Should the People’s Administration install direct democracy, we propose to make Parental Alienation and Parental Kidnap criminal offences. Whilst neither are recognised by UK courts, it is currently not illegal for a spouse to be able to alienate the absent spouse or abuse the rights of the child, by conditioning the child into believing that the absent spouse is not the parent or, was a bad parent.
We also propose that mothers are legally compelled to state the truth when completing a birth certificate because at present, while it is a legal obligation to complete a birth certificate, it is NOT a legal requirement for mothers to be honest about who the father is and as well as making the process meaningless, this enables mothers to lie to the child about paternity. If mothers were obliged to be honest about paternity at the time of completing a birth certificate, children who are lied to about paternity will have at least one legal point of reference for if they decide to ascertain the truth of their paternity at any point in the future. In our view, allowing mothers to lie to children about the truth of paternity is lawful child abuse and while this is not a criminal offence, the proliferation of this form of abuse will continue.
By cutting the legal aid budget, David Cameron has ensured that cases of Parental Kidnap and Parental Alienation have increased by 80% [since 2011] and, it is no coincidence that only 20% of parents in these cases are entitled to legal aid. By prioritising savings of just £1.5 BN above children’s rights and welfare, the ‘party of the family’ is the clearly party that intends to destroy the family.
Parental Alienation and Parental Kidnap infringe upon the rights of the child to know of its parentage and also exposes the child to potential emotional difficulties in later life, if the child is ever reconciled with the truth. Parental Alienation and Parental Kidnap serves only the emotional desires and wishes [not needs] of the custodial spouse, over the rights, needs and well-being of both the child and of the absent spouse and so, this is not prioritising the protection and the well-being of the child and is therefore in our opinion, a direct form of legalised child abuse.
UK common law still refuses to recognise a man as a father unless he was wed [a religious ceremony] to the mother at the time of conception and this is the only reason for why men have always had to first fight for the right to be recognised as a father by UK common law before they can even attempt to secure access rights for their children. This corruption is then amplified when the state holds unrecognised fathers to account if they fail to pay maintenance [for example] where if this is the case, the state has no issue in recognising a man as a father and doesn’t even ask for any proof of paternity.
The state has much to hide regarding corruptions within family law and child welfare so, gagging orders are standard in ALL family-related disputes that involve children so as to protect the courts and their corruption. It is not done to protect the child’s identity [which is the excuse still given] because, if family courts care so much just to protect a child’s identity, then they would care even more to protect the child from anything more harmful such as Parental Alienation and Parental Kidnap [which in our view is the reason for why Parental Kidnap in the UK has risen by over 80% during the last 10 years]. That’s over 80% more children growing up being wilfully lied to regarding why one of their parents isn’t around and, with the full support of the courts because the UK refuses to acknowledge that Parental Alienation and Parental Kidnap are harmful to children.
The courts deny this with the full knowledge that child psychologists across the UK completely disagree with this policy due to concerns about the harmful affects to the child – such as having to endure the effects of neglect brought about through Parental Alienation and Parental Kidnap because in these cases, custodial parents have no option other than to lie to their children about why the absent parent [if proven innocent of any malicious accusations] isn’t around, leaving them in a vulnerable state which can lead to depression, bulimia, suicide attempts and many other conditions and, the courts have been fully aware of this for decades. For example; if the mother [as the custodial parent] wilfully begins to programme the child to wrongly believe that another man is the child’s father or, to programme the child to refer to the father as “Stephen” [for example], and not “dad”, the courts will state that she has the legal right to do all of this and when asked about the harmful effects to the child, they will refuse to justify or even reason their stance and instead, will immediately threaten a father with prison for contempt of court if he asks again, and the same if he threatens to disclose any of this information in relation to a specific case.
On Father’s Day 2011 [of all days], David Cameron told the country that “Absent fathers should be stigmatised like drink-drivers.” In his hypocrisy, he adds that; “leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn’t acceptable.” refusing to acknowledge the many cases of Parental Alienation and Parental Kidnap committed by mothers in the UK every day.
• No regard for child welfare – Cameron’s policies actually proliferate child abuse
• Cameron and criminal friend blocked UNICEF-supported PA child protection strategy
• PA direct democracy media: State-assisted child kidnap, parental child kidnap and social engineering
Common symptoms of Parental Alienation in adults:
• Conditioning the child to refer to the targeted parent in name as anything other than ‘mum’/’dad’ [at present, when addressing this particular aspect with regards to how this can affect the child, UK family courts state that it is the choice of the custodial parent to do this if they so choose. More importantly, when questioned about why they continually ignore all of the advice from child psychologists that states the dangers to the child in the custodial parent doing this, they remain silent in their corruption and refuse to answer].
• Supporting or encouraging the child’s refusal to visit the targeted parent without reason
• Refusing to attend mediation services provided by the courts [there is no penalty for custodial parents who refuse to attend and very little for those who ignore court orders awarded against them]
• Allowing the child to choose whether or not to visit the targeted parent when a court has not empowered the custodial parent or the child to make that choice
• Telling the child about why the marriage failed and giving them the details about the divorce settlement
• Refusing the targeted parent access to medical and school records or schedules of extracurricular activities
• Blaming the targeted parent for not having enough money, changes in lifestyle or other problems whilst in the presence of the child
• Refusing to acknowledge the child has personal property and denying the child control over taking personal possessions to the targeted parent’s home
• Rigid enforcement of the visitation schedule purely to get back at the targeted parent
• Failure to adhere to court orders
• Preventing or restricting access
• Preventing the targeted parent from fulfilling their duties and desires as a responsible parent
• Denying the targeted parent the opportunity to be able to protect the child in any way that a parent deemed fit to parent, would so choose
• Assuming and expressing that the targeted parent may be dangerous because he or she had made threats in the past during an argument
• False allegations against the targeted parent of sexual abuse, drug and alcohol use or other illegal activities by the custodial parent
• Asking the child to choose one parent over the other
• Reminding the child they have good reason to feel angry towards the targeted parent
• Suggesting adoption or changes in name should a parent remarry
• Giving the child reasons for feeling angry toward the targeted parent, even when they have no memory of the incident that would provoke the feeling and, especially when they cannot remember the incident or reasons for being angry themselves
• Special signals, secrets, words with unique meanings or a private rendezvous arranged between the child and the custodial parent
• An intention to use the child as a witnesses against the targeted parent
• Asking the child to spy or covertly gather information to be used against the targeted parent
• Setting up temptations, distractions and/or obstacles that interfere with visitation
• Giving the child the impression having a good time on a visit will hurt the custodial parent
• Asking the child about the targeted parent’s personal life
• ‘Rescuing’ the child from the targeted parent when there is no danger
Common symptoms of Parental Alienation in children:
Listed below is how the custodial parent’s behaviour impacts upon the child’s behaviour or attitudes towards the targeted parent. If Parental Alienation influences the child against the targeted parent, the observer will see symptoms of Parental Alienation syndrome.
For example; if a child doesn’t appear to have a problem with visits, one can safely conclude Parental Alienation syndrome is not severe or present. That is not to say Parental Alienation is not occurring [over time, the child may display severe symptoms of Parental Alienation syndrome]. Often children appear healthy until asked about the targeted parent. Some of the behaviours an observer can expect to see in Parental Alienation syndrome in children include:
• A relentless hatred for the targeted parent
• Parroting the custodial parent
• Refusing to visit or spend any time with the targeted parent
• Having many beliefs about the targeted parent mixed-up with those of the custodial parent
• Holding delusional or irrational beliefs
• Not being intimidated by or not respecting the court’s authority
• Reasons for not wanting to have a relationship with the targeted parent based only on what the custodial parent tells the child
• The child not giving the targeted parent the benefit of the doubt
• Difficulty distinguishing between personal memories and what the child was told
• No ambivalence in a child’s feelings – feeling only hatred without the ability to see any positive in the targeted parent
• No capacity to feel guilty about behaviour towards the targeted parent or to forgive any past indiscretions
• Sharing the custodial parent’s cause to attack and dismiss the relationship
• Hatred extending to the targeted parent’s extended family without any guilt or remorse