So how far will one go to either keep us away from our children, or our children away from us?
How far will a person go to keep the truth under lock and key, and the lies pouring out like lava?

It amazes me the people that fall for the lies of the alienators and fall right into the same behaviours of these people. This is way these types of behaviours are "cult" like. They get followers to believe what they say is true.

Recently, I was in a group on facebook called MCRD. It was for parents who kids were in boot camp.
The one I mentioned in my post yesterday. Anyhow, I logged into my facebook today to find that I was removed and blocked from the MCRD group. No big deal really, it just made me think of all those people who have fallen in that trap of lies as well. After I posted my latest entry on my blog, I shared the link on that page. Apparently, someone didn't like it. *clearing throat
Wonder who that could be? No names were used, so no harm done. I just wanted to share my story with the group.

Well I guess the truth hurts, and so I was removed. It's a sad thing when you don't want people to know that you have alienated children from their mother or father. It's a sad thing when one person can manipulate a multitude of others into believing that you had "good reason" to keep the kids from their mom or dad. Those are lies!

Alienators act as if their main goal in life is to make their ex miserable. Often they succeed. They may be so successful that they drive the alienated parent away. Alienators are also very paranoid.
These people are exquisitely sensitive to slights. It takes very little to arouse their suspicions.
        -Dr. Warshak author of Divorce Poison

Corrupting Reality

Most common strategies for distorting the child's perception, beliefs and memories of the target parent:

*manipulates names to disrupt children's identification with the target parent.
    This is what happened to my kids after the step mom adopted them She changed their names.

*repeating lies until they are assumed to be true

*directing the children's attention to the negative aspects of the target parent and ignoring the positive

*telling lies about the target parent

*revising history to erase positive memories of the target parent

*claiming the target parent has total changed

*conspiring with others to reinforce the programming

If you would like to see more of these strategies please read Dr. Warshak's book Divorce Poison

paawareness.org

Not defeated.....

After I found out that Cody had enlisted in the Marines, and the initial shock wore off, I knew nothing was going to stop me from attending his graduation. I put on my inspector gadget magic fingers and I began to investigate. Day after day I would sit and look for any clues that I could to know when and where he was going to be leaving for boot camp. First, he wasn't suppose to leave until April 2012. Then, soon that date changed. He was leaving January 17, 2012.

No sooner he landed in San Diego for his 13 weeks of training, and I found out when his graduation was, I booked my flight for San Diego. I was bound and determined to make it to his graduation. Come hell or high water I was going!

So, I joined the MFN (Marine Family Network) site and followed along with all the other proud parents as they counted down the days until graduation. I watched as they all received their first phone calls. Their first letters. Then the second, and thrid. Then one of the mothers began a Facebook group. Immediatly, I joined! Hoping that someone might have information they were willing to share.

I put out there that I was an alienated mom and was hoping to find out what platoon my son, Cody was in. Instantly, mothers and fathers rallied to help me find that information. They all were going to send letters to their sons asking if they new Cody Collins. But that was short lived. She got a hold of that post and made it perfectly clear that I was not to receive any information regarding that recruit due to leagl issues.

I was instantly the outcast. I left the group. I knew that I shouldn't have, but I did. I knew that because of the target she made me out to be, I would never get anyone to talk to me.

On March 29, 2012 my attorney went to court to try and get that OP dropped. He knew that it was based on lies. He knew from the Illinois statutes, that no judge who was given the correct information would ever sign such an order. OP's are not extended for 63 years. Only in 2 year incriments and after a review. I am not a threat to my kids. I have not stalked them, harrassed them or showed up at their home, or place of buisness. Not only that, but Cody is no longer a minor, therefore the OP no longer applies to him.

He was going into the court room with all this to back up his claim on why the OP needed to be dropped. But, like always, it got continued. April 26th is the new hearing.

April 11, 2012

I landed in San Diego about 730pm. As I flew in over that beautiful city, tears started streaming down my face. I knew that the runway was on the same side as the base. I saw for the first time where Cody had been for 13 weeks. The time had finally arrived. I was a mix of emotions. Just beyond that gate was my son. The son that I had longed for so long to reconnect with. The son that I wanted to badly to hug. I was hopeful, this time I will get that chance.

The next day I had plans with my friend, Kim. She and I had been planning these few days for weeks. She and I met in 2nd grade. So we knew we had a lot of catching up to do. First stop, the San Diego Zoo. Then Misson Beach, and harbor island. We finished out that night at Hard Rock Cafe. We filled up our day with fun activites. Not only did I enjoy the day with her and her children. I fell in love with the city of San Diego.

That night, after her kids were all tucked away. We talked about the next day. The graduation. I told her what could happen. I showed her who to call if I was arressted and what to do. I hoped for the best, but prepared myself for the worst. We talked until 2 am. I told her what led up to all this mess. She was a great support.

April 13, 2012 Graduation Day

That morning, after we were all ready to go. I sat on the bed and began to shake. Tears poured down my face like the Niagra Falls. It was an uncontrollable sob. The time had finally come. After 4 years of not seeing my son, I was about to come face to face with him. Or so I hoped. Kim was a great support. She comforted me. Yet she didn't know the real pain I was feeling. The loss of a child, unless you have experienced it, you just don't know the pain.

Before we left for the base, we prayed. I am not one to pray outloud in a group or even lead in a prayer. But that day I did. I just felt like I needed God to hear it from me, outloud.

Then I wiped my face, and off we went. We were so close to the base, it was like no time we were at the gate. First hurdle was just getting on the base. The fear I had was "her" alerting them about me. Telling me who I was and asking them not to let Angie Kadow with a Georgia liscense on the base. But, like everyone else, we had to get out of our vehicle, it was searched, like everyone elses, they scanned our drivers liscense and away we went! Phew!

I was so focused on "them" that I forgot to take pictures. So I gathered myself and began to take a few pictures of the base. I was so happy to just be on that base. I was so hopeful!

We found a place to park, I took what I needed and we started walking towards the crowd. It was calling for rain that day, so they moved the ceremony indoors. Which I was hoping that wouldn't happen. We stood as far back as we could, to go unnoticed...

They started letting people in the auditorium and we slowly followed. I had to use the bathroom, I know, bad timing right? I was sure that she would be in there. Ahhh, the bathroom stop was a success. "She" wasn't in there!

As I walked out, Kim says, "there are two doors to choose from, which one will you choose?" We laughed! I picked the one we were standing closest too. Door 1!

We walked in and I kept my head down, and sunglasses on. Good thing or bad thing?

We made our way to the left and up 9 stairs. We sat down, and I laid low. I didn't make eye contact with anyone. About 15, or 20 minutes went by and Kim looked over at me and said "is that your son right there?"

She was refering to Dalton. I said "omg, YES!" How did you know that? She had NEVER met my kids or my x. Only pictures of them over the years. But somehow she just knew.

So I slowly leaned to my right and in full view was Dalton. Sitting behind him was "the x!"

I was in total shock. Boy did "he" look bad! At first I didn't think it was him because he was bald in the back. But after I saw his profile, I knew it was him. I laughed to myself and repeated a "George Castanza," "He's bald!" "Bald, bald!" 4 years sure had taken its tole on him. Yikes! But, God has his ways of punishing people. I guess he's working on him slowly!

The ceremony started and I was eager to find Cody. The opening ceremony started off by recognizing any former Marines the crowd. Guess who stood up? Yep! Now I am going to remind you, that he was discharged from the Marines after 4 years of service because he was accused of raping that women. He was stripped of his rank and was discharged. DISCHARGED PEOPLE! I don't believe the saying "Once a Marine always a Marine" pertains to someone who pissed away thier entire military carrer for a piece of tail. He was a disgrace to the Marines.

But he stood up anyway. The only 2 people who knew what he had done 17 years ago, was me and him. Funny, how this has come full circle. While applauding for all the other former Marines, I was screaming in the back of my mind, "sit down, your a disgrace to the Corp"!

But then, a small tear came trickling down my face. My life was sitting in those seats in front of him. He was still holding on to the Marine motto, and living this lie. I actually for a bried moment felt bad for the guy. But, it didn't last long!

After that, 3 young men were standing up front on stage. It was time to retire the flags that the guides carried throughout bootcamp. One of those guides was my son, Cody. I remembered someone telling me that he made guide, but it was a while ago. I didn't know that retiring the flags was part of the ceremony. They name all 3 of those young men.

For a bried minute, I looked over and noticed, she was gone. 2 things came to my mind: 1, she moved closer to get pictures of Cody because she knew he was receiving special honors, or 2, she went to alert the MP's! It was funny how, when she was gone, he moved up sitting on the edge of his seat blocking the kids so I couldn't see them or so they couldn't see me. Sick, sick people!

After the ceremony was over, all the Marines went out the side door and all families went out the doors we came in. As Kim and I started making our way out of the auditorium, I noticed that HE was standing up watching my every move. PAAAAALLLLEEEASE! Arms crossed at times and other times he was on the phone. Sooo COOL!

As we made our way out the doors and outside, he stayed far enough away, yet close enough to keep his eye on me. She was out of site. But they remained on the phone with each other.

He started walking over to the left, so I slowly followed. I was thinking, he was headed right to Cody. Then like a fart in the wind, he vanished. I asked Kim, "where did he go?" She didn't know either. Then over to the left of me there she was. One of my sons was standing with her. Both very defensive, both with arms crossed like a gate. A barrier. I told Kim, don't look, but she's standing to the left of me with my son, who I believe is Brandon. My sweet little Brandon...being forced to watch as the MP's came and removed me from the crowd.

As I saw the MP's approach me, I knew right then and there HE was leading me to the slaughter. The once excited and defining crowd became silent as I walked towards the MP's car and we started talking. Everything was silent ...it was like we were the only people there at that moment.

The MP's were super nice. I told them exactly what my attorney told me to say. I gave them the statutes that my attorney gave me, and that seemed to work. I explained to them, all I wanted to do was see my son graduate. No tears were shed, my voice didn't raise...it's like I had performed that speech 100x .... and I will say, I laid on the charm and personality too. Come on....I had to add some humor to this situation. I didn't get a smirk from them a time or two.

They said they wouldn't arrest me, but they had to escort me off the base because THEY were still on the OP. They totally got it, that Cody himself really was not according to the Illinois Statues. As they walked me and Kim to her car, I asked the MP if he would try and get my sone to come talk to me. Then I mentioned that this will make for a great new story in the paper. He excused himself and told me to follow the other MP. Where was he going? MMMM!

As we waited for the other guy to come back, I called my attorney, who didn't answer the phone. I started talking to him about Parental Alienation. That SHE lied when obtaining the OP about Cody's age and SHE lied about him enlisting in the Marines. He said, that I needed to tell the other MP about that. I also decided to tell them that my x was dischared from the Marines for duriliction of duty. And I told him the story. He was flabergasted! I got his sympathy vote! Then I handed him a brochure about PA....by that time the other MP came back. He said he called the Illinois States Attorney's office, but said he didn't feel that I did anything wrong and that they were not even going to file a police report, just make a journal entry. We got in the car, and they followed us until we were off the base.

I was fine! I got to watch him graduate. Yes, the goal was to hug him and get pictures of him...but I was there. My boys know I was there. AND of course THEY knew I was there and that pissed them off. They would have rather chased me all over that base then focus on Cody. So sit back and pat yourself on the back for allowing my son to stand next to you as the MP's removed me from the crowd....HE SAW THAT I WAS THERE! HE SAW HIS MOM.......

This hasn't stopped me. This little detour.....hasn't shaken my faith or made me stumble. It has made me want to fight harder. It has made me want to make sure that every alienator is exposed. That I will someday be part of making Parental Alienation recognized as a form of child abuse. I will be part of that law being signed!

Trust me, I've already been thinking about what to call it!

PAAwareness.org

　

3 types of Parental Alienation

COURT REVIEW, VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1, SPRING 1991, p 14-21
American Judges Association

LEGAL AND PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC APPROACHES TO THE THREE TYPES OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME FAMILIES
When Psychiatry and the Law Join Forces
Richard A. Gardner, M.D.

In the mid to late 1970s, in association with the replacement of the tender-years presumption with the best-interests-of-the-child presumption (and the gender egalitarianism incorporated therein), we witnessed a burgeoning of child custody litigation. Fathers who previously had little if any chance of gaining custody now found court support for their quest. Since the late 1970s, in association with the increasing popularity of the joint custodial concept, there was an even further burgeoning of custody litigation. Whereas previously the courts tended to award one parent sole custody and assigned the other parent visitation status, now litigating parents could each hope for a large share of time with the children. In association with what can justifiably be called a custody litigation explosion (which is still going on), I began to see a disorder, which I rarely saw before, that developed almost exclusively in children who were exposed to and embroiled in custody disputes. The primary characteristic of this disorder is obsessive alienation from a parent.

Originally, I thought I was observing manifestations of simple "brainwashing." However, I soon came to appreciate that things were nor so simple and that many other factors were operative. Accordingly, I introduced the term parental alienation syndrome.

I use the term to refer to a disturbance in which a child is obsessed with deprecation and criticism of a parent (more often the father) denigration that is unjustified or exaggerated. At the same time, the other parent can do no wrong and the nonpreferred parent can do no right. The notion that such children have merely been brainwashed by the preferred parent is narrow. The term brainwashing implies that one parent is systematically and consciously programming the child to denigrate the other parent. The concept of the parental alienation syndrome includes much more than brainwashing. It includes not only conscious but subconscious and unconscious factors within the preferred parent that contribute to the parent's influencing the child's alienation. Furthermore (and this is extremely important), it includes factors that arise within the child-independent of the parental contributions - that foster the development of the syndrome.

Typically, the child is obsessed with "hatred" of a parent. (The word hatred has been placed in quotes because there are still many tender and loving feelings felt toward the allegedly despised parent that are not permitted expression.) These children speak of the hated parent with every vilification and profanity in their vocabulary - without embarrassment or guilt. The vilification of the parent often has the quality of a litany. After only minimal prompting, the record will be turned on and a command performance provided. One not only detects a rehearsed quality to the speech but often hears phraseology that is identical to that used by the "loved" parent. (Again, the word loved is placed in quotes because hostility toward and fear of that parent may similarly be unexpressed.) Even years after they have taken place, the child may justify the alienation with memories of minor altercations experienced in the relationship with the hated parent. These are usually trivial and relate to experiences that most children quickly forget: "He always used to speak very loud when he told me to brush my teeth," "She used to say to me 'Don't interrupt,"' and "He used to make a lot of noise when he chewed at the table." When these children are asked to give more compelling reasons for the hatred, they are unable to provide them. Frequently, the loved parent will agree with the child that these professed reasons justify the ongoing animosity.

The hatred of the parent often includes that parent's complete extended family. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents - with whom the child previously may have had loving relationships - are now viewed as similarly obnoxious. Greeting cards are not reciprocated. Presents sent to the child's home are refused, remain unopened, or even destroyed [generally in the presence of the loved parent]. When the hated parent's relatives call on the telephone, the child will respond with angry vilifications or quickly hang up on the caller. The rage of these children is so great that they become completely oblivious to the privations they are causing themselves. Again, the loved parent is typically unconcerned with the untoward psychological effects on the child of the rejection of these relatives.

The child may exhibit a guiltless disregard for the feelings of the hated parent. There will be a complete absence of gratitude for gifts, support payments, and other manifestations of the hated parent's continued involvement and affection. Often, these children will want to be certain the alienated parent continues to provide support payments, but at the same time adamantly refuse to visit with that parent. Commonly, they will say that they never want to see the hated parent again, or not until their late teens or early twenties. To such a child I might say: "So you want your father to continue paying for all your food, clothing, rent, and education - even private high school and college - and yet you still don't want to see him at all, ever again. Is that right?" Such a child might respond: "That's right. He doesn't deserve to see me. He's mean and paying all that money is a good punishment for him."

Those who have never seen such children may consider this description a caricature. Those who have seen them will recognize the syndrome immediately, although some children may not manifest all the symptoms. The parental alienation syndrome is becoming increasingly common, and there is good reason to predict that it will become even more common in the immediate future if custody conflicts become even more prevalent.

Elsewhere (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) I have described in greater detail the causes and manifestations of the parental alienation syndrome. Of the causational factors, those that are most pertinent to this article relate to what I consider to have been the misguided egalitarianism of the "sex-blind" criteria for assessing parental capacity in custody disputes. Whether the result of genetic difference (probably of survival value in past times, when women were primarily child rearers and men hunters and warriors) or the fact that mothers (even today) are more likely to have been the primary child rearers, the mother-child psychological bond is generally stronger than the father-child I believe that the symptoms of parental alienation syndrome - in both mothers and children - have been related to the attempts to preserve this stranger bond. Although many of these mothers' tactics may be considered vicious, manipulative, and deceitful, I have sympathy for these women. They have felt helpless and impotent and have often resorted to primitive techniques because of the failure of more civilized and adult maneuvers to work for them. And children, too, have been threatened by the disruption of the mother-child bond. The children's techniques have been even more primitive because of their naivete about the world. Although they have selected maneuvers that seem absurd and preposterous to the adult, these maneuvers do not appear so to children because of their cognitive immaturity and less sophisticated ability to defend themselves against the disruption of the mother-child bond. Here I focus on the therapeutic and legal approaches to the treatment of these children and their families, which (with increased experience) I have divided into three types. Each type warrants its own special therapeutic and legal approach. Finally, I will propose guidelines for evaluators and courts, which if implemented are likely to reduce, if not prevent entirely, the development of the parental alienation syndrome.

The Three Types of Parental Alienation Syndrome Families

Based on my more recent work with these families, I have divided them into three categories: severe, moderate, and mild. Although there is actually a continuum, and many cases do not fit neatly into one of these classifications, the differentiation is still important with regard both to psychotherapeutic and legal approaches. If evaluators are to provide the most judicious recommendations, it is vital that they determine first the proper category in which the family fits. In each category I will discuss the mothers, the children, and the appropriate psychotherapeutic and legal approaches. I will use the mother as the example of the preferred parent because this is the case in the majority of such families. My explanation for this disparity has relevance to my theory of the causes of this disorder. However, the same considerations apply to the father when he is the favored parent.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that in many (if not most) cases the therapy of these families is not possible without court support. Only the court has the power to order these mothers to stop their manipulations and maneuvering. And it is only the court that has the power to place the children in whichever home would best suit their needs at the particular time. Therapists who embark upon the treatment of such families without such court backing are not likely to be successful.

Severe Cases of the Parental Alienation Syndrome.

The mothers of these children are often fanatic. They will use every maneuver at their disposal (legal and illegal) to obstruct visitation. They are obsessed with hatred of their husbands. In many cases, they are paranoid. Sometimes the paranoid thoughts and feelings about the husband are focused on him alone; in other cases, this paranoia is just one example of many types of paranoid thinking. Often the paranoia did not exhibit itself before the breakup of the marriage and is a manifestation of the psychiatric disintegration that often results from protracted divorce (especially custody) disputes.(2) Central to the paranoid mechanism is projection. These mothers see in their husbands many objectionable characteristics that actually exist within themselves characteristics that they do not wish to recognize. By projecting these unacceptable qualities onto their husbands, they can consider themselves innocent victims. When a sex-abuse accusation becomes incorporated into the package, such mothers may be projecting their own sexual inclinations onto the father. (3 6, 7) In the service of this goal they exaggerate and distort any comment the child makes that might justify the allegation. And this is not difficult to do because children normally will entertain sexual fantasies, often of the most bizarre form. I agree with Freud (8) that children are "polymorphous perverse," and they thereby provide these mothers with an ample supply of material to serve as nuclei for their projections and accusations.

Such mothers do not respond to logic, confrontations with reality, or appeals to reason. They will readily believe the most preposterous scenarios provided by or elicited from their children. Experienced and skilled mental health examiners - who claim that there is no evidence for the accusation are dismissed as being against them or as being bribed by the husband. And this is typical of paranoid thinking: it does not respond to logic, and any confrontation that might shake the system is rationalized into the paranoid scenario. Even a court decision that there is absolutely no evidence that the father is guilty of sex abuse does not alter her beliefs nor reduce her commitment to deprecation of the father. Energizing the rage is the "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" phenomenon.

The children of these mothers are similarly fanatic. They often share her paranoid fantasies about the father. They may become panic-stricken over the prospect of visiting their father. Their blood-curdling shrieks, panicked states, and hostility may be so severe that visitation may seem impossible. If placed in the father's home they may run away, become paralyzed with morbid fear, or be so destructive that removal becomes necessary. Unlike children in the moderate and mild categories, their panic and hostility may not be reduced quickly in the father's home. However, there are children in this category whose state of agitated rage against the father will become reduced if required (especially by court order) to remain in their father's home over an ongoing period.

Regarding the therapeutic approaches in this category, traditional therapy for the mother is most often not possible. Usually, she has absolutely no insight into her deep-seated psychiatric problems and is thereby totally unreceptive to treatment. Often, she will consider therapists and other evaluators who believe that her delusions are not warranted to be joining in with her husband. These examiners thereby become incorporated into the paranoid system. A court order that she enter into treatment is futile. Judges are sometimes naive with regard to their belief that one can order a person into treatment. Most judges appreciate that they cannot order a frigid wife to have an orgasm or an impotent husband to have an erection. Yet, they somehow believe that one can order someone to have conviction for and commitment to therapy. Accordingly, the court does well not to order such treatment because it will only make a mockery of therapy.

It is important for judges to appreciate that treatment for the children is most often not possible while the children are still living in the mother's home. No matter how frequently they are seen in treatment, no matter how skilled the therapist, the time in therapy is only a small fraction of the total exposure time to the mother's vilification of the father. There is a pathological psychological bond here between the mother and children that is not going to be changed by therapy as long as the children live with the mother.

Accordingly, before meaningful treatment can begin the children must be removed from the mother's home and placed in the home of the father, the allegedly hated parent. This may not be accomplished easily, and the court might have to threaten sanctions (such as fines or permanent loss of custody) and even jail if the mother does not comply. Following this transfer there must be a period of decompression and debriefing in which the mother has no contact at all with the children. Only in this way will the children be given the opportunity to reestablish their relationship with the alienated father without significant contamination from the mother. Even telephone calls must be strictly prohibited for at least a few weeks, perhaps longer. The transfer can be monitored by a court-ordered therapist or guardian ad litem who has direct input to the court and who the mother knows will be reporting any resistance or uncooperative behavior. Then, according to the therapist's or guardian ad litem's judgment, slowly increasing contacts with the mother may be initiated, starring with monitored telephone calls. The danger here, however, is that these will be opportunities for reprogramming the children against the father.

In some cases this program may be successful, especially if the mother can see her way clear to entering into meaningful therapy (not often the case for mothers in this category). In these cases the children might ultimately be returned to the mother. However, if she still attempts to alienate the children it may be necessary to assign primary custody to the father and allow limited visitation with the mother to protect the children from significant reprogramming. In extreme cases one may have to sever the children entirely from the mother for many months or even years. In such cases the children will at least be living with the healthier parent. My experience has been that in such cases the animosity toward the father gradually becomes reduced. In contrast, if the court allows the children to remain living with such a disturbed mother - and believes that therapy of the children will "cure" them of their alienation - then it is likely that there will be lifelong alienation from the father. I recognize that some readers will consider this approach very stringent, even punitive. From the point of view of the mother it certainly is; with regard to the welfare of the children, it is the most humane approach.

Moderate Cases of the Parental Alienation Syndrome.

The mothers in this category are not as fanatic as those in the severe category but are more disturbed than those in the mild category (who may not have a psychiatric disturbance). In these cases the rage of the rejected woman is more important than paranoid projection. These mothers can differentiate between allegations that are preposterous and those that are not. There is still, however, a campaign of deprecation and a significant desire to wreak vengeance on the father by alienating the children from him. Many are quite creative in their excuses to obstruct visitation. They may be unreceptive to court orders; however, they will often comply after threats of fines or transfer of custody. When a false sex-abuse allegation is incorporated into the parental alienation syndrome [a not uncommon additional weapon](3, 6, 7) they will be able to differentiate between the children's preposterous claims and those that may have some validity. Whereas the mothers in the severe category have a sick psychological bond with the children (often a paranoid one), the mothers in this category are more likely to have a healthy psychological bond that is being compromised by their rage. The mothers in the moderate category are more likely to have been good child rearers before the divorce. In contrast, the mothers in the severe category, even though nor significantly disturbed before the separation, often have exhibited formidable impairments in child-rearing capacity before the separation. Therefore, mothers in the moderate category can most often remain the primary custodial parent if the combined efforts of the court and the therapist or guardian ad litem are successful in enabling the children to resume normal visitation with the father.

The children in this category are less fanatic in their vilification of the father than those in the severe category but more than those in the mild category. They also have their campaigns of deprecation of the father but are much more likely to dispense with their scenarios when alone with him, especially for long periods. A younger child may often need the support of an older one to keep the campaign going. The younger children are often the parrots of the older one, and they develop the parental alienation syndrome by imitating an older sibling. However, the primary motivation for the children's scenarios is to maintain the healthy psychological bond with the mother.

With regard to court-ordered therapy for these families, it is important that one therapist be used. I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough. We are not dealing with a situation in which the mother should have her therapist, the father his therapist, and the children their own. Such a therapeutic program, although seemingly respectful of each party's individual needs, is not likely to be effective in treating parental alienation syndrome families. Such fractionization reduces communication between family members, sets up antagonistic sub-systems within the family, and is thereby likely to intensify the pathological interactions that contribute to the parental alienation syndrome. Again, it is crucial that the therapist be court ordered and have direct input to the judge. This can often be facilitated by a guardian ad litem or a child advocate. The mother must recognize that any obstructionism by her will be reported immediately to the judge, either directly by the therapist or through the guardian ad litem or child advocate. The judge must be willing to impose sanctions, such as fines or jail. The threat of loss of primary custody can also help such mothers to "remember to cooperate."

My experience has been that mothers in the severe category, having absolutely no insight into their psychiatric problems, do not generally have therapists. However, mothers in the moderate category often seek therapists. However, they typically select one with whom they develop a mutual admiration society in which the therapist (consciously or unconsciously) becomes the mother's champion in the fight. Most often, the mother chooses a woman as a therapist - especially a woman who is herself antagonistic toward men. Often, the mother's therapist has little, if any, contact with the father and so does not hear his side of the story. When they do meet with him, they typically will be hostile and unsympathetic. Sometimes the children will be brought to this therapist, ostensibly to help them deal with the indignities they are suffering at their father's hands. Although the court may appreciate the pathological nature of the bond the mother has with her therapist, it may be reluctant to order a cessation of such treatment. The court, however, does well to at least prohibit the children from being "treated" by her [as mentioned, rarely a man]. Even if the court were to order the mother's therapist to stop treating her, it is likely that she would find another person who would support her position.

The court should order the mother to see the court's therapist even though her cooperation is not likely to be significant and even though she may be influenced significantly by her own therapist (whom she may still insist on seeing). The court's therapist must have a thick skin and be able to tolerate the children's shrieks and claims of maltreatment. Doing what children profess they want is not always the same as doing what is best for them. Therapists of the persuasion that they must "respect" their child patients and accede to their wishes will be doing these children a terrible disservice. These same therapists would not "respect" a child's wish to refuse a polio shot, yet they will respect the child's wish not to see a father who shows no significant evidence for abuse or neglect. The therapist should recall that the children were likely to have had a good relationship with the father before the separation and that strong psychological ties must still be present. The therapist should view the children's professed hatred as superficial and as designed to ingratiate themselves with the mother. To take the allegations of maltreatment seriously may help entrench the parental alienation syndrome and may result in years of, if not lifelong alienation.

It is crucial that the therapist appreciate that the children need him or her as an excuse for visiting with the father. When "forced" to visit with the father, they can say to the mother that the therapist is mean or cruel and that they really do not want to see the father but that the therapist "makes them." The judge, too, can serve this function for the children. With a court order, they can say to their mother, "I really hate my father, but that stupid judge is making me see him." I cannot emphasize this point strongly enough. It is the most effective way of reducing the children's guilt when they visit, and, in many cases, it may be necessary if the visitation is to be possible.

It is important to appreciate that older children may promulgate the mother's programming down to young ones. And the older children are especially likely to do this during visits with the father. The mother thereby relies on her accomplice to work over the younger ones when in the enemy camp [the father's house). These older children many even mastermind inside jobs in the father's house. Accordingly, a divide-and-conquer approach sometimes is warranted. This is best accomplished by requiring the children to visit separately - or at least separate from the older sibling programmers - until they all (including the mother) have had the living experience that the terrible consequences of being alone with the father were not realized. This is a good example of an important aspect of the therapy of these families; namely, that less is done via the attempt to get people to gain insight and much more is accomplished by structuring situations and providing individuals with actual experiences. Here again, the therapist must have the court's authority to implement such structuring.

Transition periods (that is, the points when the children are transferred from mother to father) may be especially difficult for children with parental alienation syndrome. It is then (when both parents and the children are together) that the loyalty conflicts become most intense and the symptoms most severe. Accordingly, it is risky to have the father pickup the children at the mother's home. In that setting - with the mother directly observing the children - they are most likely to resist going with their father and will predictably gain their mother's support (overt or covert) for their reluctance. Alternative transitional arrangements must therefore be devised, arrangements that do not place the children in a situation in which they are with mother and father at the same time.

A good transition place is the therapist's office. The mother brings the children, spends some time with them and the therapist, and then goes home - leaving the children alone with the therapist. Subsequently, the father comes, spends some time with the children and the therapist, and then takes them to his home. Or a truly impartial intermediary, with whom the children have a good relationship, can pick the children up at the mother's home and bring them to the father's home. A therapist, guardian ad litem, or child advocate can serve in this role. The problem with the latter plan is that it is usually expensive, especially if the intermediary person is a guardian ad litem (most often a lawyer) or therapist.

Once the court has made a final decision that the children shall remain living with their mother, then they are able to dispense with their campaigns of hatred. This is a very important point. The children develop their campaigns of denigration in the desire to maintain the psychological bond with the mother. The custody litigation has threatened a disruption of this bond. Once the court has ruled that the children shall remain living primarily with their mother, they can relax and allow themselves to enjoy a more benevolent relationship with their father. In short, the court's order obviates the need for the symptoms, and so they can be dispensed with.

Sometimes, mothers in this category suddenly decide that they want to move to another state. Some suddenly decide that they want to remove themselves (and children, of course) from the unhappy scene of the custody conflict (including the whole state) and "start all over" or "find themselves" at some remote place (hundreds and even thousands of miles away from the father). Some claim better job opportunities in another state. Some suddenly become "homesick" after many years of comfortable adjustment in the state in which the children were raised. It would be an error for the court to take these arguments seriously. Rather, the court should inform the mother that she is free to leave the state at any time she wishes; however, she should understand that if she does so it will not be with the children.

It is important for judges to appreciate that not all therapists are suited to work with such families. As mentioned, they must have thick skins to tolerate the children's antics as they claim that they are being exposed to terrible traumas and indignities in their fathers' homes. They must also be comfortable with taking a somewhat dictatorial position. This is especially important in their relationship with the mothers of these children. The therapist must appreciate that more of the therapy relates to manipulating and structuring situations than to providing people with insight. False perceptions will be altered to the degree that the therapist can provide people with living experiences. Therapists with a strong orientation toward psychoanalytic therapy are generally compromised when treating parental alienation syndrome families. I am a psychoanalyst myself and involve most of my adult patients in psychoanalytic therapy. However, when a parental alienation syndrome is present, the therapeutic approach must first involve a significant degree of people manipulation (usually by court order) and structure before one can sit down and talk meaningfully with the parties involved. Moreover, therapists who accept as valid the patient's wishes (whether child or adult) and consider it therapeutically contraindicated to pressure or coerce a patient are also not good candidates to serve such families. I, too, consider myself sensitive to the needs of my patients. As mentioned, doing what the patient wants and doing what the patient needs may be two entirely different things. It is for this reason that the courts play such an important role in the treatment of families in which parental alienation syndrome is present. Without the therapist's having the court's power to bring about the various manipulations and structural changes, the therapy is not likely to be possible.

Mild Cases of the Parental Alienation Syndrome.

The mothers of children in this category usually have developed a healthy psychological bond with their children. They believe that gender egalitarianism in custody disputes is a disservice to children but are healthy enough not to involve themselves in courtroom litigation in order to gain primary custody. Some of these mothers may undertake some mild degrees of programming their children against their fathers. Others recognize that alienation from the father is not in the children's best interests and are willing to take a more conciliatory approach to the father's requests. They either go along with a joint custodial compromise or even allow (albeit reluctantly) the father to have sole custody with their having a liberal visitation program. However, we may still see some manifestations of programming in these mothers to strengthen their positions. There is no paranoia here (as is the case for mothers in the severe category), but there is anger, and there may be some desire for vengeance. The motive for programming the children, however, is less likely to be vengeance (as is the case for mothers in the moderate category) than it is merely to entrench their positions in an inegalitarian situation. Of the three categories of mothers, these mothers have generally been the most dedicated ones during the earliest years of their children's lives and have thereby developed the strongest and healthiest psychological bonds with them.

The children in this category also develop their own scenarios, again with the slight prodding of the mother. Here the children's primary motive is to strengthen the mother's position in the custody dispute in order to maintain the stronger, healthier psychological bond that they have with their mothers. These are the children who are most likely to be ambivalent about or receptive to visitation and are most free to express affection for their fathers, even in their mothers' presence.

With regard to therapy, in most children need a final court order confirming that they will remain living primarily with their mother and complete reassurance that there will be no transfer of primary custody to their father. This usually "cures" the parental alienation syndrome. If the children need therapy it is for other things, possibly related to the divorce animosities.

Conclusion.

In the majority of cases of parental alienation syndrome, it is the mother who is favored and the father who is denigrated. However, there are certainly situations in which the mother is vilified and the father favored. For simplicity of presentation, and because mothers are more often the favored parent, I have used her as the example of the preferred parent - but recognize that in some cases it is the father who is preferred and the one who may be brainwashing the children and the mother who is the despised parent. In such cases, the fathers should be divided into the aforementioned categories and given the same considerations as described for mothers.

I fully recognize that the division of these families into three categories is somewhat artificial. In reality, we have a continuum from severe to mild cases. However, the distinctions are valid and extremely important if one is to make judicious therapeutic and legal recommendations. It is crucial that the court make every attempt to differentiate between mothers in category one (severe) and those in category two (moderate). The former mothers are often so disturbed that transfer of custody is the only viable option. The latter mothers, their antics notwithstanding, generally still serve better as the primary custodial parent.

Last, a special comment about the guardian ad litem. I have generally found collaboration with guardians ad litem to be very useful when conducting custody evaluations.(2, 9, 10) They can generally be relied upon to obtain documents that a parent might have been hesitant to provide or to enlist the court's assistance in getting reluctant parents to cooperate. The guardian ad litem can be a powerful ally for therapists. However, there is a definite risk when recommending that the court appoint such a person. A guardian ad litem who is not familiar with the causes, manifestations, and proper treatment of children with parental alienation syndrome may prove a definite impediment during treatment. The guardian ad litem traditionally takes pride in supporting the children's needs. Unfortunately, many reflexively support the children's positions. They may not appreciate that they are promulgating the pathology. Some have great difficulty supporting coercive maneuvers (such as insisting that the children visit with a father whom they profess they hate), because such maneuvers are so different from their traditional approach to clients in which they often automatically align themselves with their clients' cause. For guardians ad litem to work effectively with families of parental alienation syndrome children, they must accommodate themselves to this new orientation toward their clients. Accordingly, judges do well when appointing ,guardian ad litem to secure an individual who is knowledgeable about the special approaches necessary for these families.

A Proposal for Preventing the Development of the Parental Alienation Syndrome

All agree that preventing the development of an illness is far more desirable than treating a disorder that has already developed- lust as the parental alienation syndrome developed after the introduction of new criteria for determining parental preference in custody disputes, we are in a position to reverse this pathological situation by introducing what I consider to be more judicious criteria for such determinations. I recommend that we give preference in custody disputes to that parent (regardless of sex) with whom the child has developed the stronger, healthier psychological bond. Because mothers today are still more often the primary child rearer, more mothers would be given parental preference in custody disputes adjudicated under this principle. If, however, in spite of the mother's superiority at the time of birth, it was the father who was the primary caretaker - especially during the early years of life - such a father might very well serve better as the primary custodial parent.

This proposal is essentially sex blind (thereby satisfying present demands for gender egalitarianism) because it allows that a father's input may outweigh the mother's in the formative years, even though he starts at a disadvantage. It uses the psychological bond with the child as the primary consideration in custody evaluations. A mother may be good with infants and toddlers, who are totally dependent on her, but she may do poorly with adolescents, whose independence she has difficulty tolerating. A father may be almost completely inept in taking care of an infant but may excel as a parent when he can share sports and other activities with children at subsequent levels of development.

I refer to this proposal as the stronger, healthy psychological bond presumption, which, I believe, is the one that would serve the best interests of the child in a custody dispute. It is important for the reader to appreciate that the parent who had the greater involvement with the child during infancy is the one more likely to have the stronger psychological bond. However, if the early parenting was nor "good," then the bond that develops might be pathological. Accordingly, I am nor referring here to any kind of psychological bond at all, but a healthy psychological bond. It is not a situation in which any psychological bond at all will do. A paranoid mother, who has so programmed her son that he, too, has developed paranoid feelings about his father, may have a strong psychological band with her son, stronger than that which he has with his father. But this is certainly not a healthy bond, and its presence is a strong argument for recommending the father as the primary custodial parent.

In summary, the stronger, healthy psychological bond presumption is best stated as a three-step process:

1. Preference should be given to that parent (regardless of sex) with whom the child has developed the stronger, healthy psychological bond.
2. That parent (regardless of sex) who was the primary caretaker during the earliest years of the child's life is more likely to have developed the stronger, healthy psychological bond.
3. The longer the time lag between the earliest years and the time of the custody evaluation or decision, the greater the likelihood that other factors will tip the balance in the direction of either parent. 

The missing piece.....

Everyday, I always wake up with a positive attitude. I wake up happy. I thank God that he got me up and started me on my way. But he never said it would be an easy day. God doesn't give us what we can't handle, right? Well, I believe that! I also believe that he puts us in situations for reasons. I don't know how those situations will end up, but he does. I just wish sometimes he will give me a sign as to how mine is going to end.

A few weeks ago, I ran into Office Max to make some copies of the Order of Protection for my attorney. I knew I was just going to run in and out, so I left my phone in the car. When I got to the car, I noticed I had a missed call. When I looked to see where the call came from, it said “pay phone.”

There was no number and no voice mail left. My first thought was, OMG, it was Cody calling me.

This was still in the processing stage of boot camp, so I was hopeful. I have not had another “pay phone” call since then and I never had one before that either. So I will believe in my heart that it was him.

That night, I had a dream about Cody. In my dream, I saw him standing by the pay phone....I saw him waiting for me to pick up the phone, I saw the eagerness as he was being screamed at by the drill sergeant as he looked on over his shoulder (something that I am sure he was use to when he was able to talk to me on the phone) and after the phone rang, and there was no answer, he was made to hang up.

Since this was still the processing stage/maybe even two weeks after arrival of boot camp, I was also searching really hard to find out all I could about whatever I could. This dream was sweet and pleasant. He wasn't ugly, verbally...he was just desperate to tell me something. But even though I didn't answer that call, something he told me in that dream stuck with me. He revealed to me his platoon number.

The only person I told was my mother in law. I shared with her the details of the dream. I told her that Cody told me he was in platoon 1046.

Then about 2 weeks ago, a group was created on Facebook, MCRD 1^st BN Charlie Co~April 13, 2012

I joined that group right away. Parents were sharing the names of there sons in boot camp and sharing the platoon numbers and sharing all the excitement of receiving letters from their recruits. I shared that I won't receive a letter, I didn't know his platoon. All I had was his name and where he was from.

So that is what I told them. Someone commented and asked me why I won't hear from him...

I gave a brief reason why, I was an alienated mom.... and that set off a whole reaction in the group.

One of the parents sent a special request asking all the parents to ask their recruits to find out what platoon Cody was in. When I saw that, I was excited! I was happy to see how they cared enough to help, even though I didn't ask them too. They took it upon themselves to do this for me. I was grateful!

Then, no sooner I hit the “post” button, telling them thank you, I noticed someone on the feed said

“thanks for the info ________.” ( guess who's name appears in the blank spot? Yep, step moms)

Funny, how she changed it too ...Like that's not obvious!

Anyway, I panicked! I removed myself from that group immediately. Something I shouldn't have done..it just goes to show how much power and control I allowed her to have over me again.

Then, I thought, heck with it, I am going to ask to rejoin that group. I didn't do anything or say anything wrong. I had every right to be a part of that group. After all, I am his biological mom. He is 19 years old, and they can't run his life or mine anymore. So I sent another request to join.

Then after about a week of not getting my request noticed, I sent the admin a message asking her why I haven't been accepted back into the group. She never replied to my email, but she added me to the group! Phew! So now, I am back in.

Funny, the same day/time she added me, I noticed she added Cody's girlfriend too.

Of course I can't see that, I noticed someone welcomed us to the group and used our names. CRAP!!!

I can't see what they post, or when they post or when they are online...just like they can't when I'm on.

I don't post anything anymore....just to be on the safe side.

Funny how 3 people who know Cody, are in the group. 2 of us truly love and care for him and his well being. 1 of us doesn't. 1 of us only care about the bragging rights!

Only one of us has his best interest at heart, and doesn't matter who he loves or who he talks too.

I don't care if he wants to love his step mom....he's free to do so. I just don't like that SHE makes him feel like he can't be free to love me, his mother. That's the difference between the mom and the step mom.

Kinda just like the story in the Bible.

As I scan through the group, I can't help but notice all the parents that are always so excited to receive letters from their sons. I so badly wish I could join them in that excitement. I wish I could share with them more about how it feels not to receive a letter. So bad I want to share in the excitement of making graduation plans in April with them. The women in the group have a bond, they have all connected.

I feel that they all know who I am, and are told to “watch out!” Believe me, I am sure she sent out a mass email to all of them in the group and told them NOT to give me any information. And the sad thing is, they all believed her. Scary how much power this women has over a group of 80 people.

One mom had posted a few hours ago how it's going to be a huge sob fest when they all meet at graduation. They are going to cry when they see their sons, when they see who they have bonded with in the group and when they say good bye. Ahhhh, if they only knew how sad I actually am without that letter, the excitement of looking forward to graduation, or the hug they will all get from their sons.

Wonder how that will feel?

I believe that things will change for the good. God promises that. I believe that he his working on something good for me. That dream revealed to me a number that I needed to put that last piece of the puzzle together. That number was confirmed to me just this week. That has God written all over it.

See what she doesn't understand, is that God will always restore a broken heart and a broken family to those who love him! God knows which mother really loves her son....the one who doesn't want to harm him, but to let him be who he wants to be, love who he wants to love and be FREE from influence. I don't want to keep Cody from his dad his step mom or that family. I want him, and all my kids to know that they are loved by a lot of people, and I want them to have the freedom to love all of us too.

I also want them to know, you can't keep apart what is meant to be together. Just let us love the boys and let them love us. Let us have a life together and let the kids have a family, a whole family, including you, that love them. Kids need both parents in their lives.

Why do you want so badly for them to be sad, and hurt and have unanswered questions and broken hearts? Don't fool yourself into thinking they are OK? Because no kid who is forced away from a parent who they had a relationship with, is ever OK! EVER!

The fantasy birth mom....

Recently I saw a post in a Parental Alienation group that I am in and it read:

“ what about parental fantasy syndrome” you know, when other people steal others babies (children) and pretend that they are theirs. Most commonly known as adoption.”

Before I relinquished my rights, I thought long and hard about the consequences. I thought about what others will think. I thought about what my life will be like if I didn't have my kids with me forever. I thought, what am I really giving up? I only had every other weekend and 5 weeks in summer, and ½ Christmas and every other holiday...when he didn't hide them from me, or fabricate an abuse story.

I thought of how it will effect me, mentally and emotionally. How will my family handle this? Most of all, what will the boys actually think? What will they tell them? How will this effect them now, and in the long run. I was truly convinced that once Cody was of age, and when he was out of high school, he would come back into my life. I was confident! We had a good loving, mother and son relationship. But, I was sadly mistaken. I didn't see the big picture. I didn't think that they could brainwash him all that bad and that he would believe them. Once again, I was mistaken.

I didn't really have a lot of time to actually think about it, really. My attorney at the time was pressuring me to “make a decision” so the paperwork can be completed and they can get started. I didn't want to do it until after my August visit in 2008. I wanted to have my kids with me one last time. But like always I was persuaded to forfeit that visitation because the boys' father didn't think that it would be a good idea. That saying goodbye would just be to hard. No, what he didn't want was for me to actually explain to the boys what was actually going down, and didn't want them to know the truth.

I sent my attorney the email, letting her know my reservations about the relinquishment, and I expressed to her that if the step mom was to adopt my kids, which was brought up in the many conversations we had, I told her that I didn't want her to adopt my kids. She told me that by law, after I sign the papers, she has the right to adopt them. I said fine, then I offered to her the option of open adoption. She once again, in her lawyer lingo convinced me that it was not an option.

3 strikes, I’m out!

On August 13, 2008 I signed the rights to my children away. It is not a moment that I am proud of. It isn't a moment any parent should ever have to face. It isn't something that should actually be aloud to happen, unless that parent is legally hospitalized and no longer able to care for themselves. I don't even know if that is even something to even think about either. Nonetheless, no parent should ever be faced with having to relinquish their rights away to their kids because they are being forced too. But sometimes, Parental Alienation forces a loving parent to do things they are not willing to do. Especially when the judges and attorney's don't care as long as they get their pockets full of money. The best interest of the children doesn't matter to the judges and attorney's and obviously it doesn't matter to the parents who have finally got what the wanted.

I thought after the papers were signed, I was going to be left alone. I didn't want to be reminded of this horrible thing that I just did. This nightmare that I was living, or the people that did this to me. But I started receiving letters in mail from HIS attorney, giving me “updates” on the progress of the adoption.

I didn't need to hear it, see it or relive it. I didn't want to know when it was happening, I didn't need to know when it was happening. But for some reason, it was all part of the sick plan....I guess they just needed to kick me while I was down. Well, it worked. Finally I wrote his attorney a letter asking them to please stop torturing me with all the sad details of the adoption. But it was one letter that actually sent me over the edge. (again, all part of sticking the knife in a little deeper) I received a letter in the mail, stating that the step-mom was changing the boys middle names. But that wasn't the worst of it, when I read that she was actually removing Austin's middle name, which was Jeffery, totally out of his name, that was the stab in the heart that really killed me. Jeffery was after my dad. His papa!

What type of sick people do that to kids? Who changes a child's name? Who takes away a child's identity?

People who live in a fantasy world, that's who! These people brainwash themselves into believing that these kids they have adopted are actually their biological children. They convince themselves they were at the birth. They can “remember the day!” They try and fill the children with memories, false memories. The kids are then programmed to believe what that new parent says is true. These same parents, do the same thing with friends and family of the “real” parent. Filling them with lies and tales.

Now, I understand the difference between “adoption”, and “adoption”. A touchy subject actually. When a pregnant mother, decides to give up her baby for adoption, it is done at birth. The new parents raise that child as their own child and in their own time share with that child they were adopted.

But “my kids adoption” isn't that type of adoption. This was an illegal adoption. A forced adoption, a brainwashed adoption. I believe that my kids were legally kidnapped by their father and their step mom. I believe that it was a plan all along from the very beginning of our divorce. But it didn't just start when she came into the picture, it just started to get worse once she came into the picture. He knew, from listening to his mom how to play the game. She was an alienated child. The man she called “dad” really wasn't her dad. So who was? Who alienated her from her biological dad? The story was, when her biological father found out about the pregnancy, he left her mom. But I'm just not buying that anymore. She was never close to her siblings....there is some skeletons in that family. A cycle that never stopped.

Little secrets she's told the boys. Making them believe that she's their mother, that she was the one who gave birth to them. Making them believe that “I” was never apart of their lives. She gave them middle names from her family and took away mine. Who does that?

You can't have what wasn't yours to begin with, honey! Eventually the truth will be told and the truth will set my children FREE!

The truth be told.....

This was a bill from HIS attorney. The amount I was ordered to pay for his contempt charges on me from not paying child support in 2000-2002.

This is the original order.

This is the annual payment  I had to make to the Kane County child support division. So I was paying them to process my child support. This is standard procedure.

Setting it free

Being alienated from your kids isn't something that everyone will understand. Heck, sometimes we don't believe that it is true. We find ourselves in situations were we are embarrassed to talk about it when asked the dreaded question “do you have kids?” For me, it's a huge ordeal! I usually look away from the person who asks me, I don't make eye contact and I say, “yes, I have 4 boys!” If I'm lucky, all I get is, “wow, you must have your hands full?” My usual reply is, “you have no idea!” Then I try to remove myself from the conversation as quickly as possible. I will pretend I need to answer my phone, or a I slip off to the bathroom. I really do need to come up with a better system!

The conversation about my kids truly is something I don't share with just anyone. If I am just meeting someone, it isn't the first thing I bring up. It is just a conversation that I choose to share carefully. It usually takes me a while before I decide to share information about my situation with people I just meet. I don't want them to get the wrong impression of me from the beginning of the relationship. I have to feel these people out. See if they are trustworthy, compassionate and most of all nonjudgmental. For the most part, I can say, I have met more people with compassion, then those who don't want to believe me.

In 2010, when I first started sharing my story, I wasn't trying to gain sympathy from my readers, my family or friends. I was just trying to share my story and get that burden off my shoulders. I was however, hoping that when my family and extended family read my story, they would see it from my point of view and not believe what they have been told. Yes, there are two sides to every story, and of course, the person telling the story is sure that there's is the right story and you should believe what they are telling you is the truth. However, if the person telling that story can't back up the claims in that story they are telling, then more then likely that story they are feeding you is made up of lies!

I have never shared this with you, but I now will: After I would type of my story for the day, my coworkers would want to read the latest chapter, so one of them would print it off and pass it around. The day after I received a nasty email from one of my facebook friends (who was immediately deleted)

telling me how horrible I was, and how she could never give up her daughter, how she worked 2 jobs just to support her....ya, ya I get it! Anyway, I of course emailed her right back and expressed to her how she did what she had to do in HER situation. Mine was different, etc.

Anyhow, I overheard one of my co-workers tell another that she didn't believe a word I said, and she s thought the girl who emailed me that horrible letter was right on the money! I kid you not! I was stunned! I so badly wanted to march right up to her and let her know that I heard everything she just said and I didn't appreciate it. But, because I wasn't an actual employee there and worked for Pathgroup, I decided to keep my mouth shut. But, I did confront the other employee whom the other one told....I didn't care if she shared it with the other employee either. So up until the day I left that office in July of 2011, I kept this to myself! It's so sad to actually say I witnessed with my own eyes and ears the betrayal of who I thought was a friend. She was the only one that made that type of remark towards me and about my story. (as far as I know) I truly believe that I did make some life long friends in that office. I still talk to them to this day. They are truly friends! Miss you, you know who you are! :)

“Well, how do you know that what I have been sharing with you all this time is the truth?” My story has never changed from day one, that's how! Everything I have shared with you has been consistent. It has matched up with the statistics of Parental Alienation.

See, when someone doesn't want to hear the truth, or believe what they are hearing or seeing, they can't make themselves feel compassion for that person. They are blind to the pain of the other person.

I guess, people are going to believe what they want to believe, until they are up close and personal to the truth! ...and sometimes, that isn't even enough!

I wanted to add more to my story, but wasn't sure if I was ready to do that.

After much thought and consideration, I have decided to share detailed emails communications, letters and court documents that I have collected during the course of my divorce.

Here you will be able to put it all together from what I shared with you in my story. I wish I would have

added these in with the chapters as I talked about them But, believe me, it will all come back to you.

However, to protect the well fare of my being I will have to block out the other parties names for legal reasons.

First I will begin with a letter that I found from “his” first affair. This was written while he was in CA...after Cody was born. Then I will share a letter that his mom wrote to him about me.

I am going to try my hardest to share everything in sequence to my story.

If you look back to the beginning of my story, you will see that I mentioned both of these letters.

Ahhhh, the truth shall set you free!

This is a letter from a mother to her son. (his mom) this is what brain
washing looks like.

This is a letter he wrote during his first affair. He was in Ca at the time. Notice all the markings, remember I said I wrote her a letter. Well I was asking about those areas.I also TRIED using this in court, but got denied.