August 24, 2015
HISTORY OFTEN SHOWS WHAT HASN'T WORKED...JUDGES MUST THEN BE  INNOVATIVE

In my July 27 article, I asked the readers to look at Bill Laitner's Detroit Free Press article reporting on Oakland County Family Court Judge Lisa
Gorcyca''s decision in the case of a mother brainwashing her three children and poisoning their attitude and relationship with the father. The
judge's rare and unusual decision sparked a controversy that will be debated in legal and psychiatric circles; condemned if it doesn't work and
deemed suspect even if it works.

My request for evaluation and opinions seemingly fell on deaf ears. As promised, here is my evaluation of the judge and reasons why she should
be commended. For decades judges have handled cases where mothers have denied visitation of the children to  fathers and poisoned the
relationship.

Normally,
unconscious brainwashing occurs during divorce simply because of the adversarial nature of the process. This type of brainwashing is
normally part of the trauma associated with divorce and ends when the divorce is final. Its effect on the children is short lived and most often
ignored or overlooked by judges.

The more serious cases where
conscious brainwashing and denial of relationship and visitation occurred, judges first determined whether or not
the reason for the mother's action was justifiable and then react accordingly. Conscious brainwashing should be considered a child abuse. Most of
the time judges simply threatened a change in custody or jail time to stop what some judges called "inexcusable nonsense".  In those rare cases
when the judges followed through with the threats, the situation deteriorated and never was resolved as anticipated.

Another article by Gina Damron of the Detroit Free Press quoted several professionals who were highly critical of Judge Gorcyca''s decision and
judgement. This is what they said:

"The judge's order seems to be an unusual way to support the principle that the family law court should always act in the best
interest of the children"
and that if any one of the parents was alienating the children from the other parent "any remedy fashioned should be
against the offending parent of the court order rather than the three children"
. And, "Appropriate remedies could include changes to
custody or citing the
parent for contempt, rather than insulting young children on the record and sending them off to, essentially, be incarcerated and
separated from their family".
   
Larry Dubin (law professor at the university of Detroit Mercy)

" The judge has taken a bad situation and made it 10 times worse"  and "The ones who are the most vulnerable are being treated the
worst...Why should the children have to suffer this way?"
The article states that Burdick said she agrees that the children need to be
encouraged to have a healthy connection with both parents, but that sometimes that can be
"impossible when the primary parent is at
tremendous odds with the other"
. She also stated "an  alternative might be to send the family to court-mandated counseling"          
Judith Burdick (licensed psychotherapist)

The quotes by these two experts are standard sound bites that show legal knowledge of the judicial system. More importantly, it shows their lack of
knowledge and understanding  of the past history of such cases. According to my  research and vicarious experiences with divorce cases involving
alienation of fathers and brainwashing,the courts have not had much success in restoring relationships with fathers regardless of the attempted
remedy such as changing custody, filing contempt charges or ordering court-mandated counseling.

I believe Judge Gorcyca was well aware of all the remedies as indicated in the transcripts. Faced with the realities of the case in her court she
probably knew that the standard court solutions would not work to restore the relationship, considering the horrific brainwashing results that she
witnessed. Evidently psychotherapists don't believe in "tough love"nor do they acknowledge that court-mandated counseling has often failed.

Judge Gorcyca is to be commended for recognizing the brainwashing effects of a mother attempting break the relationship of the father with his
children. Whether you agree or not with her method , it is not as horrible or ridiculous as the so called experts make it sound nor does her
approach warrant insults or derision. It may be law professor Larry Dubin's opinion that the judge insulted the children on the record; however, it
was nothing but a cheap shot,totally unprofessional and shows a lack of understanding of the issues with parental alienation.

Her approach may fall short of its goal; however, it could be the only approach that stands a chance of success, given the historical failure rate of
the standard advice by the experts. I for one hope and pray that Judge Gorcyca succeeds in reestablishing the relationship between the father
and the three children. For decades many fathers have been deprived of visitation rights with no means of redress except filing contempt charges
against the custodial spouse. This process has normally resulted in further deterioration of relationships  and increases tension and hostilities.
 

CONCLUSION

The failure of the court system to resolve the issue of brainwashing and denying visitation has created a national problem whereby statistically
81% of fathers after two or three years abandon the relationship with their children.  Because of the associated emotional trauma or problems with
jobs and earnings many fathers stop supporting them. The latter action is often  perceived by the courts as a ploy by the father to shirk his
responsibilities. Sometimes it's true and often it is not  factual. Unfortunately, the courts rarely bother to determine whether it is true or just a
fictitious ploy.

Women can also suffer from similar circumstances when partners brainwash the children. I was privy to a case in Connecticut that showed a
prominent business man accused by his wife of brainwashing his two daughters into saying that they did not want to live with her. The mother
spent a year in court trying to regain custody, to no avail. The judge went along with the  wishes of the daughters and gave the father custody and
visitation rights to the mother. The relationship with the mother deteriorated rapidly. The young mother fell into a deep depression after the
breakup of the relationship with  the young daughters and died within weeks. The result of the autopsy was "died of natural causes". I would
venture to say if you believe like I do, she died of a broken heart, given the emotional  situational stress of the alienation of her daughters. If it
happens t fathers, it can happen to mothers.

The reason the issue of brainwashing/child abuse has been a problem for decades is that the courts have never been able to resolve the situation
using the standard court strategies of changing  custody, filing contempt charges or threatening the accused with either sanction. This flawed
process has been a cop out for years and most judges would agree with Judith Burdick's statement
" a healthy connection with both parents,  
sometimes can be impossible when the primary parent is at tremendous odds with the other".

OVW and affiliated non profit organizations are never asked by the press to comment on any case of brainwashing used to breakup a father's
relationship with his children. Their answer,if not ignored, would be quite revealing of what is going on in the domestic violence arena.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION IGNORED AND REJECTED BY THE JUDICIARY AND POLITICIANS FOR DECADES

A "Shared Custody" law has been proposed in America from 1970 to the present. Such a law could have prevented many cases of brainwashing
and associated child abuse over the years as well as other ills plaguing divorce and domestic violence. Not only has the judicial system and
politicians rejected this law as a viable concept, VAWA/OVW have attempted to obstruct its passage and implementation based on the false
assumption that judges would indiscriminately grant shared custody to violent and abusive fathers. I don't know any judge that would grant shared
custody to an abuser!

Many types of shared custody laws have been proposed. Most try to cover all the bases including domestic violence and numerous stipulations as
to the best interest of the child. That type of law would definitely be counterproductive or a least maintain the status quo of the court system. There
is only one type of shared custody law that would address and minimize many of the ills and flaws of the present system; a simple law that would
make Shared Custody a presumption of the court, barring certain conditions.In 2015 a shared custody law (
Part 1 and Part 2)was proposed in MA
. Read it and judge for yourself. A  testimony (
Part 1 and Part 2) supporting this law  reveals  the merits and responds to the misconceptions of the
opposition.

If you are fed up with what is happening in this country with divorce and domestic violence,  evaluate the merits of making shared custody the norm
rather than the exception and the reasons it would protect more women against violence. The reason why Judge Gorcyca's courageous attempt to
restore a broken relationship caused by brainwashing was highly criticized by experts will become very apparent once you understand judicial
history, wade through all the legal mumbo-jumbo and clearly see why a fair shared custody law has been rejected for over 40 years.

A shared custody law should be looked at and enacted as a long-term solution and judged as such. Had this
law been enacted decades ago, Judge Gorcyca would not have been forced into making those hard decisions in an attempt to mend the father's
broken relationship.

SHARED CUSTODY OPPONENTS...ILLOGICAL AND EMBOLDENED

Who are the opponents of shared custody and what kind of foes  have they become? Those forces are formidable foes working in high levels of
the federal government and supported with millions of our tax dollars that oppose willy-nilly any program that doesn't accept their radical ideology
or approach. Further more, their approach is not held to any measure of accountability nor  responsible for failures; however, the foes are slowly
and methodically eliminating shared custody from contention.

And, Public Enemy No 1 of shared custody is.......Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Office on violence Against Women (OVW). Again,
the public has been duped into thinking that the excellent goal of eliminating violence against women is  succeeding. The facts in my book
"Autopsy of domestic violence and divorce" clearly show that it is more of a sham and not really a success.

A 1998 OVW funded study was a harbinger of its continuing and future efforts to oppose shared custody laws.     
“ A friendly parent provisions
or joint custody presumptions laws place battered women at risk of losing custody altogether or sharing custody with a batterer”
is a
typical statement in the study. Obviously this is a myth because I don’t know of any judge in his right mind that would let a convicted abuser share
custody. And, the typical statement in the study is the ill-conceived reason why OVW is fighting so hard to stop shared custody from becoming a
law in all states.

OVW is also fighting to embed domestic violence and restraining order statements in all divorce custody laws: *
Requiring courts to make a
finding of domestic violence when protective orders are issued, so this finding can be used in future custody litigation. *Requiring
evaluators to present their findings to the court instead of making recommendations.
and *When rendering their decisions, judges
should be required to make explicit findings of fact to support their decisions.
This would be a ridiculous if not impossible requirement,
given the way judicial courts now handle restraining orders... just ask any judge.

And, Public Enemy No 2 of shared custody is...Lawyers who have a financial vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Domestic Violence and
Divorce are big businesses, comparable to the automotive industry as reported in the press.

And, Public Enemy No 3 of shared custody is...Judges who want to retain their discretionary powers and base their decisions on a "better safe
than sorry approach" rather than getting at the truth with due process and rules of evidence..

All the foes have an inordinate amount of power, money and time to challenge all and any proponents such as "LW4SP" and numerous public
organizations and individuals like myself who dare fight for shared custody. The huge financial business industries and government bureaucracies
spawned by domestic violence and divorce are documented in my book. There is no doubt that the combined finances of the proponents of
shared custody pales in comparison to those of the opponents. The far reaching tentacles of the hundreds of non profit organizations throughout
the county affiliated with OVW and supported by billions of VAWA dollars make it almost impossible to counteract and speak out against any
systemic flaws. Fair and rational voices are quickly silenced.

CATASTROPHIC CONSEQUENCE OF ADOPTING THE WRONG SHARED CUSTODY LAW

My next article in November will cover the serious issue of what kind of shared custody law should the states enact and will reveal the reasons to
resist any custody law that OVW proposes, including myriads of stipulations associated with domestic violence. The adversarial nature of the
divorce process is bad enough without further increasing hostilities, increasing attorney fees and making a big business bigger.

Remember that in divorce and domestic violence,
a bad law is worse than no law! Stay tuned for more articles.
Return to Home Page
Return to Home Page
KEY DEFINITIONS

VAWA...Violence Against Women Act
(authorized by Congress
in 1994 and reauthorized in 2013)

OVW.....Office on Violence Against Women
funded by VAWA
(Agency in US Department of Justice)
COPYRIGHT 2017 AUTOPSY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & DIVORCE..COM