.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Mens Rights

It is a growing problem that men today are marginalised for their maleness. It is the aim of this site to educate and enlighten, to be Pro-Gender. Regardless of the high sounding ideals, when one group opresses another those with evil intent will take advantage.

Monday, July 04, 2005

UK Law and PAS

What is the Judicial Recourse?

There is an increase in the alienated parent turning to the legal profession and the courts if all other methods have failed. They feel justice must surely prevail when an independent Judge is made aware of PAS. This is now common in the United States, but less so in the UK. Judges are naturally influenced by a number of traditions and are unaware in many cases, of the effects of PAS. These traditions are:

1. Mothers on the whole, are thought more suitable than fathers of having custody of the children.
2. The older children should have the final say about whom to be with. This does not, however, consider the programming which the alienated parent has carried out beforehand.
3. In the case of a younger child, many Judges again favour the mother as main custodian or sole custodian, all things being equal. If they favour the other parent they may well be viewed as unfair.
4. Sometimes Judges will recommend family therapy or some involvement of psychiatrists, paediatricians or clinical psychologists to assess and treat the conflict between opposing parents. These professionals also often fail to respond to the PAS which has eliminated or reduced the role being played by the alienated parent. They, too, may put too much emphasis on what children say they want, being unaware of PAS.

It is vital that decisions are made which are fair and just for all concerned. PAS cannot be allowed to prevent one capable but hostile parent from depriving another stable and capable parent of their parenting role. Any parent who practises PAS must ultimately be dealt with severely by the court. PAS is a kind of brainwashing which leads to suffering for all concerned, either in the short or long-term. Both parents must be viewed as having the right and the obligation to play a vital role on the care, guidance and love provided for their children.

The judiciary must realize that many potential litigious parents who have been the victims of adverse brainwashing of their children give up the fight. They do this for a variety of practical reasons including:

1. The feeling that they are doing more harm to their children than good by fighting over them.
2. Lack of financial resources.
3. The view that they simply do not think they can win against a determined, alienating former parent.
4. It takes much determination and is extremely time consuming, when one is already fully stretched in earning a living in order to provide for the children.

It is unfortunate that many children view the fact that a parent does not fight for them in the courts, as a rejection of them by that parent. It is time to redress the balance.