Replies to '12/26 "Brainwashed by My Parents"'

"If the child does not want to visit the father there is likely then a far greater need for him to visit him. If there is TRUE abuse, that may change things."

'If' there is abuse?  We should not place a child in harm's way and sadly most cases that have been documented and the child removed from the parent alleged to having engaged in PAS, that parent has alleged abuse.  Sadly in these cases the abuse alleged has not been able to have been proven.  So is it not better to err on the side of caution in these issues?  I say if a woman alleges a man to be abusive to her then that man has given up his right to be a parent.  40-60% of men who abuse their partner will at some time abuse their children.  In divorces most cases are settled.  It is the small portion of cases that are not settled and over 70% of those are men who have been alleged to be abusive.  Those cases the man always gets soem form of custody and this is what is wrong.

Case in point.  I know of a woman who was neglectful to her chidlren.  Said chidlren were taken by the state.  This woman was young and had no resources.  Not saying this excuses or condones the neglect, it does not.  This woman matured over time and had more children.  Should the woman's past history require she not be allowed to have children?  Or shoudl she be given a second chance?  This woman was given a second chance.  She has not done stellarly with subsequent children, but said children are happy and well adjusted while in her care.  Said children have compassion for others.

Now on to the father of "said children".  He was accused of domestic violence and chidl abuse.  Allegations could not be proven in court due to 'he said, she said' scenario.  Fast forward to the present.  Again allegations are being raised (and rightfully so) about domestic violence.  Should we ignore the history of dv simply because history doesn't always mean thruth?  Should previous allegations only be given merit if it is proven in a court of law?  A pattern of behavior should be enough to warrant protecting a child.  The mother had a history of abuse/neglect and no longer does.  Father has a history of dv yet because it is not proven this means he gets off scot free twice?  Both periods of time allegations were not provable due to lack of corroborating witness testimony.  Sos houldn't we err on the side of caution and nt allow this abuser unsupervised access and control over his victim of dv?  Men like this use PAS to iun fact guarantee this.  This is what needs to stop, or you will have more women alleging PAS against custodial dads.  And another point I should make is this.  You do not see any men coming on this board to post about their current wife and her ex saying that the father/ex is alienating the chidlren from her.  You see women claiming men do this, you see men claiming women do this and you see seconds claiming firsts are doing this.  Yet you see no second men claiming first men are doing this.  This is because this is primarily used against women.