Archive for August 27th, 2012

Halle Berry’s Custody Tactics Bring Out Her Dark Side

Posted on August 27, 2012. Filed under: story | Tags: , , , |

August 24, 2012 by Georgialee Lang (Candian Divorce Lawyer)
If ever there was a primer on how parents should not deal with child custody, Halle Berry and her former common-law spouse, Gabriel Aubry, are in the running for first prize, albeit Aubry appears to be a coerced participant in the fight over their four-year-old daughter, Nahla Ariela Aubry.

The obvious question is how can a woman who is so beautiful on the outside, be so scheming and vindictive on the inside? Yes, Halle Berry fans…that’s how it appears to me, and I bet she is just livid that she agreed to use Aubry’s surname for her daughter when they were still in the throes of love.

Halle Berry’s litigation tactics are “classic” in high-conflict custody cases, and that’s part of
her problem. Most judges have not just fallen off the turnip truck, they have seen it all.

At the time of their uncoupling Halle raved that Aubry was as an “amazing” father and the three of them “were going to be together forever”. But since she connected with serial philanderer and sometime actor Olivier Martinez she’s abandoned her earlier sentiment. Or was it Aubry’s short fling with Kim Kardashian that changed her mind?

For someone who says she only wants to protect her daughter, she has an odd way of going about it. She has desperately tried to remove Aubry from Nahla’s life, with little success. She resisted paying him reasonable child support, even though they share custody. In a drawn out court battle, Ms. Berry was ordered to pay Aubry $20,000 per month.

She must have felt happily triumphant when Nahla’s nanny accused Mr. Aubry of pushing her while she held Nahla. Aubry was relegated to supervised access and no overnight parenting time for a while, but after a thorough child protection investigation by California authorities, he was completely cleared.

Her latest ploy is to convince the Court that it is in Nahla’s best interests to move with her to France with her fiance, Olivier Martinez. Her reasons? She says she is being stalked in California. I guess she was really p-o’d when she recently learned that mental patient Robert Dewey Hoskins, who also harassed Madonna, was arrested and recommitted to a locked psychiatric facility.

She is also urging the Court to favourably consider her pending nuptials with Martinez and the new family she has created. As far as any stability as a result of her relationship with Martinez, I am very skeptical.

If Berry actually marries Martinez, it will be her third marriage. Mr. Martinez has never been married and no wonder….His flings usually are of short duration, from one-night hook-ups to four years. He has bedded model Rosie Huntington Whitley, singer Kylie Minogue, model Sara Givati, actress Michelle Rodriguez, actress Mira Sorvino, actress Juliet Binoche and actress Goya Toledo.

But what is going to really sink Halle’s ship is the expert report before the Court that warns the judge that separating Nahla from her very-involved father will be detrimental to her well-being.

I still don’t get it…when will mothers learn they don’t “own” their children?

http://lawdiva.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/halle-berrys-custody-tactics-bring-out-her-darkside/

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Children Should NOT Be Allowed to Drive the Visitation Bus

Posted on August 27, 2012. Filed under: story | Tags: , , , |

 by Linda Gottlieb

To any rational, mature, objective parent or professional, the reason for this declaration could be justified by merely pondering the following question: “How reassured would you feel if you were standing trial for a crime, and your jury was comprised entirely of 18-year-olds?”

 

The reason children should not be empowered to make a decision about visitation with a parent is as obvious as why no one would feel comfortable having only 18 year olds sitting in judgment of us. A child’s judgment, insight, perception, reality testing, and emotions only barely reach maturity by the END of adolescence. One only has to read the epistemological research and studies undertaken by Jean Piaget, philosopher and developmental psychologist, who wrote the “Bible” upon which educators rely to understand the cognitive development of children. Children do not have the emotional and cognitive abilities do evaluate for themselves what is in their best interests; to theorize what it would be like to have a parent eradicated from their lives; to be able to discriminate what is rational, truthful, and moral amidst all the information their parents and other adults impart to them—especially about the malicious, fabricated, and fanciful data from the alienating parent. Children, for example, think very concretely until the age of 8; that is why they actually do believe, “Step on a crack, break my mother’s back.” Not until much older, can they discriminate reality from fantasy, which is why they should not see horror shows until much older.  The ability to think abstractly starts at the beginning of adolescence and is still insufficiently mature by 18. Children lack wisdom! And children further do not have the emotional wherewithal to contradict the alienating parent—-if that parent is the residential parent—-as they are so dependent upon that parent.

 

So to placate the alienated parent regarding the visit refusal, the court sanctions it by making an ineffective order for the child to undergo a course of individual therapy in the hopes of readying the child for a relationship with the alienated parent. Every time I hear the unsubstantiated platitude for the therapist, “to prepare the child for contact with the alienated parent,” I want to erupt.  Because of their immature cognitive and emotional abilities as previously discussed, children do not possess the facility for abstraction. They cannot participate in a theoretical discussion about what an appropriate relationship entails; nor can they comprehend a desire for something in the abstraction. A child, therefore, cannot have a  discussion about desiring a relationship with someone who is in the absentia—-especially a brainwashed child; nor can a child participate in determining what to expect from the relationship with that “someone.”  That “someone” needs to be concrete, in person, in the flesh and blood.  The therapist cannot, therefore, prepare the child through intellectualism and abstraction for the re-building of a relationship with someone else.  To be able to do this is a fantasy perpetuated by an adversarial child custody system in order to appease the parties and deceive one another into believing that the alienation is being addressed. Individual therapy will not be able to resolve this.  To do is also a fantasy perpetuated by the mental health community—-partially out of ignorance, partially out of an opposing belief system from this therapist’s about the power of the therapist and about how people change, and partially to assure our continued employment. I have lost count of the number of preposterous requests I have received asking me to treat a child whom I have never met in order “to ready them to reunite” with a parent, whom I have also never met and know nothing about.  I am being asked to treat a relationship without having observed and examined it!  Would a doctor diagnose for a disease without observing/examining the patient?

 

But why is therapy necessary at all to connect a child to a loving and formally loved parent?  The PAS-aware professional must educate the judicial system that PAS children’s expressed hatred for and refusal to visit with the targeted/alienated parent are not their true feelings—-no more than these were the feelings of the thousands of foster children with whom I had worked with during a period of 24 years: not a single foster child ever expressed a hatred for her/his parents or a refusal to visit. Indeed, the two most frequently asked questions were, “When can I go home?” and “When is my next visit with my mommy and daddy?” You have to be carefully taught to hate and fear—-especially a parent.

 

PAS children are caught and trapped by their feelings and position: on the one hand, these children love and crave their relationship with their targeted/alienated parent; on the other hand, they are terrified of betraying their alienating parent by expressing their true feelings. The professionals which impact child custody—-especially the judge—-must release these children from their trap by relieving them from making the decision about whether to visit or not. The professionals who impact child custody and visitation must assume the responsibilities for which we were charged when we were licensed by our respective professions; that is, we must assume our responsibility of guaranteeing the PAS child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents—-that starts with the enforcement of the visitation rights of the non-residential parent.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...