I am frequently sent requests to sign parental alienation petitions. The most recent one had four stated goals. The third goal stating:
“3: Education of Social Services, CAFCAS, Judges and schools.”*
Whenever I see one that talks about educating judges and social workers, I hesitate, not because I don’t want them educated, but because every request that you make of a court or social worker holds with it an action. If that action means costing you more money and causing you delays, and puts protection of your rights at risk, then I’m not generally for it.
The type of education that I do agree with for judges and social workers is teaching them how not to become alienators themselves and how not to fall for the alienation tactics.
For judges, teach them how not to use the alienation as a reason to infringe the rights of the targeted parent.
For social workers, teach them how not to mistake the alienation as a reason to restrict the targeted parent or to impose supervised or expensive therapy on the targeted parent.
I agree with educating judges as long as this educational criteria does not create an additional expense or delay for parents in protecting their full and equal rights to their child. So it is the content of the education that I believe is important. This education can be educating the judges on how not to be alienators themselves and how not to fall for alienation tactics. Once the courts protect rights fully for both parents, then parental alienation behaviors will not be empowered through the courts.
“Research from analyzing nearly two decades of alienation cases in the Canadian courts found that alienating efforts were linked to the parent who had the most access to the child, not necessarily the gender of the parent. (Family Court Review, 2010; Vol. 48 No. 1, 164-179)
Canada Family Court Cases from 1989-2008:
Alienation substantiated in 106 out of 175 cases.
Mothers were alienators 68% of the time.
Fathers were alienators 31% of the time.
“In order to be alienated by one parent, a child must identify very closely with that parent…[which] occurs if the child is living primarily or exclusively with that parent.”
Alienating parents had sole custody in 84% of the cases.
Alienating parents had joint custody in 13% of the cases.
Alienating parents had only access rights in 3% of the cases.
Conclusion: “In terms of the cases where alienation was found, differences are reflective of custody and child care arrangements rather than a maternal predisposition to alienate children.”**
Bottom line is do you really think that educating a judge on one more reason you should win custody is going to make a whip of a difference? This is the same failed thinking that has cost parents millions, billions of dollars over the last several generations. Get off the train of thinking that you need to prove that something is wrong with someone or that you are worthy of having your child. The only thing that you need to prove to the judge is that you have rights and you won’t tolerate those rights being ignored!
If you are going to educate a judge it should be on the rights that you have and the protection that those rights receive.
You can get more information on your fundamental parental rights from Ron and Sherry Palmer here.
As a constitutional family rights expert researcher and writer, Sherry helps parents and their attorneys see the possibilities in making constitutional arguments for parental rights as being in the child’s best interests. She enables parents and attorneys to assert rights and convert the constitutional principles into everyday practice and natural language.
Sherry does this through creating and teaching online digital courses, speaking, webinars, and workshops. Sherry’s teachings are unique and cutting edge to the family law industry developed by her and her husband. Sherry attributes successfully developing the most powerful tools and a five-stage formula to assist attorneys and pro se parents get better results and fight legal abuses that occur in the family court settings.