“I love my children. If the court can’t protect them from their abusive father, I will. Even though he’s never abused the children, I know it’s a matter of time. The children are frightened of their father. If they don’t want to see him, I’m not going to force them. They are old enough to make up their own minds.”
The obsessed alienator is a parent, or sometimes a grandparent, with a cause:
to align the children to his or her side and together, with the children, and a campaign to destroy their relationship with the targeted parent.
For the campaign to work, the obsessed alienator enmeshes the children’s personalities and beliefs into their own. This is a process that takes time but one that the children, especially the young, are completely helpless to see and combat. It usually begins well before the divorce is final.
The obsessed parent is angry, bitter or feels betrayed by the other parent. The initial reasons for the bitterness may actually be justified. They could have been verbally and physical abused, raped, betrayed by an affair, or financially cheated.
The problem occurs when the feelings won’t heal but instead become more intense because of being forced to continue the relationship with a person they despise because of their common parenthood. Just having to see or talk to the other parent is a reminder of the past and triggers the hate. They are trapped with nowhere to go and heal.
The characteristics of obsessed alienation are as follows
- They are obsessed with destroying the children’s relationship with the targeted parent
- They having succeeded in enmeshing the childrens’ personalities and beliefs about the other parent with their own.
- The children will parrot the obsessed alienator rather than express their own feelings from personal experience with the other parent.
- The targeted parent and often the children cannot tell you the reasons for their feelings.
- Their beliefs sometimes becoming delusional and irrational. No one, especially the court, can convince obsessed alienators that they are wrong. Anyone who tries is the enemy.
- They will often seek support from family members, quasi-political groups or friends that will share in their beliefs that they are victimized by the other parent and the system.
- The battle becomes “us against them.” The obsessed alienator’s supporters are often seen at the court hearings even though they haven’t been subpoenaed.
- They have an unquenchable anger because they believe that the targeted parent has victimized them and whatever they do to protect the children is justified.
- They have a desire for the court to punish the other parent with court orders that would interfere or block the targeted parent from seeing the children. This confirms in the obsessed alienator’s mind that he or she was right all the time.
- The court’s authority does not intimidate them.
- The obsessed alienator believes in a higher cause, protecting the children at all cost.
- The obsessed alienator will probably not want to read what is on these pages because the content just makes them angrier.
There are no effective treatments for either the obsessed alienator or the children.
The courts and mental health professionals are helpless.
The only hope for these children is early identification of the symptoms and prevention. After the alienation is entrenched and the children become “true believers” in the parent’s cause, the children are lost to the other parent for years to come.
We realize this is a sad statement, but we have yet to find an effective intervention, by anyone, including the courts that can rehabilitate the alienating parent and child.
More on Parental Alienation
Divorce is one of life’s most painful passages. It is painful for the spouse who wants it, painful for the spouse who feels rejected, and painful for the children.
We can understand and empathize with the spouse who feels wronged and wants revenge, or the spouse who is overwhelmed with anxiety at the thought of losing the children, or the spouse who prefers to forget that the marriage ever was.
But using the children to get revenge, to cope with anxiety, to erase the past, is unacceptable.
Parents must hold themselves to a higher standard.
Parent/child relationships are particularly vulnerable when children are first informed of the impending separation, or when one parent actually leaves the home.
If your spouse manipulates the children to blame you for the divorce, or to believe you have abandoned them, affection can dissolve overnight as their distress and hurt feelings are channeled into hatred.
The risk becomes multiplied if, for any reason, you have no communication or contact with the children after you leave the home. This keeps you from reassuring the children of your love and helping them understand that they do not have to choose between their parents.
A child who feels caught between two homes may feel that the solution to the conflict is to declare a clear allegiance to one household. This motive can result in alienation from either parent.
A child who is anxious or angry about the remarriage may channel these feelings into unwarranted hatred of the remarried parent and stepparent. Or the child’s alienation may express the disappointment of reconciliation wishes that have been dashed by the remarriage.
Regardless of the child’s underlying motivation, if the favored parent welcomes the child’s allegiance and fails to actively promote the child’s affection for the other parent, the child may cling to a maladaptive solution.
The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.
PAS is more than brainwashing or programming, because the child has to actually participate in the denigrating of the alienated parent. This is done in primarily the following eight ways:
1. The child denigrates the alienated parent with foul language and severe oppositional behavior.
2. The child offers weak, absurd, or frivolous reasons for his or her anger.
3. The child is sure of him or herself and doesn’tdemonstrate ambivalence, i.e. love and hate for thealienated parent, only hate.
4. The child exhorts that he or she alone came up with ideas of denigration. The “independent-thinker”phenomenon is where the child asserts that no one told him to do this.
5. The child supports and feels a need to protect the alienating parent.
6. The child does not demonstrate guilt over cruelty towards the alienated parent.
7. The child uses borrowed scenarios, or vividlydescribes situations that he or she could not haveexperienced.
8. Animosity is spread to also include the friends and/or extended family of the alienated parent.
In severe cases of parent alienation, the child is utterly brainwashed against the alienated parent.
The alienator can truthfully say that the child doesn’t want to spend any time with the other parent, even though he or she has told the child that he has to, it is a court order, etc.
The alienator typically responds, “There isn’t anything that I can do about it. I’m not telling the child that he can’t.
Alienation advances when the alienating parent urdses the child as a personal therapist. The child is told about every miserable experience and negative feeling about the alienated parent with great specificity.
The child, who is already enmeshed with the parent because his or her identity is still undefined, easily absorbs the parent’s negativity. They become aligned with this parent and feel that they need to be the protector of the alienating parent.
Parental alienation can be mild and temporary or extreme and ongoing. Most researchers believe that any alienation of a child against (the child’s) other parent is harmful to the child and to the target parent.
Extreme, obsessive, and ongoing parental alienation can cause terrible psychological damage to children extending well into adulthood.
Parental Alienation focuses on the alienating parents behavior as opposed to the alienated parent’s and alienated childrens’ conditions. This definition is different from Parental Alienation Syndrome as originally coined by Dr. Richard Gardner in 1987:
“a disturbance in which children are preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent-denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.”
Parental Alienation Syndrome symptoms describe the child’s behaviours and attitude towards the targeted parent after the child has been effectively programmed and severely alienated from the targeted parent.
Parental alienation, on the other hand, describes the alienating parent’s or parents’ conduct which induces parental alienation syndrome in children. Parental alienation is a form of relational aggression by one parent against the other parent using their common children.
The process can become cyclic with each parent attempting to alienate the children from the other. There is potential for a negative feedback loop and escalation.
At other times an affected parent may withdraw leaving the children to the alienating parent. Children so alienated often suffer effects similar to those studied in the psychology of torture.
Alienating parents often use grandparents, aunts/uncles, and other elders to alienate their children against the target parent.
In some cases, mental health professionals become unwitting allies in these alienation attempts by backing unfounded allegations of neglect, abuse or mental disease. Courts also often side with the alienating parent against the target parent in legal judgements because parental alienation is so difficult to detect.
Extreme forms of parental alienation include obsessive brainwashing, character assassination, and the false inducement of fear, shame, and rage in children against the target parent. Moderate forms of parental alienation include loss of self control, flare ups of anger, and nconscious alliances with the children against the target parent. In it’s mildest forms, parental alienation includes occasional mild denigration alternating with a focus on encouraging the children’s relationship with the other parent.
Parental alienation often forces children to choose sides and become allies against the other parent. Children caught in the middle of such conflicts suffer severe losses of love, respect and peace during their formative years.
They also often lose their alienated parent forever.
These consequences and a host of others cause terrible traumas to children as studied in Parental Alienation Syndrome.
Parents so alienated often suffer heartbreaking loss of their children through no fault of their own. In addition, they often face false accusations from their alienated children that they cannot counter with the facts.
Finally, they often find themselves powerless to show that this little-known form of cruel, covert, and cunning aggression is occurring or has occurred.
Often the problem can be cured only by realizing the underlying causes. The reasons are very numerous and varied. These are examples:
- Money. The custodial parent may wish to have more than the non-custodial parent is willing or able to provide and the children are leverage pawns.
- Retaliation. ‘You wanted a life without us. Now you have it.’
- New family member.The mother forms a new romantic relationship and wants her new man to be the father. The non-custodial parent is a hindrance to that new relationship, an unwanted reminder.
- New partner’s interference. Mother’s boy-friend or new husband wants to be the man in the child’s life and works to exclude the father.
- Jealousy Mother’s empty life is in stark contrast to Father’s recovering one. Mother may not wish the father’s new partner to have the role of ‘rival mother’ – particularly if she is insecure about her own abilities.
- Property rights. Mother regards child as her property and is unwilling to share
- Social appearance.Mother could never admit that she is not the sole focus of her child’s life.
- Depression, Poor health.General negative view on life interpreted by her as being a result of the marital breakup and therefore his fault.
- Simple hatred by the mother of the father.
- Hostility from the father toward the mother is viewed by her as a risk to the children as well, so she feels that she must ‘protect’ the child by preventing the father from visiting. Mother may have no basis whatsoever for feeling that the father will be hostile to the child.
Possessiveness of the child’s attention and affection. The Mother may have no other close family and be envious of the father’s friends and relatives.
- Mother convinces herself that the father is a dangerous human with extreme character flaws to which the child should not be exposed. Mother assumes that activities enjoyed by the father are risky to the child, even though other children may engage in those same activities.
- Mother has taken a gender approach and is hostile to all men. This can be particularly true if the mother has limited her own contacts to other single mothers. She may be unable to sustain a wholesome relationship with a man.
- Punishment. Mother eliminates visits or shortens contact with the father if the children do not behave. “You have not finished your homework. You cannot go to dinner with your father.” or “You did not obey me about your bedtime. You are grounded here and while you are with your father this weekend.”
- Perceived competition with the former spouse. This is particularly true when the non-custodial father spends more on the children than the mother is able to do. Also called “Disneyland Dads”, the father uses his time in high dollar activities while the mother has to make do on free and low cost amusements for them. This also works in reverse with the “competitive” mom – where the non-custodial parent plans an activity, such as a driving vacation and then the custodial mom has to ‘trump’ it by flying the children out of the country on vacation. Neither parent seems to notice that the TWO vacations are far more than the child would have received if in a pre-divorce home and that the child’s values are being distorted on a very subconscious, but permanent level.
- Self-esteem. The mother’s interests and activities may be so focused on the children that she has no life if they are not around. She does not wish to, or cannot admit, that they have fun if she is not part.
- Fear of abandonment.Mother worries that children may choose the father over her if given the opportunity.
- Control. The children may be the only means the parent has of directing the life and emotions of the former spouse.
- Reverse control. The mother may have never wanted a man except to sire the child and, once that role is complete, the mother wants him well away from her child. Watch for parents who say ‘MY child’ when talking to the other parent.
- Punishment to the Father for forming a new marriage. ‘You were supposed to stay single and grieve for me forever.’
- Mistaken belief that the father was actually not interested in the child.Many men are not granted much of a role in baby care, so as the child grows older and the father is ‘learning how to parent’ he may not spend as much time with the child –which may be viewed in retrospect as disinterest. Parenting does not come naturally to everyone and non-custodial parents have less of a chance to practice, with their mistakes being more visible.
- Lifestyle conflicts.Mother and father have different choices in cultures, religions, and values and she wants to isolate the children into hers.
- Emotional dependence.The mother may feel that the child has only so much capability for affection and wants it all for herself.
- Resentment of reminders of failure.The mother may view the dissolved marriage as a failure and wish to avoid all memory of it.
- Concealment. The mother may be having difficulties and does not want the children to provide information about her situation to the father.
Theses cases involving Parental Alienating are very frustrating to the targeted parent. Many times the offending parent feels totally justified in their actions. They cannot see the damage they are causing their children.
How can targeted parents in these situations be helped?
Encourage them to keep their heads up, maintain perspective, and contact the right professionals. Open up the line of communication with their children, recognize early warning signs of trouble, and respond appropriately to rude and hateful behavior.
Avoid common errors made by rejected parents through recognition of the problem and quickly obtaining the proper experts, which is crucial in developing a strategy inn a custody case involving Parental Alienation.
If necessary, ask the courts to order an evaluation and most of all to order treatment to reverse the damages caused by such conduct.
Parental Alienation Syndrome by Lynn M.Swank,
Dr. Richard A. Warshak. Divorce Poison, Protecting the Parent-Child Bond from a Vindictive Ex, Regan Books, New York,
Gardner, R.A. (1998). The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition, Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.
Three Types of Parental Alienation Copyright 1997 by Douglas Darnall, Ph.D.)
This new federal law will change foster care as we know it
BY TERESA WILTZ
May 03, 2018 01:00 AM
A new federal law, propelled by the belief that children in difficult homes nearly always fare best with their parents, effectively blows up the nation’s troubled foster care system.
Few outside child welfare circles paid any mind to the law, which was tucked inside a massive spending bill President Donald Trump signed in February. But it will force states to overhaul their foster care systems by changing the rules for how they can spend their annual $8 billion in federal funds for child abuse prevention.
The law, called the Family First Prevention Services Act, prioritizes keeping families together and puts more money toward at-home parenting classes, mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment – and puts limits on placing children in institutional settings such as group homes. It’s the most extensive overhaul of foster care in nearly four decades.
“It’s a really significant reform for families,” said Hope Cooper, founding partner of True North Group, a Washington, D.C.-based public policy consultancy that advised child welfare agencies on the new law. “The emphasis is really on helping kids stay safe with families, and helping vulnerable families get help earlier.”
Most child welfare advocates have hailed the changes, but some states that rely heavily on group homes fear that now they won’t have enough money to pay for them.
The federal government won’t release compliance guidelines until October, so states are still figuring out how the changes might affect their often-beleaguered systems. Most expect the impact will be dramatic, particularly states such as Colorado that have a lot of group foster homes.
For the first time, the Family First Act caps federal funding for group homes, also known as “congregate care.” Previously, there were no limits, Cooper said. The federal government won’t pay for a child to stay in a group home longer than two weeks, with some exceptions, such as teens who are pregnant or parenting.
But even in states that are moving in the direction envisioned by the federal law, officials are worried about certain aspects of it.
In New York, state officials are concerned that the limits on group homes will cost counties too much. Under the new caps, New York counties will have to chip in as much as 50 percent more for certain children, said Sheila Poole, acting commissioner for New York’s Office of Children and Family Services. That would be a significant hit for smaller counties with scant resources, she said.
In California, city, county and state officials and child welfare advocates worry the law will place a burden on extended family members who are raising grandchildren, nieces and nephews outside of foster care. That’s because “kinship caregivers” won’t be eligible for foster care payments under the new law.
This practice isn’t new, but it is likely to expand under Family First, said Sean Hughes, a California-based child welfare consultant and former Democratic congressional staffer who opposes parts of the law.
The new law, Hughes said, “closes the front door to a lot of safety nets that we’ve developed for kids in foster care.”
Child protective services investigates alleged abuse or neglect in as many as 37 percent of all children under 18 in the United States, according to a 2017 report in the American Journal of Public Health. African-American children are almost twice as likely as white children to have their well-being investigated by child protective services. (The report only looked at reports of child abuse and neglect, not placement in foster care.)
A March report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found the foster care population increased by more than 10 percent between 2012 and 2016, the last year for which data is available. The agency linked the increase in child welfare caseloads to the nation’s opioid epidemic, which is ravaging families.
In six states – Alaska, Georgia, Minnesota, Indiana, Montana and New Hampshire – the foster care population increased by more than half.
To help reverse the trend, the new law places a greater emphasis on prevention.
The federal government underfunded prevention services for years, said Karen Howard, vice president of early childhood policy for First Focus, a Washington, D.C.-based child advocacy group that worked on the legislation. Before the enactment of Family First, states got reimbursed for foster care through funding provided by Title IV-E of the Social Security Act – and that money could be used only for foster care, adoption or family reunification. The money could not routinely be used for prevention that might keep families from sending their children to foster care in the first place.
Now, for the first time, evidence-based prevention services will be funded as an entitlement, like Medicaid.
That means that prevention services will be guaranteed by the federal government for the families of children who are deemed “foster care candidates”: usually kids determined to be victims of abuse or neglect who haven’t been removed from their home.
Under the new law, states may use matching federal funding to provide at-risk families with up to 12 months of mental health services, substance abuse treatment and in-home parenting training to families. Eligible beneficiaries are the families of children identified as safe staying at home; teen parents in foster care; and other parents who need preventive help so their kids don’t end up in the system. States must also come up with a plan to keep the child safe while remaining with parents.
Some child welfare advocates, such as Hughes, worry that 12 months of preventive care isn’t enough for parents struggling with opioid addiction. People with opioid addictions often relapse multiple times on the road to recovery.
Many preventive services, such as home visiting, clinical services, transportation assistance and job training aren’t eligible for Family First funding, Poole said.
The law provides competitive grants for states to recruit foster families; establishes licensing requirements for foster families who are related to the child; and requires states to come up with a plan to prevent children dying from abuse and neglect.
In another first, the law also removes the requirement that states only use prevention services for extremely poor families. Because the income standards hadn’t been adjusted in 20 years, fewer and fewer families qualified for the services, advocates say. Now, states don’t have to prove that an at-risk family meets those circa 1996 income standards.
“That’s significant,” said Howard of First Focus. “Because abuse happens in rich homes, middle-class homes, poor homes. This is a game changer, because states can really go to town” to provide innovative prevention services to troubled families, Howard said.
Under the new law, the federal government will cap the amount of time a child can spend in group homes. It will do so by reimbursing states for only two weeks of a child’s stay in congregate care – with some exceptions, such as for children in residential treatment programs offering round-the-clock nursing care.
The new restrictions begin in 2019. States can ask for a two-year delay to implement the group home provisions of the law, but if they do, they can’t get any federal funding for preventive services.
The group home provision comes after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a 2015 report showing that 40 percent of teens in foster care group homes had no clinical reason, such as a mental health diagnosis, for being there rather than in a family setting. Child welfare experts saw this as more evidence that group homes were being overused. Children’s average stay in a group home is eight months, the report found.
Some states rely more on group homes than others, with the amount of children in congregate care ranging from 4 to 35 percent of foster care children, according to a 2015 report by the Casey Foundation. Colorado, Rhode Island, West Virginia and Wyoming have the greatest percentage of children living in group homes, though the report also found that over the previous 10 years, the group home population had decreased by about a third.
Those who oppose the group home restrictions say they are too narrow in scope.
The law’s additional requirements for congregate care “reduce a state’s flexibility to determine the most appropriate placement for a child and would negatively impact the likelihood of receiving sufficient federal funding,” said Poole, the acting child welfare commissioner in New York. She said the state is weighing whether it will ask for a two-year delay.
It makes sense to not place foster youth in group homes unless absolutely necessary, said Hughes, the California consultant. But sometimes it is necessary. The vast majority of foster youth in group homes are there because staying in a foster home or with a relative didn’t work out, Hughes said. For kids who’ve been through trauma, particularly older kids, a traditional foster home isn’t equipped to give them the care they need, he said.
“The idea that kids are placed in group homes because the system is lazy and doesn’t have any regard for their well-being is unfounded,” Hughes said.
(Trigger Warning: This post may contain information about the topic of sexual abuse that may be sensitive in nature to some readers )
I have thought about this article allot before writing it. This is very difficult.
I am not writing it to gain anything, but in hopes that someone reading it does. ..
I don’t want anyone to go through this, but I know many will…
So maybe this will make a difference somewhere to someone…
There’s a sad truth called sexual abuse that we really don’t want to talk about, but we must.
There are perpetrators of sexual abuse that we don’t ever want to know, but we do.
There are mistakes that are made and reality becomes something we don’t want to face, but we have no choice.
The truth is, children are sexually abused. There’s no sense ignoring it. It does not make it go away.
Sometimes the wrong person is blamed, and the abuser gets away with it….this does not necessarily happen because of an error in judgment, or a lack of concern, but something far more sinister…
It happens on purpose.
Yes, on purpose. By design; following a perpetrators methodical plan..with an end goal being to abuse more and to get away with it.
This article will show you how they do it, so you and i can possibly stop one of them.
Protect your child with open eyes.
The following two stories are true cases where this horrific type of situation occurred. I know this topic is a difficult one. It is disgusting, vile, immoral, and sad. It is still vitally important to talk about, even if we don’t want to. Why? Because cases like these that are not isolated. They happen all the time, and if the abuser has his way, it will happen again, on purpose.
Pedophiles and child molesters are everywhere. They look like anyone you meet. They prey on children, and, most of the time, the children know them.
The predator must rely on others to trust him, need him or fear him. without at least one of those elements, the predator cannot gain the compliance he needs to abuse. Sometimes the child even loves their abuser.
Sexual abuse destroys that innocent trust (and the ABILITY to trust) by exploiting the fears and needs of the victim. They intertwine themselves into their victims lives, devastate families, and change their victim into someone new.
They do all of this harm for their own sexual gratification, and their need to fulfill it, without getting caught.
They plot, plan, and seek out their victims. They must groom them -a process by which they slowly work with the victim until the predator feels confident they have gained the trust and silence of their victim before introducing the actual sexual abuse.
First they must find their victim, prepare their victim and then, finally, they abuse their victim. It’s a process.
Pedophiles are sick …and the sickness doesn’t go away..
They are notoriously incurable, and will usually re-offend, having more than one victims. Sex offenders who molest children have many traits in common, and when they are caught, you can bet they don’t get caught with their first victim, or on their first abuse. Usually they have had many victims prior to getting caught, or they have abused many times.
They do not rehabilitate very easily or very often, and did I mention, that most of the time, they will re-offend?
Abusers comes in all shapes, sizes, genders, race and with different preferences. Victims can and are both male and female alike. No one is immune. Do not be misconstrued about the appearance of a predator, they don’t always look like three monster they are.
The abuser is a predator and predators hunt. The predator is opportunistic. Like any predator on the hunt, if he sees the opportunities laid out before him, he will jump on it. Sometimes he must make his own opportunities. He must be-friend a child, or the parent of a child, in order to gain access to the child.
The predator loves to see an opportunity to have a ‘patsy’… another innocent person to take the blame for their abuse they are committing against a child. I have two such stories to tell you.
The end result of sexual abuse is tragic, and as you’ll read, the truth is sometimes not revealed until far too late.
Here is the story of a little girl ill call “Child A “-
Child A was 4 years old when the abuse began. Her abuser was her mother’s 2nd husband. Child A was born to parents who were teenagers. The couple had split up when she was 2 years of age, and found themselves caught in a bitter divorce and custody battle before they could even legally purchase alcohol. However the contention was not between the two of them, but the maternal grandmother had intervened and filed suit and she wanted custody.
The mother was only 16 when she got pregnant with child A, and out of selfless love for her daughter, she admitted she wasn’t ready to be a full time single mother. A bitter pill to swallow. The mother also knew that fighting in a custody battle would just add to the already volatile conflict.
The mother made the difficult decision to back up from the court battle. She settled for sporadic visitations on the 5th weekends of the months. She would have the ability to stay in contact with her daughter and be involved in school functions, advised of any pertinent health matters, etc etc. Since most months only had 4 weekends, this meant she only had possession of her daughter every few months for one weekend.. but she talked on the phone, had lunch at school with her, and stayed active in her child’s life.
The mother had a boyfriend who ultimately became her 2nd husband, the stepfather. They lived together when child A was 4 years old, so most of the time, he was there when her daughter would visit. The mother rarely, if ever, left her daughter alone with her boyfriend, not because she mistrustd him, but mainly because she cherished every minute she had with her.
At the time, the custody battle between her father and the maternal grandmother had reached a boiling point. It became brutal. The two adversaries were in and out of court on a regular basis. They fought over everything, seemingly petty issues. The temporary orders they were going by were ridiculously detailed. They fought over everything from child support, visitation, to cutting the child’s hair, piercing her ears, the clothes she wore between the two houses, even hair barrettes. You name it, they fought over it- and they were going back and forth to Court all the time to “clarify” the orders on any issue. Honestly, it was bad.
So when the maternal grandmother accused the father of sexual abuse, many people who knew the situation werent surprised. The child’s mother, always felt like the allegations were outlandish against her ex. She just believed it, at first, to be one more ridiculous ploy the grandmother came up with, designed to try to deprive the child’s father of custody.
A social worker was brought in to investigate, and the child made an outcry…
“My daddy hurt me with my white panties”….
Things got very real at that point. For everyone. Ploy or not, things went from ridiculously annoying to damn serious.
The little girl was subjected to sexual abuse exams and the mother and father was subjected to interrogations. The father was adamant in proclaiming his innocence, and he was terrified. He had remarried and begun a new family and these false allegations against him could possibly cost him his new family. He already lost jobs, spent untold amounts of money on attorneys, and endured strikes against his reputation. He suffered from the stress, and the unimaginable trauma of being falsely accused of the heinous crimes.
The allegations were severe but after investigations were complete, the allegations of sexual abuse was never substantiated against him.
The custody battle continued on for an unbelievable total of 14 years before it finally ended when the child was a teenager.
Ten years later… At age 14, child A had, four the first time, talked about her abuse. She told a friend from school about the sexual abuse committed against her a decade before by her stepfather, that began when she was four years old. Abuse that her father had been accused of… abuse that turned so many lives upside down..
How did this happen?
When the predator was abusing he saw an opportunity. He knew, due to the raging court battle between the father and the grandmother, that any sexual abuse allegations would easily come against the father and easily believed by others that the father had perpetrated the abuse. There was the perfect person or ‘patsy’ opportunity right before him. He knew the grandmother would jump to that conclusion and use it in court. He also knew, given the child’s young age, she was easily manipulated and not necessarily credible.
Child molesters are meticulous in their abusing routine. From the choosing of a victim to how they go about carrying out their abuse, they are methodical and deliberate, in all they do.
The abuser in this case called himself “daddy” to the little girl as he abused her. In doing so …he perfectly set up the situation so that when the outcry was initially made, it was made against her “daddy”… shifting all focus and blame to the child’s father.
By the time the child grew older, age 14, when she told her friend the true identity of her abuser, that friend went to the school counselor with the information. However the authorities and CPS did not see much reasoning in pursuing charges, insofar as much time had passed, and Child A was no longer at risk of being abused by that perpetrator, as he and her mother had long since split up. Both had moved on, with new spouses and other children, and were living new lives. Of course, for him, that meant new victims.
As I said earlier, by the time they are caught, it’s usually the first time they abuse a child. There’s usually several previous occasions or victims that they got away with. In this case, the perpetrator had moved on, remarried a woman with a little girl, and abused her for several years without incident. That is, until Child A told her friend who told the school. That launched a snowball effect which ultimately led to the investigation of this man and his relationship to his new stepdaughter. Eventually, that girl confided in a friend at her school in a note she wrote detailing the years of abuse. A note that was found by her mother, who took it to authorities.
He was finally caught.
That monster is serving several concurrent sentences of 40 years each, and a couple 20 year sentences, for his abuse against his stepdaughter that spanned almost 6 years. It is unlikely he will ever be released.
Child A’s father was finally vindicated.
The next story I’ll call Child B.
Child B was, once again, the subject of a bitter custody battle where allegations were made against the mother’s second husband. Although the investigations were unable to determine if the abuse occurred or by whom, the mother eventually signed over custody to her ex, to end the allegations against her new husband who she believed was innocent.
Years passed that the mother did not even get to see Child B. It was tragic.
Then one day news broke that the couple’s old next door neighbor is being looked at for sexual Abuse of another child. Thats when the mother realised it could have conceivably been their ex neighbor who abused Child B. That neighbor never liked Child B’s new husband, and was always interested in the status of the custody battle. He always seemed extra interested in Child B, spending time with her, but until the confusion of the custody battle passed and the new realizations came out several years later, the mother had not seen the signs.
Child B is a case still unresolved. The trauma the like girl endured was severe. It’s taken many Year’s for her to regain a sense of normalcy and to begin thriving again.
Almost ten years old now, Child B has reached a good point in her life where she is healthy again. The mother has gotten back some visitations with her daughter, and both mother and father have decided not to discuss the abuse with her. Hopefully when Child B is ready, she will talk about it. They will continue to monitor the situation with their old neighbor from afar, and they were hopeful that the truth will be found without reopening any traumatic investigations in Child B’s now thriving life. They simply feel it would prove too much for the girl.
Her stepfather, however, has finally been vindicated.
So as you can see, these predators will take the opportunities they see to abuse.
This can be prevented by staying vigilant, eyes wide open, to everyone whose in your life. Use discretion when sharing information about situations you may be going thru, like custody battles or marital problems. Keep those things to yourself. Pay attention to anyone showing unusually high interest in your child, making readings to be alone with your child, offering rides, or to babysit. Takes notice of anyone who seems interested only in the Child, and not in adult company. Who seems to want to become closely knit in the Child’s life. Don’t discount anyone it can be a neighbor, coach, family friend, or even a family member. Keep your eyes open and communicate with your child about whose around them. Teach them what’s appropriate and not inappropriate and let them know you are the for them. Make them feel safe to talk to you should anything happen.
Hopefully this will never be a reality for your family, but if it does come to your door, remember to always keep aware of your child’s surroundings. Don’t let the moments focus you in the wrong direction. If the wrong person gets accused, the real predator gets away with it, and continues to abuse.
Fact: Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.
(I wonder why)
Fact: At least 35 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 169 wounded and 79 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs).
Fact: Between 2004 and 2012, there have been 14,773 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system on psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including:
1,531 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide,
3,287 cases of mania &
8,219 cases of aggression.
The FDA estimates that less than 1% of all serious events are ever reported to it, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.
Fact: It took months for the release of information showing that police had found psychiatric drugs in the apartment of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter, James Holmes—including the anti-anxiety drug clonazepam and the antidepressant sertraline, the generic version of the antidepressant Zoloft. Despite official, legal requests for the release of Sandy Hook school shooter Adam Lanza’s toxicology reports and medical history to ascertain whether psychiatric drugs played a role in the school massacre, the office of the Connecticut medical examiner has refused to release this crucial information to the public, prompting a parent’s rights organization to take the matter to court.
Of the 35 people who committed acts of violence that were documented to be under the influence of psychiatric drugs, twelve were seeing either a psychiatrist or psychologist.
School-related acts of violence aren’t the only cases commonly found to be under the influence of psychiatric drugs.
There are 18 other recent acts of senseless violence committed by individuals taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in an additional 76 dead and 61 wounded.
The correlation between psychiatric drugs and acts of violence and homicide is well documented – both by international drug regulatory warnings and studies, as well as by hundreds of cases where high profile acts of violence/mass murder were committed by individuals under the influence of psychiatric drugs.
The New York State Senate recognized this as far back as 2000, introducing a bill which would “require police to report to the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), certain crimes and suicides committed by persons using psychotropic drugs,” citing “a large body of scientific research establishing a connection between violence and suicide and the use of psychotropic drugs.”
Unfortunately that bill stalled out in the finance committee. By reviewing the international drug regulatory warnings, studies, and adverse reaction reports submitted to the US FDA below, it is evident that the reintroduction of the New York bill is needed on a federal level in order to determine just how many crimes and acts of violence are being committed by individuals under the influence of drugs documented to induce violence, mania, psychosis, aggression, hostility and homicide.
As the world’s leading mental health watchdog, CCHR has, for decades, investigated hundreds of acts of senseless violence, working alongside investigative reporters, law enforcement, as well as legislative hearings, such as those held in Colorado following the 1999 Columbine massacre (ringleader Eric Harris was found to be under the influence of the antidepressant Luvox, Dylan Klebold’s autopsy reports were never unsealed).
And while there is never one simple explanation for what drives a human being to commit such unspeakable acts, all too often one common denominator has surfaced in hundreds of cases—prescribed psychiatric drugs which are documented to cause mania, psychosis, violence, suicide and in some cases, homicidal ideation.
It is an injustice that the general public are not being informed about the well documented links between psychiatric drugs and violence, and so once again we present even more of the facts:
There have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions. These warnings have been issued in the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.
In determining what would prompt a person to commit such brutal and senseless crimes, the press must ask the right questions, including: What, if any, prescribed psychotropic drugs the perpetrator may have been on (or in withdrawal from).g
Read the international drug regulatory warnings issued on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis, and other violent type reactions.
Watch this short interview with Michael Moore, author, director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, where he calls for a federal investigation into the link between prescribed drugs and mass shootings such as the 1999 Columbine massacre.
At least 35 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs. It is important to note the following lists cases where the information about the shooters psychiatric drug use was made public.
It took months for the release of information showing that police had found psychiatric drugs in the apartment of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter, James Holmes—including the anti-anxiety drug clonazepam and the antidepressant sertraline, the generic version of the antidepressant Zoloft.
Note that all these mass shootings didn’t just occur in the United States.
Of these 35, twelve were seeing either a psychiatrist or psychologist. It is not known whether or not the others were seeing a psychiatrist, as it has not been published.
- Tallahassee, Florida – November 20, 2014: 31-year-old Myron May, a Florida State University alum, opened fire in the school’s library, wounding three before he was shot and killed by police. ABC Action News found a half-filled prescription for the antianxiety drug Hydroxyzine in his apartment after the shooting. In addition, according to May’s friends, he had seen a psychologist and had been prescribed the antidepressant Wellbutrin and the ADHD drug Vyvanse. He also checked himself in to a mental health center called Mesilla Valley Hospital around September of 2014. Shortly after this, his friends discovered the antipsychotic Seroquel among his prescriptions.
- Seattle, Washington – June 5, 2014: 26-year-old Aaron Ybarra opened fire with a shotgun at Seattle Pacific University, killing one student and wounding two others. Ybarra planned to kill as many people as possible and then kill himself. In 2012, Ybarra reported that he had been prescribed the antidepressant Prozac and antipsychotic Risperdal. A report from his counselor in December of 2013 said that he was taking Prozac at the time and planned to continue to meet with his psychiatrist and therapist as needed.
- Milford, Connecticut – April 25, 2014: 16-year-old Chris Plaskon stabbed Maren Sanchez, also 16, to death in a stairwell at Jonathan Law High School after she turned down his prom invitation. According to classmates and a former close friend, Chris was taking drugs for ADHD.
- Sparks, Nevada – October 21, 2013: 12-year-old Jose Reyes opened fire at Sparks Middle School, killing a teacher and wounding two classmates before committing suicide. The investigation revealed that he had been seeing a psychiatrist and had a generic version of Prozac (fluoxetine) in his system at the time of death.
- St. Louis, Missouri – January 15, 2013: 34-year-old Sean Johnson walked onto the Stevens Institute of Business & Arts campus and shot the school’s financial aid director once in the chest, then shot himself in the torso. Johnson had been taking prescribed drugs for an undisclosed mental illness.
- Snohomish County, Washington – October 24, 2011: A 15-year-old girl went to Snohomish High School where police alleged that she stabbed a girl as many as 25 times just before the start of school, and then stabbed another girl who tried to help her injured friend. Prior to the attack the girl had been taking “medication” and seeing a psychiatrist. Court documents said the girl was being treated for depression.
- Planoise, France – December 13, 2010: A 17-year-old youth held twenty pre-school children and their teacher hostage for hours at Charles Fourier preschool. The teen was reported to be on “medication for depression”. He took a classroom hostage with two swords. Eventually, all the children and the teacher were released safely.
- Myrtle Beach, South Carolina – September 21, 2011: 14-year-old Christian Helms had two pipe bombs in his backpack, when he shot and wounded Socastee High School’s “resource” (police) officer. However the officer was able to stop the student before he could do anything further. Helms had been taking drugs for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression.
- Huntsville, Alabama – February 5, 2010: 15-year-old Hammad Memon shot and killed another Discover Middle School student Todd Brown. Memon had a history for being treated for ADHD and depression. He was taking the antidepressant Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.” He had been seeing a psychiatrist and psychologist.
- Kauhajoki, Finland – September 23, 2008: 22-year-old culinary student Matti Saari shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine. He was also seeing a psychologist.
- Fresno, California – April 24, 2008: 17-year-old Jesus “Jesse” Carrizales attacked the Fresno high school’s officer, hitting him in the head with a baseball bat. After knocking the officer down, the officer shot Carrizales in self-defense, killing him. Carrizales had been prescribed Lexapro and Geodon, and his autopsy showed that he had a high dose of the antidepressant Lexapro in his blood that could have caused him to be paranoid, according to the coroner.
- Dekalb, Illinois – February 14, 2008: 27-year-old Steven Kazmierczak shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amount of Xanax in his system. He had been seeing a psychiatrist.
- Jokela, Finland – November 7, 2007: 18-year-old Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School in southern Finland, then committed suicide.
- Texas – November 7, 2007: 17-year-old Felicia McMillan returned to her former Robert E. Lee High School campus and stabbed a male student and wounded the principle with a knife. McMillan had been on drugs for depression, and had just taken them the night before the incident.
- Cleveland, Ohio – October 10, 2007: 14-year-old Asa Coon stormed through his school with a gun in each hand, shooting and wounding four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon had been placed on the antidepressant Trazodone.
- Sudbury, Massachusetts – January 19, 2007: 16-year-old John Odgren stabbed another student with a large kitchen knife in a boy’s bathroom at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School. In court his father testified that Odgren was prescribed the drug Ritalin.
- North Vernon, Indiana – December 4, 2006: 16-year-old Travis Roberson stabbed another Jennings County High School student in the neck, nearly severing an artery. Roberson was in withdrawal from Wellbutrin, which he had stopped taking days before the attack.
- Hillsborough, North Carolina – August 30, 2006: 19-year-old Alvaro Rafael Castillo shot and killed his father, then drove to Orange High School where he opened fire. Two students were injured in the shooting, which ended when school personnel tackled him. His mother said he was on drugs for depression.
- Chapel Hill, North Carolina – April 2006: 17-year-old William Barrett Foster took a shotgun to school and took a teacher and a fellow student hostage at East Chapel Hill High School. After being talked out of shooting the hostages, Foster fired two shots through a classroom window before fleeing the school on foot. Foster’s father testified that his son had stopped taking his antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs without telling him.
- Red Lake, Minnesota – March 21, 2005: 16-year-old Jeff Weise, on Prozac, shot and killed his grandparents, then went to his school on the Red Lake Indian Reservation where he shot dead 5 students, a security guard, and a teacher, and wounded 7 before killing himself.
- Greenbush, New York – February 2004: 16-year-old Jon Romano strolled into his high school in east Greenbush and opened fire with a shotgun. Special education teacher Michael Bennett was hit in the leg. Romano had been taking “medication for depression”. He had previously seen a psychiatrist.
- Red Lion, Pennsylvania – February 2, 2001: 56-year-old William Michael Stankewicz entered North Hopewell-Winterstown Elementary School with a machete, leaving three adults and 11 children injured. Stankewicz was taking four different drugs for depression and anxiety weeks before the attacks.
- Ikeda, Japan – June 8, 2001: 37-year-old Mamoru Takuma, wielding a 6-inch knife, slipped into an elementary school and stabbed eight first- and second-graders to death while wounding at least 15 other pupils and teachers. He then turned the knife on himself but suffered only superficial wounds. He later told interrogators that before the attack he had taken 10 times his normal dose of antidepressants.
- Wahluke, Washington – April 10, 2001: Sixteen-year-old Cory Baadsgaard took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates and a teacher hostage. He had been taking the antidepressant Effexor.
- El Cajon, California – March 22, 2001: 18-year-old Jason Hoffman, on the antidepressants Celexa and Effexor, opened fire on his classmates, wounding three students and two teachers at Granite Hills High School. He had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting.
- Williamsport, Pennsylvania – March 7, 2001: 14-year-old Elizabeth Bush was taking the antidepressant Prozac when she shot at fellow students, wounding one.
- Oxnard, California – January 2001: 17-year-old Richard Lopez went to Hueneme High School with a gun and shot twice at a car in the school’s parking lot before taking a female student hostage. Lopez was eventually killed by a SWAT officer. He had been prescribed Prozac, Paxil and “drugs that helped him go to sleep.”
- Conyers, Georgia – May 20, 1999: 15-year-old T.J. Solomon was being treated with the stimulant Ritalin when he opened fire on and wounded six of his classmates.
- Columbine, Colorado – April 20, 1999: 18-year-old Eric Harris and his accomplice, Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 26 others before killing themselves. Harris was on the antidepressant Luvox. Klebold’s medical records remain sealed. Both shooters had been in anger-management classes and had undergone counseling. Harris had been seeing a psychiatrist before the shooting.
- Notus, Idaho – April 16, 1999: 15-year-old Shawn Cooper fired two shotgun rounds in his school, narrowly missing students. He was taking a prescribed antidepressant and Ritalin.
- Springfield, Oregon – May 21, 1998: 15-year-old Kip Kinkel murdered his parents and then proceeded to school where he opened fire on students in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 25. Kinkel had been taking the antidepressant Prozac. Kinkel had been attending “anger control classes” and was under the care of a psychologist.
- Blackville, South Carolina – October 12, 1995: 15-year-old Toby R. Sincino slipped into the Blackville-Hilda High School’s rear entrance, where he shot two Blackville-Hilda High School teachers, killing one. Then Toby killed himself moments later. His aunt, Carolyn McCreary, said he had been undergoing counseling with the Department of Mental Health and was taking Zoloft for emotional problems.
- Chelsea, Michigan – December 17, 1993: 39-year-old chemistry teacher Stephen Leith, facing a disciplinary matter at Chelsea High School, shot Superintendent Joseph Piasecki to death, shot Principal Ron Mead in the leg, and slightly wounded journalism teacher Phil Jones. Leith was taking Prozac and had been seeing a psychiatrist.
- Houston, Texas – September 18, 1992: 44-year-old Calvin Charles Bell, reportedly upset about his second-grader’s progress report, appeared in the principal’s office of Piney Point Elementary School. Bell fired a gun in the school, and eventually wounded two officers before surrendering. Relatives told police on Friday that Bell was an unemployed Vietnam veteran and had been taking anti-depressants.
- Winnetka, Illinois – 20 May 1988: 30-year-old Laurie Wasserman Dann walked into a second grade classroom at Hubbard Woods School in Winnetka, Illinois carrying three pistols and began shooting children, killing an eight-year-old boy, and wounding five others before fleeing. She entered a nearby house where she shot and wounded a 20-year-old man before killing herself. Dann had been seeing a psychiatrist and subsequent blood tests revealed that at the time of the killings, she was taking the antidepressant Anafranil.
Psychiatric Drugs Can Also Cause Severe Withdrawal Symptoms—Violent and Suicidal Thoughts – Watch This 2 Minute Video
18 additional recent murders and murder-suicides, resulting in 76 dead and 61 wounded:
- Santa Barbara, California – May 23, 2014: 22-year-old Elliot Rodger stabbed his two roommates at the apartment he shared with them, along with a third person who was visiting. He then drove to a University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) sorority house where he shot three women, killing two of them. Driving again, he exchanged fire with deputies, hit a bicyclist, fired on other people in multiple locations and then killed himself. In all he killed 6 and wounded 13 others before taking his own life. He explained in his manifesto that he had psychiatric drugs and made them part of his plan in ending his own life. On page 133 of the manifesto, Rodgers explains that he’ll shoot himself in the head and “I will quickly swallow all of the Xanax and Vicodin pills I have left….” He explains that if the bullets don’t kill him, the mixture of pills will.
- Fort Hood, Texas – April 2, 2014: Specialist Ivan Lopez opened fire at Fort Hood military base, killing three people and wounding 16 others before taking his own life. He had been prescribed Ambien, antidepressants and other medications to treat anxiety and depression and had also been examined by a psychiatrist within the month prior and was being evaluated for PTSD.
- Washington, DC – September 17, 2013: Aaron Alexis, a Navy contractor, opened fire inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard, killing 12 and wounding eight others before he was killed by police. Alexis had received prescriptions from two Veterans Administration hospitals in August 2013 for the antidepressant Trazodone.
- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – March 8, 2012: 30-year-old John Shick, former patient of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and former student at nearby Duquesne University, shot and killed one and injured six inside UPMC’s Western Psychiatrist Institute. Nine antidepressants were identified among the drugs police found in Shick’s apartment.
- Seal Beach, California – October 12, 2011:Scott DeKraai, a harbor tugboat worker, entered the hair salon where his ex-wife worked, killing her and seven others and injuring one. At DeKraai’s initial hearing, his attorney indicated to the judge that DeKraai was prescribed the antidepressant Trazodone and the “mood stabilizer” Topamax.
- Afghanistan – October 17, 2010: Indiana soldier David Lawrencewas taking the two antidepressants – Trazodone and Zoloft – when he killed a top Taliban commander by shooting him in the face in a prison cell. During questioning, David said he imagined all the people he knew being blown up and blacked out before the shooting.
- Newport, Maine – October 26, 2009:Perley Goodrich Jr. beat his mother and then shot his father dead shortly after being injected withTrazodone in a psychiatric hospital. Goodrich had complained that he didn’t want to take the medication because it made him feel “violent.”
- Lakeland, Florida – May 3, 2009: Toxicology test results showed that 34-year-old Troy Bellar was on Tegretol, a drug prescribed for “bi-polar disorder,” when he shot and killed his wife and two of his three children in their home before killing himself.
- Granberry Crossing, Alabama – April 26, 2009: 53-year-old Fred B. Davis shot and killed a police officer and wounded a sheriff’s deputy who had responded to a call that Davis had threatened a neighbor with a gun. Prescription drug bottles found at the scene showed that Davis was prescribed the antipsychotic drug Geodon.
- Middletown, Maryland – April 17, 2009: Christopher Wood shot and killed his wife, three small children and himself inside their home. Toxicology test results verified that Wood had been taking the antidepressants Cymbalta and Paxil and the anti-anxiety drugs BuSpar and Xanax.
- Concord, California – January 11, 2009:Jason Montes, 33, shot and killed his wife and then himself at home. Montes had earlier begun taking the antidepressant Prozac for depression related to his impending divorce and a recent bankruptcy.
- Little Rock, Arkansas – August 14, 2008: Less than 48 hours after Timothy Johnson shot and killed Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, the Little Rock Police declared they were investigating shooter’s use of the antidepressant Effexor, which was found in Johnson’s house. A Little Rock city police report later stated that Johnson “was on an antidepressant and that the drug may have played a part in his ‘irrational and violent behavior.’”
- Omaha, Nebraska – December 5, 2007: 19-year-old Robert Hawkins killed eight people and wounded five before committing suicide in an Omaha mall. Autopsy results confirmed he was under the influence of the “anti-anxiety” drug Valium.
- Fallujah, Iraq – December 31, 2006: Marine Lance Cpl. Delano Holmes killed Iraqi soldier Mutather Jasem Muhammed Hassin by stabbing him 40 times with a combat knife, with some of the wounds piercing his spine. Holmes had been prescribed Trazodone (an antidepressant), Ambien and Valium (both anti-anxiety drugs).
- North Meridian, Florida – July 8, 2003:Doug Williams killed five and wounded nine of his fellow Lockheed Martin employees before killing himself. Williams was reportedly taking two antidepressants, Zoloft andCelexa, for depression after a failed marriage.
- Wakefield, Massachusetts – December 26, 2000: 42-year-old computer technician Michael McDermott had been taking threeantidepressants when he hunted down employees in the accounting and human resources offices where he worked, killing seven.
- Buffalo, New York – May 1, 1998: 37-year-old Juan Roman, an Erie County sheriff’s deputy, pursued his estranged wife into their children’s elementary school and shot her dead, and a school aide was hit in the elbow. Roman was taking antidepressants and seeing a psychiatrist.
- St. Petersburg, FL – May 25, 1992: 30-year-old David Doyle Rittenhouse shot and killed a man that went on a date with his wife. Rittenhouse said he was taking a drug somewhat similar to the controversial drug Prozac, and that the drug impeded his perception abilities and he thought the man had raped his wife, though he said “He knows it didn’t happen that way – but he said that is what was in his mind.”
The heavily Pharma-funded FDA panel ignored the evidence provided, and it would take 14 years, and a great deal of public pressure, for the FDA to finally issue it’s strongest warning, the black box, on antidepressants inducing suicidal ideation.
21 years later, the FDA has yet to issue a black box warning on antidepressants and other classes of psychiatric drugs documented by international regulatory agencies and studies to cause violence. Why not? This failure is not in the public’s interest, who deserve to be warned, rather, it’s in Big Phama’s interest, upon whose funding the FDA heavily relies on.
Keep the facts in mind, when you hear the media call for stricter gun laws or the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Maybe the real truth lies somewhere in the pocketbooks of certain agencies…
Please see Cchr’s updated report on this issue by clicking here.