We Need To Be A United Front

[Chrissy Chrzanowski]

This was a relpy to a topic that vanished but with all the inner circle bickering I think my comment deseves to have everyone view. This is for the children.......



Hello I'm not sure you will want to hear from me but here it is. My name is Chrissy and I'm a child survivor of parental alienation. I have not attended the first rally due to I just started speaking out in January so I won't claim to be a know it all but my oppinion lies in the interest of TPs and the children. I understand and feel your anger but should it not be directed to the judical system in your area. As a survivor of this disturbing behavior my goal is to not only to take it to the "top" but educate by the masses. Their are people that go through this everyday that think they are alone in this fight, some don't even know it has a name. If they aren't going through it unfortantely chances are they know someone who is. I've been hurt and many children are as well and I believe this is a way to communicate to the general public and also to come together as a "family" to show support to one another. To know that everyday we face this painful battle that we can pick up the phone to reach out, make connections not just over a hard computer.


I know I need this! But further more as being during vacation time some still hang around and dont be fooled. I know whats going on my steps espically when 1,000 people are there. They talk about us even if we are not in their face we can be a thorn in their side. I care about the children whos to say I dont share a brochure with a stranger at the rally and they are an alieanting parent and hearing it from a childs view they wake up and see the destruction they are causing or I bring hope to a targeted parent being that at 30 years old I did wake up and return to my mother.

The rally in DC is only one of the many ways that Ron attracts attention to parental alienation and family matters. I know he has good feedback from senators that agree with us. We want everything NOW sometimes we have to learn to walk before we can run. We are supposed to support each other and fight this TOGETHER. I don't think I'm to far off base in saying education raises awarness which leads to more voices.

I support Ron and I have talked to him personally and have nothing but respect for him. He takes time out to fight this battle not just from his own personal battle but to reach out and help other children and parents. The vision should be the same for everyone without batteling about who knows more or who can do what with what but for the CHILDREN. Because they are the ones in the end that truely suffer. They are not allowed to be who they were born to be. Part of them is missing and lost. Utter confusion is all that enters their mind. The anger you feel inside is the anger a child holds on to for a long time. The feeling of being brainwashed and thinking your not wanted. This is abuse if everyone did something no matter how big or small maybe there would be change but how can we fight this fight for children like me if the people on the same team cant unite and agree. Why would they want to hear from us if we ourselves the fighters against this abuse can't see eye to eye.

Ron I will be there with bells on and I thank you and others for making sacrifices so children don't have to endure the suffering that I have. I will live with this trauma forever and its effects have been costly in all areas of my life. We will educate and make progress one way or the other. If we help one they will help others. I remain focused and passionate in this cause and I will go in head first for the battle of the children.

Chrissy

[stuart showalter]

My take on this is that there is too much fragmentation among objectives. We cannot focus on child support, no-fault divorce, tweaking visitation time, the federal reserve, whether our names appeared in capital letters on the divorce decree and the many other issues I see being raised on the discussion boards and still be successful. If we are to be successful then we must focus on the primary objective; the best interest of the children. Children having access to both fit and caring parents after separation. The courts don't do it so it is up to us. That is a simple concept for parents, children, media and legislators to understand.
Once we build support behind that one concept we can be successful in the legislature. Then we can move onto other issues.

[Minister Ron Smith]

The major issue is what is in the best interest of the family IS what is in the best interest of the child...There are several aspects of destroying a family...not just divorce and separation but also foster care and adoption ... parents need to learn how to work together despite not being able to live together because in the long run even though you have destroyed the life of a former spouse or lover, the child suffers more than anyone else...

Ron

[Walter]

Although, already noted, you seem to clearly crystallize the needs of importance often buried within the "gray" cast by the thick smoke and many mirrors of the industrialized "complex." Thank you.

[Bellas Mom06]

very well said. and alot of people get confused or caught up in legalese talk and get discouraged.

[Minister Ron Smith]

Whoa Chrissy you too are an early riser...But your points are well taken....We have people in this movement who are lobbying legislators and those that are trying to take some judges off the bench. ( I am working with Brian Downs here in Kent County to get him on the bench and relief judge Kathleen Feeney of her duties) but the key to all of this is to stop talking to each other and reach out to the millions of families out there that don't know we exist. That is why this community is so vitally important. Each one of us must bring five to ten other parents into this community so that we may help each other and work together to produce the largest family activist community in the United States. THAT IS WHEN CHANGE WILL OCCUR!!! The work of others is laying the groundwork for the groundswell. Keep inviting people and telling them that family destruction is an epidemic...Take a look at the 416 innocent children stolen by the state in Texas

[Chrissy Chrzanowski]

Thank you and I really believe with all my heart that someday there will be change. God did not intend for familes to be broken this way. We have to keep speaking out and stay focused on the goal of equal parenting and families being made whole in all aspects even if the parents cant stay together.

[Joey'sMom]

What has always troubled me about the Family Court system is the requirement to focus on the best interests of the children. While I do think the children's best interests are tantamount, I have come to believe that focusing on them to the exclusion of the rights/best interests of the parents is counterproductive. When issues of abuse or neglect are not raised, why isn't it automatic 50/50? That is as much as either parent can have without impeding on the other parent's time with the child. To force a fit and loving parent into a second class role in their child's life creates an imbalance of power, lack of influence from the non-custodial parent, frustrates the non-custodial parent, the list could go on and on. It is in a child's best interest to have happy, healthy and whole parents, so why in the world would the court rule in a manner that creates a scenario that, in the end, is not in a child's best interests??? I hope I said all of that right, I know what I am thinking, just getting it out sometimes poses an issue.

[stuart showalter]

If you assume that the focus of family court is on the best interest of children then the rulings will seem perplexing. If you realize that the courts rule in their best financial interest then it all makes sense. I was in a meeting with a father facing jail on a non-support contempt charge and his lawyer today. When the guy mentioned something about it not being fair that support was based on his gross business income I had to remind him that "fair" is not a word that is applicable to court proceedings.
When a child can be placed in a situation where two parents provide a stable relationship and the care a child needs then it takes little involvement by others. When a child's foundation and security can be ripped away then many stand to profit. Juvenile delinquency leads to greater employment for the police, probation officers, jailers, court house staff, counselors, lawyers and the judges. In my community these people are all related. Then there is also the forced drugging that is so profitable.
Some judges have a financial interest in the care facilities where these juveniles get sent. Here it is about 100 miles away. The family courts manufacture judicial circumstances for their own benefit. It has never been about the best interest of the children.
Ron is correct in that the best interest of the family is the best interest of the children.

[Brandy]

You have stated your questions beautifully. There is no sense in it. Truly, every fit parent should have the 50% time and decision-making in their children's lives. In doing this, in changing this one idea, would all else not follow? Would the courts not HAVE to revise child support? This is the key, seeing to it that Parents have EQUAL rights. It isn't about anything except that that IS what is best for not only the children, but the FAMILY!

And yes, I agree with Stuart, below, the courts cover "best financial interest" with "best interest". This creates a problem in itself. BUT if the idea were that all fit parents were EQUAL PARENTS, and this whole "sole custody" business no longer were an option, the money issue would not be able to take such an important toll in the decision as the decision would already be made.

[Mark Godbey]

The "best interest of the child" doctrine is a "fabricated" by the many states and legislatures. The Supreme Court has made rulings on this in the past, and just recently, (2004) the California Supreme court reiterated its opinion on just such matters. It is a doctrine that has not one shred of consitutional authority, but a policy when the states acts as the "parent" when unfittness is called into question. And even when it is not called into question. It is a knockabout term, used to label the state's "paternal" interests in controlling our wallets, where we pray, where are kids go to school, who we can vote for, and on and on.
We must move past this nonsense term and recognize the parent's and the child's civil rights as paramont over legislative doctrine/policy of "best interests" A parent child bond is a "liberty interest" that takes it beyond the foolishness of any currently popular legislative agenda.

The high court has observed that the “ ‘best interests’ ” standard is “vague” and that “judges . . . utilizing [it] . . . may find it difficult . . . to avoid decisions resting on subjective values.” (Smith v. Organization of Foster Families (1977) 431 U.S. 816, 835, fn. 36; see also Troxel, supra, 530 U.S. at p. 101 (dis. opn. of Kennedy, J.) [“best interests” test “has at times been criticized as indeterminate, leading to unpredictable results”].) In holding that the federal due process clause requires application of a clear and convincing evidence test in parental neglect proceedings, the high court in Santosky also explained that because this “imprecise substantive standard[] . . . leave[s] determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge,” it “magnif[ies] the risk of erroneous factfinding.” (Santosky, supra, 455 U.S. at p. 762, italics added.)

My children, too, have been alienated from me and I have not seen them for 18 monthes, even with a visitation order in place. I can only just imagine the pain and suffering my children have endured at the hands of their Alienating mother, but I am glad that you share your pain with us Chrissy, since now I can identify with your feelings, and not just the anger that I feel inside for the abuse heaped on me as the TP, but on my childlren's loneliness, as well.

To use the term "best interest of the child" is to give credibility, legitimacy, to bogus legislative action. I use the term "consitutional protected rights to my parents" instead. It raises the bar.

Mark G.