Parental alienators in sheep's clothing

Conceptual challenge for the day: Those who would argue against parental alienation on the basis that it is used by abusive parents to gain control of children in divorce proceedings are actually themselves of that abusive type. They are like double agents. Which side are they actually on? If they can convince the world that parental alienation does not exist, they can practice it as much as they like. They are like the child sexual abusers who claim that because they can groom the children into what they say is willing participation, then the children are making some sort of informed choice and they should be allowed to do what they do. Charming, eh?

A fatherly punch to the face?

In a comment to my last post, asking my readers to put on the judge's robes and offer their own rulings on the Alec, Ireland & Kim debacle, an anonymous contributor offered:

"Without hearing all of the evidence presented in the case (or even every media story on the case) I have to ask: Does it occur to anyone that Kim has been denying visitation to Alec for a reason? Like maybe she gave us a glimpse in the phone call?"

Well, if you read around a bit, it clearly occurs to a great number of people. In fact, it is the most commonly the reflex reaction, especially without hearing all the evidence, and it is extremely damaging. Why would it be any less appropriate to wonder if Alec is being an asshole for a reason? Why is a flawed reaction to prolonged provocation considered to be pathological, but baseless accusation and ostracism, not to mention repeatedly defying court orders, perfectly acceptable?

My correspondent would argue, perhaps, that the reaction suggests the accusations are not baseless and thus the ostracism acceptable. But there is nothing to tell us that this reflects the true sequence of cause and effect, and plenty to imply the reverse. That the inappropriate reaction is the consequence of sustained disregard for the rights of a loving father and a unilateral decision to usurp him is not relevant. We live in a fundamentally prejudiced time in which the slightest misbehavior in a man is something to immediately condemn while apparently failing to even see much worse behavior in a woman. The only acceptable man is a saint, the only unacceptable woman a drug addict or a criminal.

Recently, we have heard that Kim is "very, very pleased" about the result of some court hearing. We don't know what that result is, now that she's very, very pleased, she's also keeping her trap shut. Given the history, we can be pretty sure that Alec is very far from pleased and that Ireland is "safe" from him. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of this kind of treatment can see right through it to the destructive core beneath. The vast majority of the human race assumes that where there's what she calls smoke, there must be fire.

What can Alec do? Nothing. They've got him by the balls. He can't even get out of his contract and work to fight an injustice which has so affected him it has disrupted his commitment to a lifetime career and I'm sure many of my readers will relate to that.

Some of the media reactions are instructive. Take Connie Schultz, who modestly calls herself "The Plain Dealer of Cleveland":

"It's the rare woman who can't conjure up memories of her own pre-adolescent insecurities - my own list could wrap around the Earth and end in a bow - and at that moment I wanted to hit the delete button before Baldwin's daughter could check her calls. An irrational response, of course, but you don't call any female a pig and expect logic to reign."

And there we have it. Call a female names and reason goes out the window, pre-adolescent insecurity takes over. She goes on:

"Someone needs to point out that steering wheel in Baldwin's hands and remind him that he's the one who took the U-turn off the high road. No matter how cruel an ex-wife gets - and some ex-wives rival the spawn of Satan when it comes to cruelty - no one can drive a father to badger and belittle his little girl. He makes that trip on his own."

What steering wheel Connie? Kim's got the kid and, if we're to give Alec's claim the same weight as Kim's (we have no reason not to, nasty phone messages or not), it's Kim that's steering her, not Alec. Note the double standard so extreme it's almost invisible: Alec calls Ireland names and logic abdicates, but Kim torments Alec with the cruelty of the "spawn of Satan" and he'd better stay on an absolutely even keel or else.

Others are still less reasonable. George Tchirkow seems to think that Baldwin's language is worse that physical violence apparently preferring "a fatherly punch to the face", which may be about the most oxymoronic, not to mention patriphobic, idea I've heard all year, making me wonder if George knocked even two brain cells together before he touched fingers to keyboard.

David Permut, who supposedly introduced the two love birds, is said to be calling Baldwin a bully and claims he'd rather be homeless than work with him again. Permut should perhaps be treated to similar behavior at the hands of his own wife, then maybe he'd revise his ideas of what constitutes bullying.

All this puerile rubbish aside, however, the story is still shining a bright light on parental alienation, and not a moment too soon I'm sure many of us will be inclined to agree. Demosthenes Lorandos, clinical psychologist and lawyer, refreshingly declares "The people who are screaming and hollering and advocating (against PAS) wouldn't know science if it bit them in the butt". And there are much less visible and far worse examples of parental alienation just pouring out of the woodwork. For example, "Rick" tells us:

After they separated, he said his ex-wife didn't answer his phone calls for two years. "Not one. [I was] just calling to say hi to the boys." He later had mandatory answering incorporated into a court order, but said it is still not followed. He's back at court for the fourth time trying to enforce and increase his parenting time. (He only sees his boys every other weekend). He estimates that he's spent "100 grand, easy," in legal fees.

Soldier on, comrades.

Dying every day, the lost daughter and a brother in arms.

I apologize for the break after my last post. I found my inspiration a little lacking, and, well, the nights have been a little dark.

I was pleased to get several comments, including one from a man much further down this horrible road than am I. "When did I last see my kids? Eight and a half years ago, and I die a little every day." That is an excellent way of putting it, to die a little every day; not because it is a pleasing analogy, but because that is exactly what it feels like. Death seems that much closer when you can't see your children.

Also, I got a comment from the child of a disenfranchised dad and by her own account, although she doesn't call it that, an alienated child. She encourages us to keep fighting, to "take the emotional punches and never back down". If only she knew how exhausting it is to keep up that fight, to look for the next possible battle front after losing yet another legal round, how few weapons dad might wield and how many from which mom may pick and choose. Just recently, a friend of mine mused how poorly suited a man is to such a battle - evolved for solving one problem and moving on to the next, he is tormented by a problem he is not permitted to solve, nor to walk away from.

She says "Your children - at least the grown female ones - want huge, magnanimous gestures." clearly not realizing how expensive and dangerous such gestures can be. In fact, I might hazard a guess that she's taken mom's lesson to heart, that dad was never good enough, dad never did enough, even as she bewails not having done something herself. "But he was careful, and respected and space and waited some more. He was wrong to do that."

What sort of "magnanimous gesture" might he have made? You wanted him to "have made me see how much he loved me - even if he had to embarrass himself (and me!)". You do know what stalking is, don't you? Did you want to see your sad old dad dragged away by the cops? You do realize that many of the things he might have done without the court's approval would have landed him in jail, or his rights further curtailed?

It is not your fault, lost daughter, but it is not his either. Respect his memory, such as it is, and help us fight, don't just goad from the sidelines.

My post was also reposted, without asking my permission, claims to the contrary notwithstanding (but it's OK demonspawn, you were right, I don't have a problem with it) on an MSN message board. One comment in response (from fusebox) read:

While reading the Blog I found myself in a state that I have never been in. It was like I was reading what I have been feeling and saying for a long time. I have the anger problems and am truly fed up with the system and I had the exact argument with GAl in my case and she had the satisfied look that he is referring to. I see that look in my sleep. I have never been under this kind of scrutiny let alone interrogated from different angles and then of course there are the loaded questions that I would have had to have been leader of the political debate team at Harvard to answer without putting myself into some corner.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, cried the blood, written the blog post. The writer goes on to reflect on the effect his own trials, literal and figurative, have on the new woman in his life. I am pleased that I have been able to write something to touch him, and others. But I am also distressed. No-one should have to go through this sort of thing to remain, and even fail to remain, a parent.

I leave you with an item I found on poking around this message board. Of all the malignant visitation rulings, consider the gut-wrenching humiliation of having to travel across country to have visitation with your daughter under the supervision of your deserting wife's new boyfriend. That's a judge who just loves to torment. Don't anyone dare comment that it's better than nothing.

Tags: Fathers Rights