Up on Ration Shed; with thanks to Battered Moms Lose Custody BLOG
I will make it clear here that I believe the Girls are far better at Alienating Kids from their Dad than are Dads from their Mum
However I am listening if the Girls don’t YELL to loud.
FAMILY Orientated Authors are WELCOME.
- BLOG – https://rationshed.wordpress.com
- Yahoo – http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationshed
- FaceBook – http://apps.facebook.com/causes/190655/37924750?m=cc366e79
Use link below to view the full content of what is in the subject line.
Onward – Jim
Is Australia’s Chief Justice Bryant Concerned With PAS In The Courts?
May 10, 2009 — batteredmomslosecustody
Australia’s Chief Justice Diana Bryant’s name is mentioned in several articles in relation to parental alienation and family violence. The most recent is an attack by Fathers4Equality who attempt to smear anyone who does not agree with their demands. These fanatical father’s rights groups are often referred to as the “abuser’s lobby” as many of the member have histories of domestic violence and child abuse. Of course nearly every member of the group claims to have been falsely accused… They have issued a press release bashing what appears to be efforts to aid victims of abuse.
False accusations of the fictitious Parental Alienation Syndrome can be purchased by paying one of the numerous unethical, hired-gun lawyers and psychologists. Courts are even infiltrated with supposedly unbiased evaluators who routinely accuse abuse victims of alienation. No domestic violence or child abuse victim is safe from being re-victimized in court as long as these false allegations of fictitious syndromes are allowed to occur. This twisted testimony for sale is a racketeering scam. It is fraud on the court. This intentional re-victimization of abuse victims needs to be stopped.To claim an abused child is parentally alienated, an abuser uses a PAS accusing lawyer and/or purchases the testimony of a known parental alienation accusing psychologist. The scam is so blatant there is information readily available on the internet on how to do this.
BMLCTA blog would like to further warn the courts, that even without the use of the term “alienation” the same PAS accusing lawyers and psychologists continue to use specific rhetoric to vilify the victims. What needs to happen is that the maltreatment of victims by accusing them of lying needs to be banned along with any form of mother-bashing and victim blaming. There is already a high level needed to establish evidence. Not meeting a high enough level to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that a crime did not occur. Accusations of PAS do not have evidence, they are similar to witchcraft accusations.
Is Justice Bryant now aware of the harm being caused to children by the use of alienation accusations against mothers who try to protect their children? It had appeared that there was denial of a problem going on for several years, but by the looks of the press release put out by the abuser’s lobby things may be changing. It looks as though the Australian Court System may finally be acknowledging that children’s lives are being destroyed by the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome as a courtroom tactic to wrongfully vilify the victims of domestic violence and child abuse. Children do need to be protected from “Lying in the Family Court”…and the ones who are lying in family court are the abusers who claim to be Parentally Alienated!!!
Chief Justice Bryant on Parental Alienation:
February, 2007 – Background Briefing transcript of Jane Shields interview where Justice Bryant appears to be doing a big cover-up: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2007/1847340.htm
Jane Shields: Background Briefing put some of these arguments to the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant. She is adamant that the syndrome is not being accepted by judges of the Court.
Chief Justice Diana Bryant: As far as I’m aware in my experience, and I’ve looked at a number of recent cases, there are almost no experts who give evidence in the Family Court who subscribe to the view that there is a Parental Alienation Syndrome. And the decisions of the court do not accept that there is a Parental Alienation Syndrome. I went through all of the decisions, doing a search, putting the words in, since 2003. The words Parental Alienation Syndrome come up quite a lot in the judgments, but they’re referred to because that’s usually what one party alleges.
In only one case since 2003 did I find a judge who had an expert before him, who said there was such a syndrome. Subsequently, in other decisions in that registry, judges have said that they don’t accept the evidence of the expert on that point.
So it isn’t something that the Family Court accepts. All of the internal counselors that are in the court subscribe to the view that there is no valid condition as Parental Alienation Syndrome.
Jane Shields: Freda Briggs is very respected and she has witnessed cases where there’s been substantiated abuse and the custody arrangement has been reversed.
Diana Bryant: I don’t agree with that. I know what Freda Briggs has said in a number of cases, and she is well respected. However, they are her views. The point is that people will say, people – sometimes they’re experts who come in on the side of a particular parent – and they will truly believe that it might have occurred; they may believe the party that abuse has occurred. But the person who actually makes the findings in fact at the end of the day is the judge, who hears all the evidence. And simply because an expert, or anyone says to you, ‘I’m sure there was abuse in this case’, doesn’t mean that there was. It’s the judge in the end who has to make the decision, and they’re hard decisions. None of us like to do it, none of us like to be confronted with having to determine whether or not abuse has occurred.
Jane Shields: Would you consider a review of any cases where that is alleged?
Diana Bryant: We put cases up on the internet. They’re anonymised cases and they’re cases dealing with it. I published a case because I thought it was in the public interest to do so last year, a case in which Dr Wood, who’s recently been writing in the paper, gave evidence, and there were experts on both sides, and the judge made a decision, and that case is published on the internet for everyone to read, and I’m happy for people to have informed debate about it.
April 2008 – Ruling Debunks Custody Diagnosis article from The Australian where William Wrigley was disciplined for using PAS to change custody, Justice Bryant was referenced regarding a “fact sheet” about PAS. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23495760-2702,00.html
Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant last year posted on the family law court website a “fact sheet” about the syndrome, which said the malady was used in evidence, but warned that it was not accepted as “a psychiatric disease”.
Chief Justice Bryant’s notice cited several cases “where PAS has been rejected or not accepted as a concept”. The cited cases, with names excluded, included the controversial matter for which Dr Wrigley was disciplined by the psychologists board.
February, 2009 – Files were stolen from Justice Bryant’s car that were from Darcey Freeman’s case. This child was killed when she was thrown off a bridge by her father. http://anonymum.bravehost.com/familycourtdeaths.html
Chief Justice Diana Bryant stated, “The parties did not present to the judicial officer concerned as part of their case that this child was at risk of harm in the father’s care”.
Two days after this was reported, the documents to Darcey’s case were allegedly stolen from the Chief Justice Diana Bryant’s Car. The transcript to the case was one of the documents that “disappeared”. There was no signs of forced entry and no security cameras. The transcript of the case would have contained whether or not the family had raised it concerns and for a case to have extended over a timeframe of two years, the family would have to have been contesting visitations for a good reason as the time and costs of litigating for such a period are exhaustive.
May, 2009 – Shared parenting group, Fathers4Equality issue press release that Justice Bryant wants clauses removed from the forced shared parenting law. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/05/prweb2394944.htm
The Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant, has recently launched an extraordinary attack on Australia’s internationally regarded 2006 Family Law amendments, by writing to the Attorney-General and asking him to urgently repeal important provisions within the amendments. According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, “These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire. But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them.”
The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:
- the order of costs, at the Judge’s discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have “knowingly” made false allegation in Court, and
- unspecified actions, at the Judges’s discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent