Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster

– batteredmomslosecustody

This Dr. Harry Harlow was not just unsympathetic, but a monster just like the unethical doctors who forcefully remove children from loving mothers by claiming parental alienation to give them to their abusers are. Why do they do this? Because they get paid by the abuser to do this! It’s a fraud on the courts that needs to end!

From the Top Ten Unethical Psychological Experiments
The Well of Despair 1960

 

     Dr. Harry Harlowwas an unsympathetic person, using terms like the rape rack and iron maiden in his experiments. He is most well-known for the experiments he conducted on rhesus monkeys concerning social isolation. Dr. Harlow took infant rhesus monkeys who had already bonded with their mothers and placed them in a stainless steel vertical chamber device alone with no contact in order to sever those bonds. They were kept in the chambers for up to one year. Many of these monkeys came out of the chamber psychotic, and many did not recover. Dr. Harlow concluded that even a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression, while science writer Deborah Blum called these, common sense results.
     Gene Sackett of the University of Washington in Seattle, one of Harlows doctoral students, stated he believes the animal liberation movement in the U.S. was born as a result of Harlows experiments. William Mason, one of Harlows students, said that Harlow kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. Its as if he sat down and said, Im only going to be around another ten years. What Id like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind. If that was his aim, he did a perfect job.

Any doctor removing a child from their mother using the fraudulent theory of parental alienation or other phony psychobabble BS needs to be exposed for the monster they are. They come up with phony rhetoric and say it in a convincing manner, much like they did back in Salem when they accused women of witchcraft.  

This Parental Alienation Custody Change Fraud is going to go down in history as one of the most unethical psychological social engineering experiments of all time. The scandal is on the same level as the cover up of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church. It’s time people start to wake up and recognize that these doctors are covering up for all types of domestic abuse against women and children for PROFIT.

 

If you click on the links regarding Dr. Harry Harlow, you will find out that he received awards from psychological associations. Maybe this will start to get people thinking that there are groups of people doing unethical experiments and they do support each other on their theories and cover up for each other. The APA also published the Rind Study which tried to justify child sexual abuse as being acceptable and not that harmful to children. There is a common thread between all of these sick studies that push quack theories to justify unacceptable behavior. Only with Parental Alienation Theory, the whole idea is to call the victims liars which re-victimizes them. All that is needed to do this is to pay an unethical doctor to testify who will ignore real evidence and substitute in their fraudulent rhetoric.

 

When people realized the horrible treatment of animals that Harlow inflicted, the result was an animal liberation movement. What needs to happen as a result of these unethical prental alienation scams is for children to have a liberation movement and demand to have rights to be heard and to make their own decisions.

Custody hearing by speaker phone

• Font Size:DecreaseIncrease
• Print Page:Print

Caroline Overington | December 13, 2008

Article from: The Australian

A SHORTAGE of Family Court judges is forcing couples to agree to hearings involving the custody of children and other divorce matters before a judge who is sitting in another state, and visible only on a video screen.

Two South Australian women this week complained to The Weekend Australian that decisions about their children were delivered to them by a Family Court judge who was not in the courtroom.

In one case, a woman, who cannot be named because it would identify her children, said the decision in her custody case was delivered by a judge who was in Brisbane while she was in Adelaide. She was told by a judge on speaker phone that primary care of her children had been granted to her ex-husband.

The judge had not believed her claim that the husband had sexually abused the children.

In another case, a decision was handed down by a Family Court judge in Victoria to a woman in a courtroom in Adelaide.

The use of video screens and speaker phones has become relatively common in the court system in recent years, including in the Federal Court and inquiry hearings. Supporters say tele-conferencing has quickened the pace of justice, and made it cheaper.

Interstate and overseas witnesses, for example, regularly appear on video screens to avoid the cost of flying to a hearing. In the NSW Supreme Court last month, a New York-based witness in the murder trial of Gordon Wood gave evidence by video.

The use of such technology in Family Court matters is more controversial, although a spokeswoman for the court said yesterday that it was done only with the agreement of the parties.

Agreement is something of a slippery concept: it may be that parties are told that a matter can be heard either with an absent judge, or not for six or more months, when the judge can next fly to town.

A spokeswoman for the Family Court said the new technology had allowed for “quick resolution of matters” that might otherwise take months to resolve.

The PAS Racket

Networks of lawyers, GALs, mediators, psychologists, therapists, parenting coordinators, et. al. collude and conspire in these Parental AlienationFraud cases. The mother and children are attacked every step of the way. The GAL may ask to speak with the children. The GAL then calls in a child abuse report, intentionally, or this may be done in response to a domestic violence injunction. The GAL then calls in one or more of this network of therapists and evaluators to attack the mother and children from every angle. All accusing the victims while exonerating the perpetrator who pays hefty “legal bills” and “evaluation bills”, basically buying visitation and/or custody in this racketeering fraud. It’s like black market human trafficking with the appearance of legitimacy, all done with virtual immunity through the court system.

Here is one such brutal example that was overturned on appeal to Florida’s 4th DCA. The guardian ad litem, Vicki Plant, has been involved in multiple cases using the same psychologists and same strategy to further victimize abused women and children. The therapist, Dahlia Biller has also worked with Vicki Plant on other cases using the same strategy. Also, involved in this vicious attack on the mother and children was Martha Jacobson as evaluator, and Jan Faust as undisclosed expert. Interestingly, Jan Faust owns a home with the judge on the case, Susan Greenhawt perBroward County Public Records book 44956, page 1035. This fraudulent custody change caused severe trauma to mother and children with one of the children having to be hospitalized. This sadistic group continued to inflict harm by blaming the mother and depriving the child of the mother’s love and support.

The family continues to suffer as the children are under 18 and litigation continues.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2005
S.S. Appellant, v. P.S. Appellee.
CASE NO. 4D04-455
Opinion filed January 19, 2005

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Susan F. Greenhawt, Judge;
L.T. Case No. FMCE 03-15749 3793.

Lynn G. Waxman of Lynn G. Waxman, P.A.,
West Palm Beach, Sari Teichman Addicott and
Michael L. Addicott of Addicott & Addicott,
P.A., Hollywood, for appellant.

Nancy W. Gregoire and Joel L. Kirschbaum of
Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller, McIntyre
& Gregoire, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw
the opinion issued on November 10, 2004, and
substitute the following.

Appellant, S.S., appeals from
the non-final Order on Temporary Injunction for
Protection Against Domestic Violence and Other
Temporary Relief. She argues that she was
deprived of due process at the hearing because,
contrary to Florida Family Law Rule of
Procedure 12.363(b)(1) (2003), the trial court
permitted the use of the custody evaluation
psychological report which was completed and
delivered to appellant’s counsel the day before
the hearing. We agree and reverse.
Pursuant to section 741.30, Florida Statutes
(2003), the trial court held a hearing on the
temporary injunction for protection against
domestic violence issued against appellee and
considered the issue of custody of the children
of the parties. Two months before the hearing a
custody evaluator was appointed. On Sunday,
the day before the hearing, which had been
continued twice, the report was completed and
delivered to the parties’ attorneys. The report
was thirty-five pages single-spaced and
recommended that the children be removed from
appellant’s custody due to the severe alienation
of the children by their mother (appellant) from
their father. Finding that the circumstances
amounted to an emergency, the trial court, over
the repeated objections of appellant that she
needed more time to prepare, permitted the
testimony of the psychologist, which was based
upon the report.

We find that the circumstances of this case do
not rise to the level of the extraordinary
circumstances required to find a true emergency
as held in Stanley-Baker v. Baker, 789 So. 2d
353, 355 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Thus, the trial
court’s decision to permit the testimony of the
psychologist that was based upon her report,
which was received by appellant the day before
the hearing, was an abuse of discretion and
deprived appe llant of procedural due process.
See Crifaci v. Crifaci, 626 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla.
4th DCA 1993).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
GUNTHER, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ.,
concur.

Maternal Envy – Part One

Long before the approach of separation in cases of intimate terrorism is a phenomena that eats away at the core of her very being.  Some call it Maternal Alienation, but I feel that there is an even deeper aspect that is underlying the very structure of it.  Many times before survivors have been able to name the jealousy that eats away at the ones they tried to love and easily interpret how male family members and even some friends were seen as a threat to these green eyed monsters, but rarely have we delved into the core of why these men stalk through the courts seeking to rob mothers of their children with such destructivity and ferocity.  In the book of “Men and Masculinities” it creates an accurate picture of the envy that some fathers feel towards the bond between a mother and her child.

Intimate partner terrorists already expressing jealousy towards her achievements, friendships and talents, feels an overwhelming rage over this new bond.  For the first time, he has no control over her and her relationship.  The love and attention that pours into her baby within the first few months are often always more as his role in the spotlight diminishes.  So to regain the control over these relationships, he indulges in his efforts to sever this new bond.  Often the first choice is to conquer this new life and seek this child’s unconditional love and obedience.  Love in his world is complete submission to all his unworldly desires.  If the child is a boy, he will dominate his education in the next generation of perpetrators.  In his world, the boy must learn to see his mother as “below him”.  Displaying tyranny in front of the boy is the education that the intimate terrorist begins to teach, so he will learn that he must like his father, to cage these “wild women” to conform to his every need.  

The Alienation Debate

A Father Wrote:

you will never convince those of us that have suffered and have seen our children suffer under Pa, that Pas dose not exist, it is real when you are the targeted. although i don’t agree with all that Gardner says, it is delusional to think it does not exist, may i respectfully suggest that it is the rejection of the concept of pas that initself does more damage to ncp’s, yes parents not just mums or dads. if parents have lost their children through pas either as the targetd one or as the perpetrator then they need to recognise and understand what has happened before they will get any where and before the children will benefit and after all that is what we as parents are chartered to do as best as we can. members of both genders have been guilty, not just mums. to deny pas exists is to bury one’s head in the sand.  

Anonymums Response:

• PAS against mothers and mothers only. Richard Gardner classed substantiated cases of child sexual abuse as “Alienation” He wanted to decriminalize pedophilia and wrote this in his books. Like Dean Tong, and many others who have been convicted for abusing their mothers and children use this as an excuse for their behavior. 
• Alienation originated from the studies conducted on the disclosures of convicted pedophiles. Maternal Alienation was part of a series of behaviors that was used to silence the child in the early grooming stages. The maternal bond is the strongest bond that the offender seeks to break. Once that this is broken, the child is truly isolated and groomed for the next stage. 
• Similar patterns have emerged in the studies of intimate partner terrorism that effects one in three women. Men guilty of these actions were cross classes and professions, some lingered in psychology like the infamous Richard Gardner whom knew that if he could twist such a thing around and gather the support of divorced fathers – Many would flock to his uprising.  
• On a global level mothers are the ones that are truly alienated in the media, the law, schools and culture in general. We are seen as a great burden to society despite our tireless efforts. 
• Fathers Rights tend to try and equalize something that cannot be truly equal unless it were scientifically possible for fathers to bear the birth of children. Instead it is something tyrannical and quite sinister to consider women as merely “baby factories” with no added rights to balance the unbalanced scales. In the encyclopedia for men and masculinities it states that some men experience a maternal jealousy of the maternal bond and whilst some rise above such things, others manifest in dysfunctional manners. The bond between a mother and a child is always stronger than of the father as the baby hears the mothers voice and is soothed subconsciously by her later on.  
• Paternal alienation perceives any expression of closeness such as breast-feeding, concerns for the child’s well being and loving interactions as something sinister and vindictive. Thus the maternal jealously rages on in a court room run mostly by men.  
• The evidence of domestic violence does not get through because Australia has the second highest globally male dominated police force.  
• It is in fact impossible to say that men have a disadvantage in the courts because 70% of the legislation is male dominated. Most of the media is run by men and the few women who speak of women’s issues are coined as “feminazis”