many months at a time.
SABRA LANE: Principal Solicitor with Women's Legal Services NSW, Janet Loughman, says she's not surprised.
JANET LOUGHMAN: We've been expecting the pendulum to swing, I suppose.
They're very difficult cases, weighing up really difficult competing interests but our experience has been that the courts are always more willing to place restrictions on the movement of the resident parent, usually a mother, than they are to place similar restrictions on contact parents, usually fathers. So I suppose, not a surprise.
SABRA LANE: Women's Legal Services NSW now wants further changes to the Family Law Act, particularly in relocation cases.
While courts place the child's needs first, Janet Loughman says they should give equal weight to the emotional well-being of the parent whose freedom is restricted.
JANET LOUGHMAN: We're pushing for an additional factor to be taken into account in these kind of cases, so that sufficient weight is given to the link between the welfare of the child and their primary carer, whether that be the mother or the father, and the effect of the refusal to allow a relocation also should be part of that decision.
SABRA LANE: Barry Frakes believes we could be witnessing a major change in Family Law, with courts now favouring fathers.
BARRY FRAKES: In some respects, people would think that the decisions might have been made under the old law in the same way, but I do think that the judgements themselves reflect that the court is taking seriously the need for fathers to have a meaningful relationship with their children.
MARK COLVIN: Lawyer Barry Frakes ending that report from Sabra Lane.
www.EqualParenting.org
Friday, 1 September 2006
Times article on COLLABORATIVE LAW
We're splitting up, but need it be expensive?By District Judge Stephen Gerlis
The McCartney split throws into focus the search for an alternative to costly family financial disputes
Stephen Gerlis is a district judge at Barnet County Court
So the battle lines are drawn. Sir Paul McCartney and Lady McCartney have both instructed high-flying and highly-paid divorce lawyers and if nothing is done to stop a descent into all-out war it may well prove to be an expensive exercise for both parties, no matter how well-heeled they are. The signs are not good, given the preliminary skirmishes that have taken place in the pages of the tabloid press.
The McCartney's marriage problems have surfaced at the same time as other high-profile and highly publicised cases, the latest being that of Beverley Charman, who recovered some £48 million to the disgust of her husband, an insurance magnate. Mr Charman threatens to appeal the decision, no doubt running up more lawyers’ fees in the process.
These seemingly intransigent disputes are repeated daily in family courts up and down the country and are not limited to large money cases. I frequently tell the parties, "Costs in financial disputes are like a taxi-meter that revolves faster and faster the longer the dispute goes on and the closer to a trial. Your solicitor will get paid, your barrister will get paid, but it will come out of your pockets." Recent changes in the family costs rules means that it will only be in exceptional cases that one party will be ordered to pay the other party’s costs.
Is there any way of preventing matters from getting out of hand and keeping costs to a minimum? The court itself has a built-in mechanism for attempting to resolve such matters without the need for a trial. Known as "financial dispute resolution" hearings, they are conducted by a judge who is there to assist the parties in trying to reach an acceptable compromise. However, the hearings are the last step before a trial, which means they inevitably take place at a time when the parties may already be too far entrenched and determined on a downward slope to uncertain and costly litigation.
But a new approach is beginning to produce interesting results and may show the way forward to a quicker, cheaper, more enduring solution.
Many family solicitors have adopted a system known as "collaborative practice". Collaborative practice requires transparency, respect and a focus on constructive outcomes in the participation agreement that the lawyers and clients sign at the outset. For lawyers to become part of the process, they have to take part in an intensive initial two-day training. Each party to a family property dispute instructs a lawyer who is suitably qualified for this new procedure. All of the progress is generally achieved at meetings attended by both clients and their solicitors. While the process continues, the client must call a halt to court proceedings.
Significantly, if the negotiations break down then the lawyers are not permitted to continue to act for the clients. This operates as an encouragement for the parties to reach an amicable outcome rather than rush to court. Its stated aim is to "seek to put the client’s aspirations and values at the centre of the process and the outcome that it provides". The lawyer’s role is not adversarial, as it would be if the matter went to court; it is, rather, supportive and advisory. What the court might or might not do is not the issue – reaching a satisfactory settlement is the name of the game.
Collaborative practice has apparently been spectacularly successful with the members reporting virtually complete success. Consent orders sent to court for endorsement contain a standard paragraph confirming that consent has been reached as a result of collaborative practice.
Perhaps marriage breakdown needs a sort of United Nations approach to encourage a ceasefire between the parties. It may be that collaborative practice provides that service. It is certainly worth a try.
Click here at access article on Times site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)