Author: 14thdaymom

The only thing greater than my love for my son was the pain of losing him. Since 2004,. I have endured the traumatic pain of being completely erased by my own mother. Iwho assisted a known pedophile in kidnapping my son and brainwashing him against me. I lost my entire family. This is my story of how a mother possesses the sick ability to create a legacy of grief. This is how they murdered me.
9/11, cps
9/11 : I Remember

I remember exactly what I was doing on 9/11.

Do you remember where you were that fateful day?

It’s very surreal to remember.

To know.

My son is in his mid 20s now; but at the time, he was a very normal little boy, 6 years old, in the 1st grade. He was  enrolled at a private school in Clearwater, Florida.

We were living the all American life of 5 day workweeks, football Sundays, men on the bbq, kids playing in the neighborhood, women drinking wine and making family memories.

I remember, life was good. Very good.

At the time, my husband was a network engineer with a very good full time Job, and I  worked part time as a paralegal in a solo attorney’s office. Although I only had one boss, we worked in a shared building, so I had a few coworkers, about ten people total, 3 of which were attorneys.

I only worked part time so I could afford to pay for my son’s school and I could still have the afternoons off to pick him up and help him do his homework. I wanted to be a hands-on Mom.  I have always been a believer in stay at home moms and family dinners.  Family dinners were always important to me.

I remember how I believed in the system. I remember how I thought cases were judged on merit, the system was just and it worked and I believed everything I read and saw on TV without question.

I had not yet been tainted by the hard reality of the system and it’s flaws and corruption. I was not yet cynical. I was the definition of sheeple.

I arrived at work each day at about 830am and left about 2:30pm. September 11, 2001 was no different. Until it was.

I remember, just before 9am, my husband called me and said “did you hear the news?”

I was confused.

“What news?” I asked.

“A plane crashed into the World Trade Center in New York.  Turn on the radio, it’s all they’re talking about.”

“ok I will” and with that, we hung up.  I was curious but not really alarmed. After all, planes crash, it happens. Of course this was after only the first plane hit, not both.

I got up from my desk in my office that was painted dark green, positioned first down a short hallway, tucked back between the front lobby and the lunch room. 

I remember walking up front to the receptionists desk where I found about half of my coworkers huddled around a static-sounding old clock radio. I remember the looks of disbelief on their faces.

“I just heard about a plane crash…?” I began to say..

They shushed me, quickly and obviously telling me to be quiet and listen.

Sure enough I heard it, the plane had hit the first tower. How awful, I remember thinking. About that time two of the attorneys we worked for pulled into the parking lot, so we scattered. 

Still, only one plane had hit at that point.

I remember that I did notice my boss took a little extra time leaving his vehicle to come inside. I had begun my days’ work, at that point it was still business as usual.

I worked for an elderly man from Israel. He was a devoutly Jewish man, who was a brilliant Harvard trained attorney. Our area of practice was mostly personal injury with some civil trial litigation and family law.  He was in his early 80s at the time and a very kind man, with allot of wisdom to share. I was his only employee besides the shared receptionist. She also worked for a real estate title attorney housed in the same building.

I was in my 20’s, young and just married, raising my young son.

I worked there for 8 years and I was dutiful and loyal. All fuss aside that morning, I had work to do, and the morning must continue despite the external excitements on the news.

Still, when my boss walked in I exclaimed, “did you hear about New York? A plane crashed. ?”

He said very calmly, Yes, but it was two planes….We are under attack.”

I remember thinking ‘what does he mean by that? Who’s under attack?’ I didn’t have a radio at my desk and this was before smart phones. 

The static sounding radio was inaudible all the way from the front to my desk, so it wasn’t until lunchtime  that I knew more about what happened that morning.

I remember the last two hours of my workday were painfully slow.  I only knew a piece of what had happened, and I couldn’t stop thinking about what my boss had said.

“America is under attack..? By who? & How,?”

The fearful anticipation of getting to a radio was chewing at me. I was scared from not knowing what was going on and having allot of friends who are from New York.

That afternoon I picked up my son and we stopped at a bar and grill near my house to see my best friend who worked there. She was from Albany. New York.

When I walked in the restaurant, every TV was tuned in to the news and everyone in the place was watching. Some seemed to be in shock. Tears rolled down many faces. No jukebox was playing,  No laughter or the cracking of balls on the billiards table like normal afternoons.

I remember how silent everyone was that day- all the patrons staring at the TV and the repeating voices of the news anchors talking about the first and second plane hitting the two towers, and a third plane hitting the Pentagon and the towers falling and people jumping to their deaths to keep from burning alive. I remember the fourth plane that the passengers took down in a martyrdom act of selfless bravery.

I remember when I saw the images of horror for the first time. Images of the towers collapsing, the Pentagon with a large hole blown in it and smoke smoldering from the fires that incinerated the plane that crashed into it and the debris field of the crash by Camp David where the passengers thwarted that flight from going to DC. The pictures of the hijacker’s and Osama Bin Laden… The most wanted man who was responsible for planning the attack.

I, too, began to cry, and watched intently.

Over the next few days and weeks that was all I could think about. That was all that anyone talked about. It became a war on terror. We were out for justice and revenge and hunting Bin Laden and Al Queda, the terrorist group that carried out the attacks.

CNN was always on my TV at home.

I bought an American flag for my house and hung it over my garage. I had a bumper sticker with a flag on it for my car. A flag for my car window. I was supporting the troops. I was supporting our President.

I wanted to share in the voice of the patriotic support for my country and honor the first responders and New York Police and Firemen who ran to their death trying to save people on September 11th.

I didn’t know about building 7 yet. 

I didn’t consider that there existed political powers that could be using the attack to further their own agendas.

I thought Clinton was a good President who balanced the budget. I didn’t care if he had an affair, because so long as the budget was balanced, and the state of the union was strong, he was doing a good job.

I didn’t particularly care for President Bush, but I didn’t need to like him. After all, I was young and didn’t follow politics that much. I didn’t think I needed to. My life was going great.

I believed we were in good hands as us citizens. The government cared about us, right? We were, after all, a country built on integrity and freedom, right? Home of the brave?  A democracy, not tyranny.  Not here in the United States, right?

At the time there was no swamp to drain. Yet.

I knew nothing about the evils of the world. The mass surveillance, NSA or the New World Order.  I had no idea there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attack.

I didn’t really care at the time about Afghanistan. I never had supported the idea of war before that, but after 9/11, that changed.  I was scared and angry, but even moreso I was proud to be an American.

I was fully in support of the u.s. troops who would hunt down and find Bin Laden and make him pay for the September 11th attacks.  Who wouldn’t be?

20 years later I can’t believe how much my views have changed.

The harsh reality of life since then has regrettably changed everything i remembered of that day. … Of that time. Everything I knew about life. … was a lie.

I watched  ‘Turning Point: 9/11 And The War On Terror’ , be the new documentary series on Netflix. Although I suspect much of it is probably tailored more towards the mainstream narrative, being Netflix and all. Though it was still very enlightening to see how that Biden has recently pulled troops from Afghanistan and the takeover by the Taliban has begun.

Hrmmm …

Now I see more of what’s probably happening, or what did happen, and, well, maybe what could happen…I think…and all I can think now is I wish I only knew life in the things as I remember them. Through the naive eyes of a time of innocence. As a young American girl with hopes for her future and her family’s future. Haplessly working for the weekend and partying when the Tampa Bay Bucs made it to the Superbowl.

I remember a time before all the big tech owned and controlled everything and the spying eyes of the internet and the shadow government were not okay but unstoppable so nobody tried. I remember a time before the political agendas became so ridiculously far to the left and to the right. Basically, far from anything true or on our side, or even reasonable. Before the three ring circus it is today. I remember when journalism required a college degree not just a smartphone and opinions.

A time when kids were kids and parents didn’t have to worry about masks and pandemics and vaccinations and more, I remember believing in things, in life. In lies.

Before the Patriot Act took our freedoms quietly out from under our noses without us even noticing, I remember the feeling of feeling safe. Of feeling content and looking forward to Friday, dreading Monday.

I remember being proud to be an American on that day September 11,2001, that day that changed me, it changed everything.

What do you remember? Please show your support by sharing this and other posts on it’s Almost Tuesday with your friends and family. Join our mailing list and leave your comments below. Where were you on September 11th? Tell us you story.< /p>

Godspeed America.



Judge Reverses Unvaccinated Mom’s Custody Decision In Chicago

Read original article here about the decision to limit or stop an unvaccinated mother’s access to her child.

Watch the news report video here.

Updated report::

It’s Almost Tuesday is concerned about this news story for a couple reasons. First of all it’s extremely unnerving to see the issues of vaccines for the coronavirus entering into the family law court system. Since the pandemic began, lockdowns and job losses have triggered a frenzy for a fast solution to a huge problem. ie vaccines.

However, despite what the media will tell you, as of today, the 1st of September, 2021, no vaccine for COVID-19 has been FDA approved except for emergency authorization use. As such, no government agency or official can mandate the vaccine for any reason. 

So to read that a parent’s rights have been altered, suspended, or in any way terminated, solely because of the vaccination status of the parent, is illegal, unconstitutional, and an overreach and abuse of power. The decision to reverse that unconstitutional order by the judge is proper and is the only thing right about this story.

Still, we wonder if the order would have been reversed if the mother had not reached out to the media?

We also wonder if this was done to gauge the public’s reaction? Is this something we will see happen as more vaccination mandates are rolled out?


August 30, 2021 02:59 PM

“I think that it’s wrong,”

Rebecca Firlit, who had not been able to see her 11-year-old son in person since Aug. 10, previously said of the decision

A Chicago mother who hoped to regain shared custody of her 11-year-old son following a judge’s recent ruling has been successful.

During an Aug. 10 child support hearing with her ex-husband, “one of the first things” the judge asked Rebecca Firlit about was her vaccination status, the mother told told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Firlit, who was surprised by the question, told the outlet that she’s “had adverse reactions to vaccines in the past and was advised not to get vaccinated by my doctor.”

Her ex-husband, from whom she has been divorced for seven years, has been vaccinated. 

Afterwards, she recalled asking the judge how the question related to the hearing, which was supposed to be “about expenses and child support” and said she was told, “I am the judge, and I make the decisions for your case.”

The judge then ruled that until Firlit got vaccinated, she would not be allowed to see her son — a decision that appeared to be the first time a parent has been denied custody for not being vaccinated, according to The Washington Post.

A court spokesperson says they cannot comment on pending or impending cases, but according to court documents obtained by PEOPLE, the judge on Monday vacated his original order “based on the absence of a pleading or hearing on serious endangerment.”

“I miss my son more than anything. It’s been very difficult,” the Chicago mother, who had appealed the initial decision, previously said in an interview with FOX 32 News.

“It had nothing to do with what we were talking about,” she added of the ruling. “[The judge] was placing his views on me. And taking my son away from me.”

Her attorney also argued that the judge’s decision exceeded “his jurisdiction,” per the Fox station.

An attorney representing the Chicago woman’s ex-husband said that while they did not expect the question to be asked, they supported the initial ruling. 

“There are children who have died because of COVID,” Jeffery M. Leving told Fox 32 News. “I think every child should be safe. And I agree that the mother should be vaccinated.”

Although being apart from her son is difficult, Firlit hopes to be reunited with him soon.

“I feel like this will resonate with people because this is how things will go if we don’t speak up. Dividing families, taking children from their parents, we have to speak out to make sure this is not the new thing,” she told the Chicago Sun-Times. “Unfortunately, I had to be the first person that this happened to, but parents aren’t going to stand for that.”

Do you believe in fate? This is a love story that will show you fate is real…

I am going to divert off the usual from topic of it’s Almost Tuesday for a moment because I would like to share a love story that will amaze you, and make you all a true believer in fate.

It was 2005, and almost a year after losing my son, I had returned to Florida, fighting jurisdiction of the Texas courts, and began settling into a new place. I had a review coming up with Texas Dept of Family & Protective Services for an administrative review, in and ask I boarded a greyhound bus with my files packed in my bag, to go back to Texas and meet with the caseworker face to face.

It was one of my last chances to overturn the decision to take my rights from my son, so this trip was super important to me.

I left Clearwater Florida on my way back to Dallas TX, and in Mississippi, I met a guy at the vending machines during a stop. He was traveling from Florida as well, going to fort worth. We began to talk and sat with each other the rest of the way. We got along very well, and even had a few umm spicy moments

He remembers my knee high socks and remembers me pointing to a billboard in east Texas out of the window and saying “that’s my brother”(a very successful attorney in Longview Texas, he has billboards up everywhere).

He remembers thinking I was nuts when I said that was my brother.

When I got off the bus I never looked back. I got his number but never called. I didn’t even remember his name. So how do I know what he remembers about me?

Well in 2014 I was lost, driving in Halton City TX,a suburb of fort worth, when I saw a guy on a bicycle, and thought he was very good looking so I offered him a ride. We have been together ever since, and in fact, we just got married in may of 2021.

It wasn’t until around 2019 that we were talking one night and began to share secrets. He started telling me about this girl he met on the greyhound bus once, and made out with her. I said no way you are stealing my story!!

It turns out that five years into my relationship we realized that 15 years before we had met and made out on the bus and left never looking back.

Can anyone calculate what the odds are that something like that would happen?

It goes even deeper.

My husband was in a boys home as a child. He was in the VERY SAME boys home as my Abuser/ex, and KNEW HIM as a child!!

What are the odds?

At age 50, I remarried and am deeply in love and KNOW that fate is real!!

Tell me your thoughts and stories… Has anyone else experienced something like that?

Godspeed to you all…


aging out, cps
California is the First State to Approve Guaranteed Income For Foster Youth

Aging out of foster care has to be one of the most difficult and scary times for foster teens. This is a time that sees many whose fear leads them to attempt or commit suicide before they age out.

I’m extremely happy to see an initiative to address those going through this delicate process. I’m interested in seeing how those who receive the help fare as time passes. Of course money is only one of many complex needs these teens face in their transition into becoming an adult.

Please comment with your thoughts.

Thank you and Godspeed.

Many thanks to ELIZABETH AMON for this article.

In a historic move to support young adults raised by the government, a monthly check of up to $1,000 — with no restrictions and no strings attached — will be sent to thousands of California foster youth once they leave the state’s custody, guaranteeing them the first statewide universal basic income.

Veronica Vieyra benefited from the UBI program Santa Clara County has in place for former foster youth.

California’s state Senate and Assembly unanimously passed the $35 million program on Thursday, which was then approved by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday.

Responding to the news in a text message, Vieyra, 25, celebrated the state leaders’ decision. 

She said the benefit “has now become the one helping hand youths are in search of when feeling lost or alone after exiting the foster care system.” 

Legislative analysts estimate that the taxpayer-funded program will serve between 2,400 to 2,500 young people like Vieyra who exit the foster care system each year.

“It’s not a nice-to-have, it’s a need-to-have for these young people,” said Priya Mistry, the director of community initiatives at the San Jose-based nonprofit Pivotal, which supports foster youth with education and employment support. Mistry said the money will make a profound difference, allowing young people to “actually have a place to live, pay rent, bills, and money for a cell phone — which is critical.”

The amount former foster youth receive will be determined by local governments and organizations, but will likely be $1,000 a month, aiding these young adults who struggle far more than others their age with homelessness, educational delays and incarceration.

In May 2020, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved a universal basic income pilot plan, with no-strings-attached payments to help keep former foster youth’s lives stable in turbulent times.

The plan provided a lucky group of former foster youth, ages 21 to 24, with $1,000 monthly payments for up to a year. It was the first time the nascent idea of universal basic income has been granted specifically to foster youth.

“We’re already doing it, and it’s been successful so far,” said Sparky Harlan, the CEO of the Bill Wilson Center, which provides services to more than 5,000 children, youth, young adults and families in Santa Clara County.

The local government decision came in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, as unemployment rates in California approached a devastating 24%.

The Santa Clara County supervisor who spearheaded the effort, Dave Cortese, later became a state senator and this year, introduced Senate Bill 739, which was combined with the governor’s universal basic income proposal.

Gov. Newsom announced in May a statewide universal basic income program, building off of efforts in Stockton, Oakland, and other cities. These programs have been gaining momentum with plans previously announced in New Orleans, Louisiana; Los Angeles and Oakland, California; Tacoma, Washington; and Gainesville, Florida; according to the Associated Press.

Sen. Dave Cortese announcing the Santa Clara County foster youth UBI program. Photo courtesy of the office of Dave Cortese.

Under California’s state law, local governments and organizations will determine the size of the monthly payments, which can range from $500 to $1,000 per person each month. Pregnant people will also be prioritized for benefits, as well as other low-income Californians, according to the most recent state budget summary.

Former foster youth April Barcus told The Imprint in March that even before the pandemic wrecked low-income people’s finances, California’s housing costs kept many of her peers from building savings and a sense of security. 

“Even if you work a minimum wage job full-time, it’s not enough,” Barcus said. “You’re always working, and you’re always behind.”

Barcus is among the thousands of young people emerging from foster care who will soon be able to rely on a steady income.

The law had bipartisan support and passed 36-0 in the Senate and 64-0 in the Assembly, according to the AP. However, Vince Fong, a Republican Assembly member from Bakersfield, told the news service that guaranteed income programs “undermine incentives to work and increase dependence on government.”

“We should be pushing policies that encourage the value of work,” said Fong, who abstained from Thursday’s vote. “Guaranteed income doesn’t provide the job training and skills needed for upward mobility.”

But many of these young people are working, and the money provides “a cushion, so they aren’t on the edge of homelessness,” director Harlan said. And given the added burdens of the pandemic, many people need that help to pay for car insurance or repairs, as well as upgrading technology so they can join Zoom meetings or participate in online learning.

The concept of a UBI payment for former foster youth recently received the strong endorsement of University of Chicago social work professor Mark Courtney, a leading researcher on young people aging out of the child welfare system. In a Feb. 5 opinion piece published by the nonprofit news outlet The Appeal, Courtney advocated for guaranteed direct cash assistance to help young adults “bridge the gap” from foster care to independence.

Courtney makes this case after spending decades surveying thousands of young adults across the country on the hardships they face after leaving the system.

“The government functions as their parent,” wrote Courtney and co-author Shanta Trivedi, a fellow at Georgetown University Law Center, “and then swiftly extinguishes financial support, depriving foster kids of the safety net that so many of their peers increasingly find necessary.” 

This is HUGE! New Laws in Texas have Passed Protecting Families

Parents have a constitutional right to raise their children free from governmental interference.

Defendants also have rights under the condition, and now, Texas has passed laws reflecting those rights.

This is HUGE! If these laws had been enacted in 2004 when my son had been kidnapped, things might have been quite different for us.

TX HB567

Relating to the procedures and grounds for terminating the parent-child relationship, for taking possession of a child, and for certain hearings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship involving the Department of Family and Protective Services.

Bill Summary

Relating to the procedures and grounds for terminating the parent-child relationship, for taking possession of a child, and for certain hearings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship involving the Department of Family and Protective Services.


Courts Courts–Civil Procedure Family FAMILY & PROTECTIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF Family–Child Protection Family–Parent & Child

Sponsors (22)

James Frank (R)*, Bryan Hughes (R)*, Candy Noble (R)*, Gene Wu (D)*, Keith Bell (R), Greg Bonnen (R), Briscoe Cain (R), Jeff Cason (R), Harold Dutton (D), Ryan Guillen (D), Bob Hall (R), Juan Hinojosa (D), Eddie Lucio (D), Mayes Middleton (R), Ina Minjarez (D), Scott Sanford (R), Valoree Swanson (R), Steve Toth (R), Cody Vasut (R), Royce West (D), James White (R), Erin Zwiener (D), 

Last Action

Effective on 9/1/21 (on 05/15/2021)

Official Document Companion Bills)

 H.B. No. 567

AN ACT relating to the procedures and grounds for terminating the parent-child relationship, for taking possession of a child, and for certain hearings in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship involving the Department of Family and Protective Services.


Section 107.003(b), off the Texas Family Code, is amended to read as follows:
(b) In addition to the duties required by Subsection (a), an attorney ad litem appointed for a child in a proceeding under Chapter 262, [or] 263, or 264 shall:
(1) review the medical care provided to the child;
(2) in a developmentally appropriate manner, seek to elicit the child’s opinion on the medical care provided;
(3) for a child at least 16 years of age:
(A) advise the child of the child’s right to
request the court to authorize the child to consent to the child’s own medical care under Section 266.010; and
(B) ascertain whether the child has received the following documents:
(i) a certified copy of the child’s birth
(ii) a social security card or a replacement social security card;
(iii) a driver’s license or personal
dentification certificate under Chapter 521, Transportation Code;
(iv) any other personal document the
Department of Family and Protective Services determines appropriate; and
(4) seek to elicit in a developmentally appropriate manner the name of any adult, particularly an adult residing in the child’s community, who could be a relative or designated caregiver for the child and immediately provide the names of those individuals to the Department of Family and Protective Services.
SECTION 2. Sections 107.004(d), (d-2), (d-3), and (e),

Family Code, are amended to read as follows: (d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an attorney ad litem appointed for a child in a proceeding under Chapter 262, [or] 263, or 264 shall: (1) meet before each court hearing with: (A) the child, if the child is at least four years of age; or (B) the individual with whom the child ordinarily resides, including the child’s parent, conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian, if the child is younger than four years of age; and

(2) if the child or individual is not present at the court hearing, file a written statement with the court indicating that the attorney ad litem complied with Subdivision (1). (d-2) An attorney ad litem appointed to represent a child in the managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services or a child who is the subject of a proceeding under Chapter 264 shall, before each scheduled hearing under Chapter 263 or 264, determine whether the child’s educational needs and goals have been identified and addressed. (d-3) An attorney ad litem appointed to represent a child in the managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services or a child who is the subject of a proceeding under Chapter 264 shall periodically continue to review the child’s safety and well-being, including any effects of trauma to the child, and take appropriate action, including requesting a review hearing when necessary to address an issue of concern.

(e) An attorney ad litem appointed for a child in a proceeding under Chapter 262, [or] 263, or 264 is not required to comply with Subsection (d) before a hearing if the court finds at that hearing that the attorney ad litem has shown good cause why the attorney ad litem’s compliance with that subsection is not feasible or in the best interest of the child. Additionally, a court may, on a showing of good cause, authorize an attorney ad litem to comply with Subsection (d) by conferring with the child or other individual, as appropriate, by telephone or video conference. SECTION 3. Section 161.001(c),

Family Code, is amended to read as follows: (c) Evidence of one or more of the following does not constitute clear and convincing evidence sufficient for a court to [A court may not] make a finding under Subsection (b) and order termination of the parent-child relationship [based on evidence that the parent]:

(1) the parent homeschooled the child; (2) the parent is economically disadvantaged;

(3) the parent has been charged with a nonviolent misdemeanor offense other than: (A) an offense under Title 5, Penal Code; (B) an offense under Title 6, Penal Code; or (C) an offense that involves family violence, as defined by Section 71.004 of this code; (4) the parent provided or administered low-THC cannabis to a child for whom the low-THC cannabis was prescribed under Chapter 169, Occupations Code; [or]

(5) the parent declined immunization for the child for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief; or (6) the parent allowed the child to engage in independent activities that are appropriate and typical for the child’s level of maturity, physical condition, developmental abilities, or culture. SECTION 4. Section 161.101, Family Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 161.101.


(a) A petition for the termination of the parent-child relationship is sufficient without the necessity of specifying the underlying facts if the petition alleges in the statutory language the ground for the termination and that termination is in the best interest of the child. (b) A petition or motion filed by the Department of Family and Protective Services in a suit for termination of the parent-child relationship is subject to Chapter 10, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and Rule 13, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

SECTION 5. Section 261.001(4),

Family Code, is amended to read as follows: (4) “Neglect” means an act or failure to act by a person responsible for a child’s care, custody, or welfare evidencing the person’s blatant disregard for the consequences of the act or failure to act that results in harm to the child or that creates an immediate danger to the child’s physical health or safety and:

(A) includes: (i) the leaving of a child in a situation where the child would be exposed to an immediate danger [a substantial risk] of physical or mental harm, without arranging for necessary care for the child, and the demonstration of an intent not to return by a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator of the child; (ii) the following acts or omissions by a person: (a) placing a child in or failing to remove a child from a situation that a reasonable person would realize requires judgment or actions beyond the child’s level of maturity, physical condition, or mental abilities and that results in bodily injury or an immediate danger [a substantial risk] of [immediate] harm to the child; (b) failing to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for a child, with the failure resulting in or presenting an immediate danger [a substantial risk] of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury or with the failure resulting in an observable and material impairment to the growth, development, or functioning of the child; (c) the failure to provide a child with food, clothing, or shelter necessary to sustain the life or health of the child, excluding failure caused primarily by financial inability unless relief services had been offered andrefused; (d) placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to an immediate danger [a substantial risk] of sexualconduct harmful to the child; or (e) placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to acts or omissions that constitute abuse under Subdivision (1)(E), (F), (G), (H), or (K) committed against another child; (iii) the failure by the person responsible for a child’s care, custody, or welfare to permit the child to return to the child’s home without arranging for the necessary care for the child after the child has been absent from the home for any reason, including having been in residential placement or having run away; or (iv) a negligent act or omission by an employee, volunteer, or other individual working under the auspices of a facility or program, including failure to comply with an individual treatment plan, plan of care, or individualized service plan, that causes or may cause substantial emotional harm or physical injury to, or the death of, a child served by the facility or program as further described by rule or policy; and (B) does not include: (i) the refusal by a person responsible for a child’s care, custody, or welfare to permit the child to remain in or return to the child’s home resulting in the placement of the child in the conservatorship of the department if: (a) [(i)] the child has a severe emotional disturbance; (b) [(ii)] the person’s refusal is based solely on the person’s inability to obtain mental health services necessary to protect the safety and well-being of the child; and (c) [(iii)] the person has exhausted all reasonable means available to the person to obtain the mental health services described by Sub-subparagraph (b); or (ii) allowing the child to engage in independent activities that are appropriate and typical for the child’s level of maturity, physical condition, developmental abilities, or culture [Subparagraph (ii)]. SECTION 6. Section 262.116(a),

Family Code, is amended to read as follows:

(a) The Department of Family and Protective Services may not take possession of a child under this subchapter based on evidence that the parent:

(1) homeschooled the child; (2) is economically disadvantaged; (3) has been charged with a nonviolent misdemeanor offense other than:

(A) an offense under Title 5, Penal Code; (B) an offense under Title 6, Penal Code; or

(C) an offense that involves family violence, as defined by Section 71.004 of this code; (4) provided or administered low-THC cannabis to a child for whom the low-THC cannabis was prescribed under Chapter 169, Occupations Code; [or] (5) declined immunization for the child for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief; (6) allowed the child to engage in independent activities that are appropriate and typical for the child’s level of maturity, physical condition, developmental abilities, or culture; or (7) tested positive for marihuana, unless the department has evidence that the parent’s use of marihuana has caused significant impairment to the child’s physical or mental health or emotional development.

SECTION 7. Section 262.201,

Family Code, is amended by amending Subsections (e), (g), (h), and (n) and adding Subsections (g-1) and (q) to read as follows:

(e) The court may, for good cause shown, postpone the full adversary hearing for not more than seven days from the date of the attorney’s appointment to provide the attorney time to respond to the petition and prepare for the hearing. The court may shorten or lengthen the extension granted under this subsection if the parent and the appointed attorney agree in writing. If the court postpones the full adversary hearing, the court shall extend a temporary order, temporary restraining order, or attachment issued by the court under Section 262.102(a) [or Section 262.1131]

for the protection of the child until the date of the rescheduled ful adversary hearing. (g) In a suit filed under Section 262.101 or 262.105, at the conclusion of the full adversary hearing, the court shall order the return of the child to the parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian entitled to possession from whom the child is removed unless the court finds sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that: (1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the child, including a danger that the child would be a victim of trafficking under Section 20A.02 or 20A.03, Penal Code, which wa caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child; (2) the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the child and reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to eliminate or prevent the child’s removal; and (3) reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of a continuing danger if the child is returned home. (g-1) In a suit filed under Section 262.101 or 262.105, if the court does not order the return of the child under Subsection (g) and finds that another parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian entitled to possession did not cause the immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or was not the perpetrator of the neglect or abuse alleged in the suit, the court shall order possession of the child by that person unless the court find sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that, specific to each person entitled to possession:

(1) the person cannot be located after the exercise of due diligence by the Department of Family and Protective Services, or the person is unable or unwilling to take possession of the child; or (2) reasonable efforts have been made to enable the person’s possession of the child, but possession by that person presents a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child caused by an act or failure to act of the person, including a danger that the child would be a victim of trafficking under Section 20A.02 or 20A.03, Penal Code. (h) In a suit filed under Section 262.101 or 262.105,

if the court finds sufficient evidence to make the applicable finding under Subsection (g) or (g-1) [satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child], the court shall issue an appropriate temporary order under Chapter 105. (n) If the [The] court does not order possession of [shall place] a child by a [removed from the child’s custodial parent with the child’s noncustodial] parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian entitled to possession under Subsection (g) or (g-1), the court shall place the child [or] with a relative of the child [if placement with the noncustodial parent is inappropriate,] unless the court finds that the placement with [the noncustodial parent or] a relative is not in the best interest of the child. (q) On receipt of a written request for possession of the child from a parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian entitled to possession of the child who was not located before the adversary hearing, the Department of Family and Protective Services shall notify the court and request a hearing to determine whether the parent, managingc conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian is entitled to possession of the child under Subsection (g-1). SECTION 8. Section 263.002, Family Code, is amended by amending Subsection (c) and adding Subsection (d) to read as follows: (c) At each permanency hearing before the final order, the court shall review the placement of each child in the temporary managing conservatorship of the department who has not been returned to the child’s home. At the end of the hearing, the court shall order the department to return the child to the child’s parent or parents unless the court finds, with respect to each parent, that: (1) there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child; and (2) returning the child to the child’s parent or parents [The court shall make a finding on whether returning the child to the child’s home is safe and appropriate, whether the return is in the best interest of the child, and whether it] is contrary to the welfare of the child [for the child to return home]. (d) This section does not prohibit the court from rendering an order under Section 263.403.

SECTION 9. Section 263.401, Family Code, is amended by adding Subsection (b-3) to read as follows: (b-3) A court shall find under Subsection (b) that extraordinary circumstances necessitate the child remaining in the temporary managing conservatorship of the department if:

(1) a parent of a child has made a good faith effort to successfully complete the service plan but needs additional time; and

(2) on completion of the service plan the court intends to order the child returned to the parent.

SECTION 10. Subchapter E, Chapter 263, Family Code, is amended by adding Section 263.4011 to read as follows: Sec. 263.4011.


(a) On timely commencement of the trial on the merits under Section 263.401, the court shall render a final order not later thanhe90th day after the date the trial commences. (b) The 90-day period for rendering a final order under Subsection (a) is not tolled for any recess during the trial. (c) The court may extend the 90-day period under Subsection (a) for the period the court determines necessary if, after a hearing, the court finds good cause for the extension. If the court grants a good cause extension under this subsection, the court shall render a written order specifying: (1) the grounds on which the extension is granted; and (2) the length of the extension. (d) A party may file a mandamus proceeding if the court fails to render a final order within the time required by this section. SECTION 11.

Section 263.403(a-1), Family Code, is amended to read as follows: (a-1) Unless the court has granted an extension under Section 263.401(b), the department or the parent may request the court to retain jurisdiction for an additional six months as necessary for a parent to complete the remaining requirements under [in] a service plan [and specified] in a transition monitored return under Subsection (a)(2)(B) [the temporary order that are mandatory for the child’s return].

SECTION 12. Section 264.203, Family Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 264.203. REQUIRED PARTICIPATION.

(a) The department may file a suit requesting [Except as provided by Subsection (d),] the court to render a temporary [on request of the department may] order requiring the parent, managing conservator, guardian, or other member of the [subject] child’s household to:

(1) participate in the services for which the department makes a referral or services the department provides or purchases for:

(A) alleviating the effects of the abuse or neglect that has occurred; [or]

(B) reducing a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child caused by an act or failure to act of he parent, mantaging conservator, guardian, or other member of the child’s household [the reasonable likelihood that the child may be abused or neglected in the immediate or foreseeable future]; or

(C) reducing a substantial risk of abuse or neglect caused by an act or failure to act of the parent, managing conservator, guardian, or member of the child’s household; and

(2) permit the child and any siblings of the child to receive the services. (b) A suit requesting an order under this section may be filed in a court with jurisdiction to hear the suit in the county in which the child is located [The department may request the court to order the parent, managing conservator, guardian, or other member f the child’s household too participate in the services whether the child resides in the home or has been removed from the home]. (c) Except as otherwise provided by this subchapter, the suit is governed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to the filing of an original lawsuit [If the person ordered to participate in the services fails to follow the court’s order, the court may impose appropriate sanctions in order to protect the in health and safety of the child, including the removal of the child as specified by Chapter 262]. (d) The petition shall be supported by a sworn affidavit by person based on personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to support a finding that: (1) the child has been a victim of abuse or neglect or is at substantial risk of abuse or neglect; and

(2) there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child caused by an act or failure to act of the parent, managing conservator, guardian, or other member of the child’s household unless that person participates in services requested by the department [If the court does not order the person to participate, the court in writing shall specify the reasons for not ordering participation]. (e) In a suit filed under this section, the court may render a temporary restraining order as provided by Section 105.001.

(f) The court shall hold a hearing on the petition not later than the 14th day after the date the petition is filed unless the court finds good cause for extending that date for not more than 14 days.

(g) The court shall appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of the child immediately after the filing but before the hearing to ensure adequate representation of the child. The attorney ad litem for the child shall have the powers and duties of an attorney ad litem for a child under Chapter 107. (h)

The court shall appoint an attorney ad litem to represent the interests of a parent for whom participation in services is being requested immediately after the filing but before the hearing to ensure adequate representation of the parent. The attorney ad litem for the parent shall have the powers and duties of an attorney ad litem for a parent under Section 107.0131. (i)

Before commencement of the hearing, the court shall inform each parent of: (1) the parent’s right to be represented by an attorney; and (2) for a parent who is indigent and appears in opposition to the motion, the parent’s right to a court-appointed attorney. (j) If a parent claims indigence, the court shall requir the parent to complete and file with the court an affidavit of indigence.

The court may consider additional evidence to determine
whether the parent is indigent, including evidence relating to the parent’s income, source of income, assets, property ownership, benefits paid in accordance with a federal, state, or local public
assistance program, outstanding obligations, and necessary
expenses and the number and ages of the parent’s dependents.

If the
court determines the parent is indigent, the attorney ad litem appointed to represent the interests of the parent may continue the representation. If the court determines the parent is not
indigent, the court shall discharge the attorney ad litem from the
appointment after the hearing and shall order the parent to pay the cost of the attorney ad litem’s representation.
(k) The court may, for good cause shown, postpone any subsequent proceedings for not more than seven days after the date of the attorney ad litem’s discharge to allow the parent to hire an attorney or to provide the parent’s attorney time to prepare for the
subsequent proceeding.
(l) An order may be rendered under this section only after notice and hearing.
(m) At the conclusion of the hearing, the court shall deny the petition unless the court finds sufficient evidence to satisfy
a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) abuse or neglect has occurred or there is a substantial risk of abuse or neglect or continuing danger to the
physical health or safety of the child caused by an act or failure to act of the parent, managing conservator, guardian, or other member of the child’s household; and
(2) services are necessary to ensure the physical health or safety of the child.
(n) If the court renders an order granting the petition, the court shall:
(1) state its findings in the order;
(2) make appropriate temporary orders under Chapter 105 necessary to ensure the safety of the child; and
(3) order the participation in specific services narrowly tailored to address the findings made by the court under
Subsection (m).
(o) If the court finds that a parent, managing conservator,
guardian, or other member of the child’s household did not cause the
continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child or
the substantial risk of abuse or neglect, or was not the perpetrator
of the abuse or neglect alleged, the court may not require that
person to participate in services ordered under Subsection (n).
(p) Not later than the 90th day after the date the court
renders an order under this section, the court shall hold a hearing
to review the status of each person required to participate in the
services and the child and the services provided, purchased, or
referred. The court shall set subsequent review hearings every 90
days to review the continued need for the order.
(q) An order rendered under this section expires on the 180th day after the date the order is signed unless the court
extends the order as provided by Subsection (r) or (s).
(r) The court may extend an order rendered under this section on a showing by the department of a continuing need for the order, after notice and hearing. Except as provided by Subsection
(s), the court may extend the order only one time for not more than
180 days.
(s) The court may extend an order rendered under this
section for not more than an additional 180 days only if:
(1) the court finds that:
(A) the extension is necessary to allow the person required to participate in services under the plan of
service time to complete those services;
(B) the department made a good faith effort to
timely provide the services to the person;
(C) the person made a good faith effort to
complete the services; and
(D) the completion of the services is necessary
to ensure the physical health and safety of the child; and
(2) the extension is requested by the person or the person’s attorney.
(t) At any time, a person affected by the order may request the court to terminate the order. The court shall terminate the
order on finding the order is no longer needed.

The following provisions of the Family Code are
(1) Section 262.113;
(2) Section 262.1131; and
(3) Sections 262.201(b) and (j).
SECTION 14. Section 161.101,

Family Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a petition or motion filed by the Department of Family and Protective Services on or after the
effective date of this Act.

A petition or motion filed by the
department before that date is governed by the law in effect on the
date the petition or motion was filed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose.


The changes in law made by this Act apply only to a suit filed by the Department of Family and Protective Services on or after the effective date of this Act. A suit filed by the department before that date is governed by the law in effect on the date the suit was filed, and the former law is continued in effect
for that purpose.
SECTION 16. This Act takes effect September 1, 2021.

 ______________________________  ______________________________
    President of the Senate  Speaker of the House     

        I certify that H.B. No. 567 was passed by the House on April
 1, 2021, by the following vote:  Yeas 143, Nays 5, 1 present, not

 Chief Clerk of the House   

        I certify that H.B. No. 567 was passed by the Senate on April
 28, 2021, by the following vote:  Yeas 31, Nays 0.

 Secretary of the Senate    
 APPROVED:  _____________________


Free Range parenting
Children Are Now Protected by ‘Reasonable Independence’ Laws in 3 States, Including Texas

Free Range Parenting…? In Texas?

little boy cowboy
Getty Images/RichVintage

Parents need not fear investigation for letting kids engage in “normal behaviors”.

Original Source article by Katherine Martinko

Published June 9, 2021 09:34AM EDTFact checked by Haley Mast

The state of Texas just passed a law (HB 567) that protects a child’s right to “reasonable independence.” This means children will be allowed to engage in normal childhood activities, like walking to school, sitting unattended in a car for short periods of time, or staying home alone, without their parents being accused of neglect and possibly getting investigated by the authorities. 

Texas is the third state to pass such a law, after Utah and Oklahoma. Independent play advocates are thrilled because Texas has a population of 29.1 million people, which means when the populations of the other two states are considered, roughly one-tenth of Americans (34 million) are now protected by these laws. Hopefully, that’s a big enough chunk of the population to start changing the culture of helicopter-type parenting.

Lenore Skenazy, author of “Free Range Kids” and founder of the Let Grow non-profit, spoke to Treehugger about this monumental occasion. “Getting Texas is so fantastic,” she gushes over a Zoom call, pointing out to this Canadian writer that, combined with the other two states, 34 million people isn’t too far off Canada’s entire population of 38 million. 

She went on to explain that we are dealing with a flawed system in which bystanders report unattended children because they want to be helpful, but then give it to authorities who don’t have a way not to investigate. They must start an investigation because a complaint has been lodged. 

“We’d like that not to have to happen if the circumstances are simply that a kid was walking to school,” Skenazy explains. “What these laws do in terms of parenting is allow you to stop second-guessing yourself when you know what you have to do and what’s best for your kid. And sometimes what you have to do is not what you would love to do.”

Financial instability is a complicating factor in these investigations because often children are left alone out of necessity, not because a parent doesn’t know what they’re doing. To interpret certain things as neglect simply because of what it is on paper doesn’t take into account real life, and this law does.

Skenazy gives the example of a single mom running to catch a 7:15 a.m. bus to get to her job, but there’s only one per hour and the babysitter hasn’t shown up yet. The mom has to choose between losing her job or trusting her six-year-old to be alone for 20 minutes till the sitter arrives. Now, Texan parents in that situation no longer need to fear possible repercussions.

“The law recognizes that when you’re doing that, it’s not because you’re a neglectful parent, it’s because you don’t have the means to provide constant supervision, even when you want it.” And that, Skenazy explains, is because “people stretched thin don’t have the same resources that wealthier ones do to supervise their kids constantly.” 

This flawed system affects countless families in the United States. Roughly 37% of all American children will be contacted by Child Protective Services (CPS) at some point in their lives. If you’re a Black family, that number rises to 53%. So laws like this one “provide a little more equity,” to quote Nevada senator Dallas Harris, who’s been trying to pass a similar law in her own state.

kids running through a field
Getty Images/Flashpop

When asked what CPS thinks of the new law, Skenazy makes it clear that CPS does incredibly important work.

“We venerate CPS. The last thing we want is kids getting hurt. We don’t want to see any kid starved, beaten, or literally neglected,” Skenazy says. “So we feel that, by removing these excessive cases, CPS can do what we dearly want them to do, and what they do, which is to investigate serious cases of abuse and neglect.

“I hope that CPS does not think we are disparaging them. We are hoping to have a sea change in the culture whereby seeing a child unsupervised but fine doesn’t raise anyone’s hackles or open any kind of case,” she adds. “And I think that [CPS] would be glad because nobody wants to waste their time.”

Let Grow, the organization that Skenazy founded in response to the immense support she received after publishing “Free Range Kids,” is actively involved in passing these reasonable independence laws in several states. It pulls together stakeholder groups with representatives from CPS, parents, teachers, psychologists, district attorneys, public defenders, and lawmakers willing to sponsor a bill. 

Often the laws take several tries to pass. Texas failed its first attempt two years ago, and South Carolina’s effort didn’t pass in the House before COVID shut it down, so it will have to wait another two years.

Nevada’s law, which was co-sponsored by a gay Black Democratic mom of one and a straight White Republican grandma of 20, didn’t pass this year, but Skenazy says she’s hopeful it will next year. About the Nevada law, she tells Treehugger that the Democrat sponsor joked,

“If you see both of us sponsoring a law, it’s either a really bad idea or a really good one! We think it’s a really good idea.”

Skenazy goes on to say that, in light of the Texas victory, she’s excited for kids, for parents, and for moms especially. “Sometimes I think of free range kids as being about trusting people, of giving everyone the benefit of the doubt,” instead of assuming everyone’s out to cause harm.

 “Treating everyone as suspicious and possibly terrible is not only a depressing way to live, but it’s also statistically incorrect and it’s not rational to think the worst of everyone. You can have a much better life if you think better of people.”

Not to mention an easier life as a parent, if you don’t feel you have to monitor your child every minute of the day or fear being punished for allowing your child that freedom. We’d all be better off with these reasonable independence laws governing our states (and provinces). 

And we’ll probably be hearing more about them. As Skenazy says, “When you think about, one-tenth of America… That can’t be a crazy idea because it’s sort of mainstream.” 

parental alienation syndrome
A Life Lesson About Parental Alienation that I Learned In High School

Life lessons. Learning the hard way sucks. If you’re a stubborn person, you already know this.

My first job was at a movie theater in a mall. I was 15 years old, working part time, in a suburb of Dallas, where the mall was the local hang out for teenagers. I loved my job, selling movie tickets at the movie theater. At the time the minimum wage was $3.35/hr which was, at least in today’s terms, an unbelievably low wage. Of course that was a simpler time.

My best friend, John, was older than me, and we would run around after I got off work at the mall. One night, we decided to leave through the Sears Department Store exit to the lot he parked in. We ran into a friend of ours (can’t even recall his name) who was browsing in the music section. As we all stood around and talked, the guy slipped a cassette tape in his pocket before we walked out.

Yes, I saw him do it but I dismissed it, turning to leave with John and him. As we left the mall to walk out to the parking lot, we were stopped just before we were about to get into the car. It was mall security. They also saw the guy steal the tape.

We were corralled into a little office where monitors hung on the wall for the cctv cameras. I was scared.i was also defiant. After all, I hadn’t done anything wrong, I thought.

Being only 15 years old, and the only one of the 3 of us who was under age, that meant a call to my father. I knew that meant I’d be in trouble. I pleaded my case, “I didn’t do it” I”I didn’t steal anything!”

They rewound the tape and we all watched as the three of us stood in a group talking, the guy slipped the tape in his pocket, and we tried to leave.

“See- it was him, not me”.I cried.

That’s when the officer said to me, “but you watched him steel it, and did nothing to stop him” … You are guilty by association.

I’ll never forget that night and recently, John found me again, and as we talked and reminisced about the times we had 35 years ago, I asked him if he remembered that night. We laughed about it now that we’re in middle age.

Guilt by association.

The Abuse of Enabling
Parental Alienation

parental Alienation is defined as a set of strategies that a parent (or other person with influence over a child’s life) uses to foster a child’s rejection of the other parent. Parental alienation syndrome develops in children who come to hate, fear, and reject the targeted parent as someone unworthy of having a relationship with them. This is since independent of any negative or harmful accu of that parent, such as committing acts of child abuse or neglect.

When a child is alienated from his out her absent parent, the effects are tremendous. They are long lasting – and passed on, sometimes over many generations. The effects are so tragic that it can destroy relationships between a parent and child beyond repair . It can lead to a letting filled with psychological problems as the child grows into adulthood, ranging from substance abuse, self harm, suicide ideologies, relationship issues and more. A myriad of dysfunctionality throughout the child’s entire life.

It is one of the most harmful acts of abuse to alienate a child from a loving parent. Usually the risk of highest during a messy divorce or custody battle. The alienation can involve not only the child and the targeted parent, but also, extended members of the child’s family. It is not an invisible abuse, though it is gradual and takes place over time. The term “brainwashing” is often used o describe the alienation, and comparisons between parental alienation and tactics of cult leaders brainwashing their cult members are often made. The child is put in a position to hate or feel ambivalent about the other parent, choosing the alienater over the targeted parent.

How does this pertain to my teenage mall security story? The lesson of guilt by association.

When defining Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome, there are certain manifestations that are universally common among cases despite the difference in the tactics used.

The first step towards stopping Parental Alienation is too be able to recognize parental alienation.

As discussed here, in this eight part series outlining the eight symptoms of parental alienation and the syndrome associated with it, are as follows:

Symptom 1. The “Campaign of Denigration”. First, the campaign of denigration refers to the one being waged by the accusing parent in his or her indoctrination to the child. The other component, however,it is this second component of the first symptom that is seen, manifested in the child himself, which is critical in understanding how the alienation begins. This is the child’s own contribution towards this denigration.

Symptom 2: Weak or Frivolous Rationalizations for the Deprecation of the child’s relationship with the targeted parent. This typically refers to a child offering up trivial reasons for not wanting to be in a relationship with what is now known as the targeted or unfavored parent. During the evaluative process in the context of divorce when parental alienation is present, the alienated child is invariably asked why they do not wish to see the once loved, now unfavored parent.

Symptom 3: Lack of Ambivalence in the child’s emotions with regard to the targeted parent. This symptom refers to the child having no emotional connection to the targeted or unfavored parent. In some respects, this symptom can be a little misleading since severely alienated children can express hatred for the target parent, which is a connection, albeit not a loving one.The term “ambivalence” has a special meaning within the world of psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy. It refers to a remaining emotional positive connection between a person and what is referred to as a “love object” which is a psychoanalytic way of saying, the other person, even in moments of anger and conflict.

Symptom 4: Independent Thinker Phenomenon. The Independent Thinker Phenomenon refers to the consistent behavior seen in alienated children where they claim that their resistance to seeing the unfavored or targeted parent derives from their own independent thought and is not the result of the other parent’s influence. Very often, this symptoms appears as the child – very much out of the blue – announces that no one told them to say this, and that this is his or her own thought. The significance of this “out of context” expression is that it reveals an agenda, on the part of the child, to carry out their assignment of arguingthat their resistance to seeing the unfavored parent is their independent thought that this thought is not result of the influence of the other parent.

Whilethese two components are in many ways overlapping, their separate expression is consistent with the kind of urgency that only alienated children experience. The purpose of this symptom is to convince the audience – very often court appointees – that they should not have to see their once loved parent.

Within the context of parental dispute, be it divorce or post divorce, unless there as been actual abuse and or neglect in the extreme, children will typically contort themselves to not takes sides in the parental dispute. If a child feels one parent is being ganged up on in some way, they will often go to their aid and support their position

Symptom 5: The Reflexive Support of the Alienating Parent in the Parental Conflict. Within the context of parental dispute, be it divorce or post divorce, unless there as been actual abuse and or neglect in the extreme, children will typically contort themselves to not takes sides in the parental dispute. If a child feels one parent is being ganged up on in some way, they will often go to their aid and support their position.

Symptom 6: Absence of Guilt over Cruelty to and/or Exploitation of the Alienated Parent. This symptom is typically found in the more severe end of the spectrum of parental alienation. It is manifested through the alienated child’s angry and critical tirades against the targeted parent.
Under these circumstances, the severely alienated child will hurl hateful and demeaning comments directly to the targeted parent and will express or experience no guilt or remorse for doing so.

Symptom 7: The Presence of Borrowed Scenarios. One of the most common examples of “The Presence of Borrowed Scenarios” is when an alienated child announces that the targeted parent did not want for them to be born, and that they wanted the mother to have an abortion. This obviously could have only come from the alienating parent or her minions.
This symptom may also be identified by the age inappropriate use of language by children. For example, a 4 year old child saying that she had nightmares when she was at her father’s house (the targeted parent in this particular case). When asked about her nightmares, she said that she did not know, and that I should ask her mother because this is who told her that she was having nightmares at her dad’s..
Borrowed scenarios may also be thought of as being the result of coaching. The notion of coaching, that is the alienating parent, either directly or indirectly saying things to the child for the purpose of negatively influencing their perception of the targeted parent, is a hallmark of the alienation process

Symptom 8: The Spread of the Animosity to the Friends and/or Extended Family of the Alienated Parent. The last symptom, the eighth symptom of Parental Alienation is The Spread of the Animosity to the Friends and/or Extended Family of the Alienated Parent. With this symptom, we see once loved grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins being rejected by the alienated child.

I recommend reading the entire 8 part series, a very good read and source of information. By clicking here.

As one can only imagine, the process of these eight symptoms and their development when a child is indoctrinated, especially in severe cases. It takes time. This process is far from instant, and it can even take years to truly manifest. The situations all differ depending on the circumstances and the influence the alienater has over the child.

At first, it may be unnoticed or dismissed at first by others. Maybe they are not immediately involved in the child’s life to se the abuse. such as the extended family members who live only visit from time to time. Maybe the initial lack of attention to the abuse fail to seewhat is going on is due to a lack of education in the topic, or maybe a lack of compassion is the reason, or fear of the abuser. Only knowledge and the desire to intervene will prove helpful if done in time, before the harm is set in. However, most alienaters are narcissists and, as such, narcissists will only surround themselves with people who are either so charmed by them that they blindly believe every word they say is true or people who have learned that it’s easier to keep their mouths shut rather than reap the wrath of expressing an opposing opinion. That being said, If you’re a targeted parent, it’s a painful realization that the abuse kicked into high gear was only possible with the help of enablers, some of whom may even have stooped so low as to deliver a few blows themselves.

in my case, the abuse went even further since 2 of my 3 older brothers are attorneys. The abuse came from our mother, towards myself via my child. My brothers have such a close relationship with our mother, that it would be impossible to imagine that they didn’t know what was going on. They have not spoken to me since my son was taken, and they knew quite well that my son was kept hidden from me. My oldest brother “represented” my mother in an incredibly painful 14 year custody battle over my daughter when my mother intervened during my divorce from her father. The money wasted in that case could have put both my kids through college. My son’s father is in prison so without him to contend with, getting rid of me was fairly simple with the backing of my entire birth family, who all enabled the abuse. They are GUILTY OF THE ABUSE AS WELL, under the doctrine of guilt by association. That lesson I learned in high school.

What do you think? What life lesson changed your perspective throughout life?

Leave a comment and tell me what you think, or share your story. We would love to hear it. Knowledge is power.

cps, foster care
Missing Children in Foster Care -Remembering the Forgotten

i can think of only one event more traffic than being falsely accused and having your child taken into foster care and a result- and that is being falsely accused and your child being taken into foster care, wrongly, and then finding out your child is missing!!

What a horrific thought. It happens. It shouldn’t happen but it does.. A child who goes missing and isn’t found if one of the worst tragedies. Lack of closure can haunt a parent of a missing child for the rest of their life.

Tens of thousands of children the foster system has lost –

Remembering the forgotten children.

More than 60,000 kids across the country are unaccounted for by the child welfare system that is supposed to protect them.

Original article by Rene Denfeld| The Washington Post

12:39 PM on Jun 19, 2018 CDT

The public has exploded in outrage at American immigration authorities’ treatment of children in recent months, but meanwhile there are tens of thousands of other children who are unaccounted for in this country: the more than 60,000 foster children who have gone missing.

A review of federal records by investigative reporters Eric Rasmussen and Erin Smith revealed in May that child welfare agencies throughout the country have closed the cases of at least 61,000 foster children listed as “missing” since 2000. An additional 53,000 were listed as “runaway.” Their investigation aligns with other reports of children missing from various states — 80 currently missing in Kansas, hundreds lost in Florida. Against the scandal of migrant children unaccounted for is another scandal: that our nation has lost track of so many of its own.

Just how did 60,000 of these children disappear? Blame a lack of federal oversight, underfunded agencies straining under almost half a million children, high caseworker turnover — in some jurisdictions, staff turnover is as high as 90 percent a year — and a chilling indifference to the plight of foster children.

In Arizona and other states, children who are missing for six months are dropped from the foster care rolls. A “missing” foster child is not necessarily on the streets; some are safe with a foster family or relative, and even though the state has lost track of them, they aren’t being harmed. But the point is that the state has no idea. In one case in Illinois, workers closed the case of a 9-year-old child who had disappeared. It took investigators a year to locate her, but she was alive. In Florida, a 4-year-old girl was missing for 15 months before anyone from the Department of Children and Families noticed. Her foster parent is in prison in her killing.

Lara B. Sharp, a successful writer who grew up in foster care, says that of the foster children she knew, “all went either missing or they died, mostly before age 18.” Sharp told me of three different times workers misplaced her. This happened when she was moved from one home to another, and no one updated her file. Had she been kidnapped or run away during these times, no one would have known. She would have fallen through cracks in the system so wide they are canyons.

The outcome for this negligence can be deadly. Sharp recalls a girl she lived with named Jennifer, who had lost her parent in a car accident. When she was 15, Jennifer went missing. She ended up sex trafficked and murdered. “She was a lovely, kind, clever, sheltered little girl,” Sharp says. “She loved the Bronte sisters and The Brady Bunch. I will never forget her.”

But our government has forgotten thousands of children like Jennifer. No one seems to know where these children are or how they vanished. In many cases, they are assumed to be runaways. In Texas last year, 1,700 foster children were declared runaways. Of these, 245 are currently missing. And they are at profound risk.

“Most of the children who are being bought and sold for sex in our nation are foster care children,” human rights attorney Malika Saada Saar writes. “Our very broken foster care system has become a supply chain to traffickers.” In one of many examples, a national FBI raid to recover child sex-trafficking victims found that 60 percent of the children came from foster care.

I asked human rights worker Quintan Wikswo why the recent case of missing immigrant children sparked outrage, but thousands of vanished foster children have not.

“It’s easier for partisan politics to use the immigrant children disappearances as fuel for whatever case they want to make,” Wikswo says. “But it is far more unpopular for folks to look into their own communities, to get involved in their own local judicial and law enforcement elections, and ask for documentation that their representatives are prioritizing the foster network.”





cps, domestic violence, parental alienation syndrome


If you are involved in a custody battle with your abuser, this article is a must-read.  I have included below only the topics and first paragraph of each, click on the topic to read the entire article.


by R. Lundy Bancroft c 1998

A sophisticated understanding of the mind of the abuser, his style as a parent, and of the tactics that he most commonly employs during separation and divorce, are essential to anyone making custody recommendations or working to design visitation plans that are safe for the children and their mother. Contrary to popular belief, children of batterers can be at just as much risk psychologically, sexually, and even physically after the couple splits up as they were when the family was still together. In fact, many children experience the most damaging victimization from the abuser at this point. A genuine batterer can be difficult to distinguish from one who is unfairly accused, and batterers who will be a grave risk to their children during unsupervised visitation can be hard to separate from those who can visit safely. The insights and expertise of those service providers who have extensive experience working directly with abusers needs to be drawn from, and the level of contribution from victims themselves to policy design also needs to be greatly increased. Custody and visitation battles amidst allegations of domestic violence require policies and interveners (judges, mediators, and Guardians Ad Litem) based in the most detailed knowledge, experience, sensitivity, and integrity. The stakes for children are very high.

This article is drawn largely from the author’s ten years of experience working as a counselor and supervisor in programs for abusive men, involving contact with some 1500 abusers, and hundreds of their victims, over that period. During the first few years of this period I worked almost exclusively with voluntary clients, and during the latter period worked primarily with court-mandated ones. The characteristics of the clients changed remarkably little during that shift. In the late 1980’s, professionals in batterer programs began paying particular attention to the behavior of clients with respect to probate processes, and we began asking victims more questions about the man’s conduct with respect to visitation and custody. Since leaving direct work with batterers, I have served with increasing frequency as a custody evaluator (both as Guardian ad Litem and as Care and Protection Investigator), and have worked closely with child protective services. I also have drawn from numerous published studies, several of which are listed in the back of this article. [I have chosen for reasons of ease to refer to the abuser as “he” and the victim as “she,” but I am aware that there is a small percentage of cases of domestic violence to which this language does not apply.]


Generalizations about batterers have to be made with caution. Batterers come from all socioeconomic backgrounds and levels of education. They have the full range of personality types, from mild and mousy to loud and aggressive. They are difficult to profile psychologically; they frequently fare well in psychological testing, often better than their victims do. People outside of a batterer’s immediate family do not generally perceive him as an abusive person, or even as an especially angry one. They are as likely to be very popular as they are to be “losers,” and they may be visible in their communities for their  rofessional success and for their civic involvement. Most friends, family, and associates in a batterer’s life find it jarring when they hear what he has done, and may deny that he is capable of those acts.The partner and children of a batterer will, however, experience generalizable characteristics, though he may conceal these aspects of his attitude and behavior when other people are present:


Batterers naturally strive to turn mediation and GAL processes to their advantage, through the use of various tactics. Perhaps the most common is to adopt the role of a hurt, sensitive man who doesn’t understand how things got so bad and just wants to work it all out “for the good of the children.” He may cry in front of the mediator or GAL and use language that demonstrates considerable insight into his own feelings. He is likely to be skilled at explaining how other people have turned the victim against him, and how she is denying him access to the children as a form of revenge, “even though she knows full well that I would never do anything to hurt them.” He commonly accuses her of having mental health problems, and may state that her family and friends agree with him. The two most common negative characterizations he will use are that she is hysterical and that she is promiscuous. The abuser tends to be comfortable lying, having years of practice, and so can sound believable when making baseless statements. The abuser benefits to the detriment of his children if the court representative fails to look closely at the evidence – or ignores it – because of his charm. He also benefits when professionals believe that they can “just tell” who is lying and who is telling the truth, and so fail to adequately investigate. Because of the effects of trauma, the victim of battering will often seem hostile, disjointed, and agitated, while the abuser appears friendly, articulate, and calm. Evaluators are thus tempted to conclude that the victim is the source of the problems in the relationship.


Allegations of child abuse that arise during custody and visitation conflicts are treated with similar skepticism by court personnel and service providers. A large-scale national study found that the rate of false child sexual abuse allegations does not increase at this time, contrary to popular belief (Thoennes and Tjaden). As with domestic violence allegations, there is no substitute for careful and unbiased examination of the evidence. Batterers who do abuse their children can be convincing at portraying themselves as victims of a deliberate strategy on the part of the victim in order to derail proper investigating. There are two salient reasons why child abuse reports may first arise at separation or divorce. First, children may disclose abuse at this time that is longstanding. The awareness of the custody battle can make the children afraid of being placed in the abuser’s custody, or of being forced to spend increased time with him without the protective presence of the other parent. This fear can lead children to make the frightening leap involved in discussing the abuse. After separation, children may begin spending extended unsupervised time with the abuser for the first time ever, so that the abuse escalates or they fear that it will. Increased visitation may cause panic in a victim of child abuse; a case of mine illustrated this point, with a child disclosing a detailed history of sexual abuse immediately after her visitation with her father was increased from one night every other weekend to two. Finally, children are known to be more likely to disclose abuse in the midst of any disruption or major change in their lives. (See MacFarlane et. al. on the above points.)


Batterers are several times as likely as non-batterers to abuse children, and this risk appears to increase rather than decrease when the couple separates. Multiple studies have shown that 50% to 70% of men who use violence against their intimate partners are physically abusive to their children as well. A batterer is seven times more likely than a non-batterer to frequently beat his children (Straus). A batterer is at least four times more likely than a non-batterer to be an incest perpetrator. (Herman 1991, McCLoskey et. al.) Psychological abuse to the children is almost always present where there is domestic violence; in fact, the abuse towards their primary caretaker is itself a form of emotional abuse of the children, as numerous studies now document. It is true that battered women are also more likely to abuse children than non-battered women are, but unlike with batterers, those levels decline rapidly once the relationship separates(Edleson and Schecter).


Efforts are underway nationally to ease the complexity of assessing risk to children from visitation with batterers by placing batterers into distinct types, based largely on the work of Janet Johnston. For example, a risk assessment distributed nationally by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) draws heavily from Johnston’s work. The types Johnston posits are as follows:

Type A: “Ongoing or Episodic Male Battering”

Type B: “Female-Initiated Violence”

Type C: “Male Controlled Interactive Violence”

Type D: “Separation and Postdivorce Violence”

Type E: “Psychotic and Paranoid Reactions”


Assessing the safety of children with batterers during unsupervised visitation requires careful examination of all available evidence, with as few preconceptions as possible about the credibility of either party. Even a highly skilled service provider cannot “just tell” that an alleged abuser is telling the truth or is not dangerous, even after several hours of interviews and even with the assistance of psychological testing. These can be important sources of information, but careful assessment of the alleged victim’s version of events, comparison with outside sources (to assess credibility), examination of court records, and confrontation of the alleged abuser to assess his reactions are all essential to an evaluation.

(view article)

cps, parental alienation syndrome
Parental Alienation, the Courts, and Emotional Distress

What is Parental Alienation?

The intentional alienation of a child’s affections with his or her parent without cause.

The tactics used after methodical and calculated acts of child abuse which can result in severe consequences. The alienated child an targeted patterns can suffer irrepairable harm. 

Even if the child and the targeted parent once had a close, loving relationship before the alienation began, in severe cases, they can lose any existence of a relationship as the direct result of the alienation.

The “alienator” is not always a parent, it can be anyone in the child’s life that has the control and opportunity to influence the child. 

The alienation also oftentimes extends to the child’s friends and extended family members.

While family courts recognize that parental alienation happens, (especially in high conflict divorces with child custody disputes), allegations of domestic violence can create an atmosphere of improper justification for the tactics used in alienation.

Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D.,  Kathleen C. Faller, Ph.D. and Richard M. Tolman, Ph.D. or the University of Michigan, School of Social Work, submitted a research report to the U.S. Department of Justice which analyzed parental alienation in the family court system.

In their findings, it was concluded that the Judges, private attorneys, and custody evaluators were more likely than domestic violence workers and legal aid attorneys to believe that mothers make false allegations of abuse. This position creates a difficulty for a battered spouse to protect themselves and the child from abuse as they are labeled as an alienator.

This can have catastrophic consequences when “parental alienation syndrome” is brought up by the abuser to counter an allegations of domestic violence. The. battered spouse can even lose custody to their abuser and be erased from the childs life.. 

In a 2002 case in Nassau County,  a trial court found that in cases where parental alienation is alleged, “the court has the duty to become aware of and seek out every bit of relevant evidence and advice on the custody issues before it”, which included a forensic evaluation. (Zafran v. Zafran, 740 NYS2d 596).

This can be achieved by a forensic custody evaluation, home study, or in cases where conflicting testimony is present, the court has the authority to use is an “in camera” interview (also called a Lincoln hearing) with the child.

The judge will interview the child in the absence of the parents and their attorneys, having only the child’s attorney present. The judge has the discretion to do an “in camera”, usually making this determination by assessing several factors. These factors include the facts of the case, the age and maturity of the child and the need to protect the child from the adversarial proceeding. The judge will conduct an “in camera” if they hear conflicting testimony or if one of the attorneys make the request. A lot of judges are partial to getting children directly involved in child custody or visitation cases and will therefore only conduct an “in camera” when it is absolutely necessary.

Parental Alienation as Form of Emotional Distress Tort Claim

Divorce lawyers see quite a bit of parental alienation in its various forms.

Some cases are severe, like the Tsimhoni case from Waterford & Clarkston, while other cases are mild.

An interesting case, Fukimaki v Ichikawa, decided in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court makes the Tsimhoni case look like a pro confesso divorce proceeding.

One particularly unusual aspect of the case is that the ex-husband filed a brand new case against his ex-wife in the court of general jurisdiction more than a decade after his divorce was completed in the family court.

The basis of the new case: tort claims for “alienation of parental affection” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress”.

The trial court judge dismissed the action on the grounds Michigan does not recognize the parental alienation tort claim and that the emotional distress claim was time-barred.

Not so fast, says the Michigan Court of Appeals. While the appellate court agreed that there is no cause of action for parental alienation, it held that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim did not accrue until the mother began preventing parenting time with the father.

The trial court selected a much earlier date to begin running the “statute of limitations” clock: the date mother was awarded sole physical and legal custody of the child.

To establish the intentional infliction of emotional distress, the appellate court held that plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant’s conduct was, “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.

In sum, the courts have held that to be actionable, the defendant’s conduct must be so severe and shocking that a community member is compelled to shout, “Outrageous!”

In his complaint, father sets forth the following allegations:

  • Mother was twice held in contempt of the family court for disallowing father’s parenting time with the child;
  • Mother arranged for the child’s teacher to keep the child while she served a stint in the county jail following her second contempt of court ruling;
  • Mother sent father letters promising that she was committed and determined to completely destroy father’s relationship with the child;
  • Mother denied father parenting time for 22 consecutive weeks, and
  • Mother conspired with the child’s school to exclude father from all school-related events.

Based on these facts, if proven by a preponderance of the evidence,  would constitute “Outrageous!” acts of conduct.

The case now goes back to the Washtenaw County Circuit Court where this father gets the opportunity to establish the elements of an intentional infliction of emotion distress claim; not an easy thing to do.

Father will have to prove extreme and outrageous conduct that is intentionally designed to cause severe emotional distress.

Although rare, torts can be filed against one’s spouse or former spouse, just like any other named defendant.

Recognizing Parental Alienation

Parental Alienation can be difficult to detect, largely because it may not be intentional. Yet whether the alienating parent intends to disrupt the relationship between the targeted parent and the child, the damage is the same.

In extreme situations, the alienating parent may relocate the child without the targeted parent’s knowledge or permission. Generally,  alienating parents feel they are doing the right thing.Fortunately, courts have jurisdiction over most cases; the relocating parent must obtain leave from the court to move out-of-state or more than 100-miles from the child’s established custodial environment.


Clarkston Legal

Parental Alienation Awareness