Alienation: Who is Alienating Who?

 

Janelle Burrill is a major assailant in Americas Parent Alienation Scandal(PAS) .  One of the most major rationales that defies the pseudo syndrome logic is the fact that mothers are the ones who are not only alienated from their loved ones, but from the rest of the community as "Vindictive women".  

How and why?  One may ask and this very post will unfold one of the biggest family violence scandals of our times.  We all know that violence against women occurs to one in three women at least once in their lifetime.  Thats obvious.  We see the deaths in the news  and hear about it from our love ones.  

There appears to be bizarre perception that country leaders are actually taking steps to curb these numbers and educate the community about how wrong family violence is.  There is a big hole in all of this and the only way it comes to light is when women goes through this with children . 

 This has become a revelation that mothers and children all over the world are now writing their hearts out about. Some write about it with raw emotions and others write about it trying to fill the gaps of information as to why a system that they have been taught would work for them in due fairness has failed them and their children miserably.  Some appeared to have gone mad with conspiracy theories and fanatical religious beliefs.  When asked about what happened, their lives were conveyed in a logical and rational manner that appeared to veer into this world of injustice and lack of information. The missing information breaks through the notion of trust we lay upon systematic approaches, professionals and the present laws, it rocks our core beliefs upon natural justice, human compassion and experts in psychology.  For most it is a new ground to discover that what we thought existed does not.  We cannot know why such cruelty has continued at the hands of Judges, Officials and Professionals, but we can tell you a little about what drives them to believe that this cruelty is the work of "good".

Lets go back to some basics about knowledge and how it influences our day to day decisions.  We clean our dishes with hot water, utilize disinfectants to arm ourselves against microscopic creatures that make us sick.  We can only see these creatures in a microscope and trust what we are told that they can make us sick.  The only people that know the truth are those of whom have had the privilege and equipment to test this out.  We are dependent upon this knowledge and coax others who do not practice such methods to conform to this action.  Some may even hold the person with contempt that a person would provide a dish cleaned without these measures taken.  Laws have been built around these measures to ensure that restaurants also take these measures too.  Hot water and disinfectant is considered a necessity in preparing our food and the news about sickness from bacterial infections continue to satisfy this belief to be true, despite the fact that a majority of the population has not physically sighted bacteria causing harm to a living being.  We trust that this is true. So what if it was all a big fat lie? What if you found that the bacteria that you had been disinfecting against was a natural resource to stop you from becoming infected?  What if this lie was told for financial gain?

So one would begin to rethink and wonder what else is a lie and how many others were told and most importantly, what is true? Some people might feel that there is a high probability of truth to something if a large proportion of the population believes it.  An old saying said mostly by mothers to their children, 

"If everybody decided to jump in the oven, would you do it?"  

So lets modernize this term,

"If everybody decided to rip children away from their mothers, would you do it?"

If it was put in this way, the answer is "No".  

Perhaps if it was put in a more friendly way,

"If everybody decided that children need their fathers, would you support it?"

We all know that not all fathers are good to their children, so the answer is, "Maybe"

Perhaps some sales language could help.

"If everybody decided that children need both parents, would you support it?"

That sounds fair and nice, we are not worried about the missing pieces of information as we expect there to be some real antidotes with such language, so the answer is "yes".

So what happens if one of the parents does not comply ?  If it is unreasonable, we expect there to be some sort of assistance to remove some of the barriers that stops that person from complying.  If the parent is abusing the child we expect that the agreement be altered so that the child is not at risk of harm.  That is not an unreasonable request.  

We expect that if the parent was being violent to the other that their safety would also be protected too.  

"Most mothers lie about violence to get full custody and child support payments".  

We cannot see what goes on, so this could happen and after seeing how they uncover evidence on all of those crime shows that must be the problem.  There is no evidence and has ever been such evidence to suggest that.  

Then we see the experts who have been explaining away the mentally ill to what appears to have some truth to it backed by the credentials they have who tell us,

"Some mothers are affected by a condition called Parent Alienation Syndrome where they project their hatred towards the father onto the child, she may be resentful for past violence against her"

"Children affected by Parental Alienation Syndrome make allegations against the other parent mostly the father"

Not only is there no physical evidence of this, but it is a theory that has not been accepted by any credible scientific organization in the world.  Testing for the abuse is also considered a form of abuse which is referred to as, "Medical Abuse" .  Concerns for harm of the child being investigated have resulted in court orders that restrain the mother from taking the child to practitioners and counsellors.  So now any investigation into child abuse or family violence can be halted.  The law changes combined with practice principles have moulded together an oppressive collaboration to contain any evidence the mother has and halt any intentions of supporting justice for the child/victim of violence in order to stop this imaginary syndrome .