The "non-existent" Parental Alienation Syndrome?
jac...@melbpc.org.au
when they've done NOTHING!!!
Quote: "The lengthy custody battle over Cornilous, who turns 4 next
week, is being played out this week in Montgomery County Circuit Court
in something of a rerun of the 1997 adoption proceeding in which
Blankman contended that Pixley - who admitted killing her 6-week-old
daughter Nakya in 1992 - could not be a fit mother. The case
intensified debate over the rights of biological parents when a
Montgomery County judge denied the adoption and said Pixley should
regain custody because she no longer posed a threat of physical harm.
The ruling was overturned on appeal, and the lower court was ordered
to determine whether Pixley posed a danger of abuse or neglect."
Funny how women can murder people and then be deemed not a threat to
others - and I've read of too many cases/outcomes like this - and they
greatly outnumber any about men. Men are typically deemed to remain a
threat - because, it would appear, they are deemed 'bad', and will
remain so, whilst women are only deemed 'mad', and that/they can be
fixed with therapy, love, support and time.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Funny how good dads have trouble getting visitation, and this woman,
who murdered one of her other children, is likely to regain custody of
another! It is also interesting to note that all of a sudden,
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is not such a non-existent
syndrome. It must only be "non-existent" when mothers alienate
children from fathers!
-------------------------------
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-12/17/190l-121799-idx.html>
The Washington Post
17 December 1999, pB01
Mother Testifies in Montgomery Custody Case
Pixley Says She Loves Son, Feels Betrayed by Woman Raising Him
By Manuel Perez-Rivas
Washington Post Staff Writer
Latrena Pixley, speaking in a quiet voice, told a Montgomery County
judge yesterday of her love for her 3-year-old son, Cornilous, and of
her feelings of being betrayed by the woman who has raised him most of
his life.
"That's my son," Pixley replied when one of her attorneys, Ralph Hall
Jr., asked why she wants custody of Cornilous. "I love him, and he
needs to be with me." At least once she was moved to tears.
But she had few kind words for Laura Blankman, who is seeking custody
of the boy. She accused Blankman of violating her trust, of calling
herself Cornilous's "mommy" even before he could speak the word and of
trying to change his name to Joshua during her failed attempt to adopt
the boy.
When asked what worried her most about Blankman possibly gaining
custody, Pixley replied she was worried that Blankman would try to
keep Cornilous away from her and "that she would tell him negative
things about me." Pixley asked Blankman to care for her son in 1996
when she was imprisoned.
The lengthy custody battle over Cornilous, who turns 4 next week, is
being played out this week in Montgomery County Circuit Court in
something of a rerun of the 1997 adoption proceeding in which Blankman
contended that Pixley - who admitted killing her 6-week-old daughter
Nakya in 1992 - could not be a fit mother.
The case intensified debate over the rights of biological parents when
a Montgomery County judge denied the adoption and said Pixley should
regain custody because she no longer posed a threat of physical harm.
The ruling was overturned on appeal, and the lower court was ordered
to determine whether Pixley posed a danger of abuse or neglect.
Attorneys for Blankman, a Montgomery County police officer, have
argued that Pixley remains too emotionally troubled to be a fit
guardian for her son.
Pixley, 26, testified that she has changed her life since she got out
of jail two years ago. She said she has taken parenting classes and
has been in biweekly therapy sessions.
She holds a job as a customer service representative at a dry cleaners
in Arlington County and is making ends meet, paying $475 in monthly
rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Southeast Washington. She has
applied for day care in anticipation of Cornilous's return.
But Monday, a court-appointed psychologist, John B. Mealy, testified
that he believes there is a threat that Cornilous could suffer from
neglect if Pixley is given custody.
Mealy recommended that Blankman be awarded permanent custody, though
he said Pixley should be allowed to continue seeing her natural son in
the weekly, overnight visits she currently enjoys with him.
On the stand yesterday, Pixley said she agreed "a little" with the
psychologist's assertion that separation from Blankman would cause
Cornilous to suffer, but she said that as long as he could continue to
see Blankman during visits, she did not believe there would be any
permanent emotional damage. But, she said, she was unsure as to how
frequent Blankman's visits should be.
During cross-examination, Leslie Scherr, the attorney for Blankman,
returned to the issue of how separation from Blankman would affect
Cornilous. Scherr pressed Pixley as to whether she thought the 3 1/2
years he has lived with Blankman were important to Cornilous.
"I can't answer that," she said. "I don't know what's important to
Cornilous."
"That's true, isn't it," Scherr asked and answered his own question:
"You don't know what's important to Cornilous."
Scherr devoted much of his cross-examination to Pixley's finances,
asking detailed questions about her income and monthly expenses, some
of which she was unable to answer.
Pixley remained composed throughout the hour-long cross-examination.
After the day's arguments, Pixley's attorneys said she would be able
to care financially for Cornilous should she get custody. And Hall
said that finances should not even be a part of the case: "If we start
deciding who gets children based on income levels, we have a serious
problem."
Yet issues such as income and race have surfaced occasionally in this
custody case pitting a white woman from a middle-class Montgomery
County neighborhood against a black woman living in one of the
District's most disadvantaged communities. Both those issues surfaced
in yesterday's arguments.
Before Pixley took the stand, her attorneys called her aunt, Linda
Lateef, to the stand.
Lateef broke down in tears as she told the court that African
Americans have suffered through years of forced separations, evoking
the era of slavery.
"What scares me is that he is going to be ripped away from my family,
and we are never going to see him again," Lateef said.
-------------------------------------
ANDRAS
broadcasted a bitstream which decodes to...
[...]
> And Hall
> said that finances should not even be a part of the case: "If we start
> deciding who gets children based on income levels, we have a serious
> problem."
Talk about it!
Andras
----
"Truth does not penetrate the preoccupied mind" - Ch. Darwin
James Buster
jac...@melbpc.org.au <jackel@melbpcdotorgdotau> wrote:
>Funny how good dads have trouble getting visitation, and this woman,
>who murdered one of her other children, is likely to regain custody of
>another!
Well, she only served about 5 years in jail for that murder.
She can't be that bad, her sentence was short!
--
Planet Bog -- pools of toxic chemicals bubble under a choking
atomsphere of poisonous gases... but aside from that, it's not
much like Earth.
Tom Campbell
These people are actually arguing over whether the best interests of a
child are to live in a slum with the woman who murdered his sister and
who is a virtual stranger to him, or to live with the woman who has
cared for him most of his life and who has an adequate income and can
provide him a home in a safe neighborhood? Is there something I missed
here? Or is this really not about what is in the best interest of this
child?
By the way, there is another biologic parent here who is unmentioned;
shouldn't he be consulted and asked if he wants custody?
Anyone who thinks that the family courts act in the best interest of
children in awarding custody needs to read this case.
Tom Campbell
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
KEN
jackel@melbpcdotorgdotau wrote:
> This would NEVER DO if it were a man: they ALWAYS pose threats - even
> when they've done NOTHING!!!
> > Funny how women can murder people and then be deemed not a threat to
> others - and I've read of too many cases/outcomes like this - and they
> greatly outnumber any about men. Men are typically deemed to remain a
> threat - because, it would appear, they are deemed 'bad', and will
> remain so, whilst women are only deemed 'mad', and that/they can be
> fixed with therapy, love, support and time.
(snip)
When children are murdered 61% of the time it is by the mother.
"Source: Murder in Families" - Dept. of Justice, July 1994.
>
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>
> Funny how good dads have trouble getting visitation, and this woman,
> who murdered one of her other children, is likely to regain custody of
> another! It is also interesting to note that all of a sudden,
> Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is not such a non-existent
> syndrome. It must only be "non-existent" when mothers alienate
> children from fathers!
(snip)
This is far more likcly to be true:
> http://home.microserve.net/~steflink/malice.htm
Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrom
>
--
ALL WE ARE ASKING IS FOR FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL
WITHOUT THE FEMINST MOVEMENT'S DOUBLE STANDARDS THEY WOULD NOT EXIST!