Craven de Kere wrote:
By the way, after some research I think the claim that the mother is losing the kids due to the lies about abuse itself are misleading.
It seems to be a case of parental alienation.
David Bookstaver, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration said, "Judges are bound by appellate court rulings and the appellate courts have made it very clear, in this state, that if there's a finding of parental alienation, the remedy is removal of the children."
So I gathered. Insofar as one can gather anything from the reporting these matters. I would love to see the evidence that supports that as actually the better decision in all such cases.
It is certainly easier for the courts, in an extraordinarily difficult situation (just been dealing with the mummy and daddy of one of those cases) - but the system is supposed to be weighing up what is in the best interests of the child, and there is no way I think a blanket one size fits all decision in such complex cases is in anyone's best interests.
For instance, of enormous importance is to whom the child/ren have a secure attachment - one parent? Both?
If there is no real attachment to the allegedly alienated parent, then allocating to the other parent is nice and simple for the courts, but reasonably horrendously traumatic for the kid/s.
Glad I ain't no damn family court judge, though.
If this is a really entrenched one of those, finding any kind of good decision sucks. Prolly isn't one - but, still a search for the less worst seems better than a blanket "we do this".