Refutations Part III

I swear y’all, I’m only on of this response that goes all the way to X, and some of those have i –iv. The conclusion is also 3 pages. And this is only ONE response he has given to the courts. I think he needs a diary of his own honestly. There’s a place to spew your hatred and there’s a place not to. The courts don’t want to hear this. I could easily write all of his wrongdoings as perceived by me and send them off to the courts, but that would make me look bad and vindictive. I’d rather not, thanks. That’s why I have this blog! And the only reason this blog is in existence is because I’m fed up of the lies that I read.

Again, if you haven’t read the prior parts, please head backwards starting here.

In his point “r”, it states, “The Maltese court took responsibility to inform the mother of the filed action in accordance to due process and the law.” Not to be rude toward the Maltese legal system, as it worked very well for me when I was involved, but for me personally, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of “due process”. He can go ahead and try his best to place all the blame on the Maltese courts, but in the end, he could have let me know. As the courts pointed out….he sent me multiple emails and deliberately withheld that info while trying to trick me into signing papers to allow Zander to remain in Malta for a year. He criticized me for not agreeing to his suggestion after he had already filed for SOLE CUSTODY. He gets mad at me for not being stupid I guess. I find this quote from the Hague Order of Return interesting, “The Court notes that the decree issued by another section of the Family Court was pendente lite (provisional until the proceedings before the Court are concluded) handed during a mediation process; when the minor’s mother was not even aware that the father had initiated proceedings before the Maltese Courts; when the deputy curators appointed by the Courts to represent the mother, who was absent from these islands, had not only not communicated with the mother but had not even themselves been notified of the father’s application requesting provisional care and custody; when a chronological examination of the facts results that the father had not even informed the mother that he did not intend to send the minor back to the United States.” I don’t know, but it sure seems like to me that the Judge, who would know more about the legal system, is quite upset over the fact that You-Know-Who had multiple opportunities to inform me of his intentions to have a fair chance in the Maltese Courts. Lots of tricks and deceit to get that provisional court decree granting him temporary residential custody. Even the Director of the Maltese Central Authority called it a “banana show”. It was an order that according to Maltese Law, never should have been given a decree. And of course, let’s not forget, by July 13th, 2017, that court application was “definitively rejected” once my lawyer sent them information on what was really going on. I suppose, looking back, I could have easily involved myself in the family court section he had applied with and won, but I wasn’t going to do that. 

That’s one of the #1 pieces of advice that my advocacy job has taught me to inform other left-behind parents. Do NOT submit yourself to a foreign jurisdiction if the Hague is an option!

This next part is painful, but I think that for the sake of IPCA and parental alienation, in how both of these issues are SYNONYMOUS, I need to be transparent. In section “s”, You-Know-Who uses the child advocate report as evidence. The report is horrible, but it’s a prime example of the very epitome of parental alienation.

Once you read this report, you’d think to yourself – wow, this kid really hates his mother. She’s a horrible person. I never saw this report until recently. There were parts of it quoted in the Hague Order of Return – “The things that the minor told the Children’s Advocate contrast sharply with what results from these proceedings. During the course of these proceedings the mother obtained court authorization to hold regular Skype calls with the minor…The Director exhibited in the Acts of these proceedings the recordings and also the transcripts of telephone conversations between the minor Zander and his mother and his half-brother Killian that took place in April and May of this year. The Court listened to the playbacks of these conversations and finds that there is absolutely nothing in common between these conversations and what the minor said to the Children’s Advocate. In one of these conversations, Zander says ‘I want you to know I’ll be coming there soon. Because the year’s almost over, it’s already been like 100 something days. So, I’ll be there in like 200 something days, okay?’ The content of the conversations between Zander, his mother and brother makes it very clear that there is a very good relationship between and it certainly cannot be said that there is some resistance on the minor’s part to return to the United States. On the contrary, the minor expresses the desire to return soon. The Court does not want to speculate why it is that in January 2017 the minor spoke to the Children’s Advocate so  negatively against his mother while in May 2017 he tells his mother that he wants to go back.” I remember my Maltese attorney stated to me that the Court was implying here that the Children’s Advocate was “paid off” to report such things or simply lied to. Most professionals are easily fooled when it comes to the games of parental alienation. I say it’s safe to assume this woman was easily swayed by a seemingly charming personality and wasn’t educated in recognizing the signs of a schooled and pressured child.

The things Zander said? “she lies to me”, “she tries to trick me”, “she never lets me communicate with dad”. First and foremost, Zander doesn’t even call You-Know-Who “dad”. He was out of the picture during Zander’s formative years and that’s no one’s fault except his own. I can’t control his lack of travel when he was more than capable of doing so, in fact he did quite often to places like Australia for bike marathons. Priorities I guess…The only time that Zander had been with You-Know-Who was during the visitation, which equaled a whopping 18 weeks prior to this abduction. 18 weeks, 5 months from the years 2014 to 2016. How could, as was supposedly said in Zander’s own words, he be “so much closer to his father than his mother”? Everything in that report is a lie. I don’t talk to Zander about my “issues” with You-Know-Who. I never did. In fact, I have multiple emails I sent to You-Know-Who telling him he needed to STOP talking to Zander about these grown-up discussions. On Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 5:22 PM, before I ever knew what You-Know-Who was up to, I tried to talk to him. It reads as follows: “You are probably expecting this. But we have to discuss what’s been going on and spoken about over there. It is NOT okay to talk about adult issues with children. NOT OKAY…He was not old enough to experience typical changes between divorcing parents…I have never ever even used the word ‘divorce’ to him….We weren’t married and you weren’t even there when he was born, yet you think you can just fling the word ‘divorce’ around to suite your goals. You are harming Zander… Zander enjoyed time with you even though he didn’t understand why he had to be with you. Zander handled your impromptu visits very well. Until you started airing our dirty laundry to him. Kids ask questions; I get that. Especially Zander. But here’s the thing. As adults, we can choose how we approach something. As a parent, you can look at him and say he doesn’t have to think about these issues just yet. You can tell him to forget about it until he’s older. You don’t do that. When Zander is with me, I refuse to talk about it. I refuse to mess with his mind. After every single visit with you, he comes home messed up. He’s depressed. He’s sad. He’s confused. He’s withdrawn. Every single time…I know what you are doing. I knew the moment Zander asked me, ‘Why did you divorce him?’ Hmmm. Pretty obvious what you’re doing.” 

Here is his response to that email: “I was sorry to see that the tone of your correspondence was once again less than amicable. Zander has been asking me certain questions for 2-3 years now and have always been sensitive to his age, as I am aware of the process of informing children in a safe way. However, rest assured he has known about the concept of ‘divorce’ for a while, rest assured that whatever he has learned about it from me has been without malice or misinformation, and was done with full awareness of his age… However, when he comes here, he is able to get a considerably fuller picture of the situation. As a parent, you have a choice. You can either keep insulating Zander from the reality around him, or you can accept that he is an inquisitive, intelligent, and insightful child with a growing mind and awareness, and with natural and inevitable questions. The questions will come…So I will not apologise for explaining this to Zander…I don’t think that avoiding the need to address his concerns, questions, and fears out of hand simply by dismissing him as ‘too young’ or ‘a child’ is contributing to his healthy emotional and psychological management of the situation. However, I find your remark that you refuse to ‘explain yourself to your child’ over a decision that affected his daily life in the most profound of ways quite indicative.”

As you can see, his mentality is very concerning. Keep in mind that Zander was only EIGHT YEARS OLD, with special needs no less. Honestly, I have a really hard time with his thought process. I struggle so hard not to be consumed by anger because that’s not healthy. And in true narcissism form, he twists it around to sound like me choosing not to have these adult discussions with my CHILD are somehow “indicative” of my negative character (I wish my blog allowed emojis lol).

These are just some thoughts without the final addition to this equation. As I said earlier, I have only recently read the full report. When I did, although I knew none of it was true, I was still curious. I read parts of the report back to Zander. For just a moment, let’s go back to March 15, 2018. On that date, his birthday, Zander told me that You-Know-Who said all kinds of horrible things about me then told him to tell the psychologist every “bad thing mommy ever did to you”. So, I already knew that Zander was schooled by Zander’s own explanation. But I still asked him. I told him that I’m not mad at him at all, but if he truly does feel like any of that is true, I need to know. I told him that I can’t be the best Mommy that I can be without input from those around me. 

I don’t believe in parenting that resembles dictatorship. It’s like the recent trend floating around on social media that recognizes we should no longer force children to hug people or accept hugs they don’t want. 

Zander, of course, was quick to remind me that he already explained that he didn’t mean any of those things. I know that he feels responsible and ashamed for the things he said. I reminded him that he is not to blame. I do not blame him. This wasn’t him. A few things that I mentioned in the report, Zander became very indignant and said he never said those things. He said they were outright lies and “add-ons”. He then decided to share with me that the whole time he was alone with the “children’s advocate”, he was scared that You-Know-Who was listening and could hear him outside of the room. He was scared that he would get in trouble if he didn’t say the things that others wanted him to say. He told me that before he went into the room, You-Know-Who was telling him all these things, and Zander was like “Why would I want to say these things?” You-Know-Who got angry (in Zander’s eyes) and claimed he was only giving advice on what to say because all these things were true and they happened. Then Zander was scared that You-Know-Who would find out somehow or other what he talked about. This is why you should never accept any evidence derived from such a situation. If at any time I had taken Zander to a psychologist to talk about how he felt about You-Know-Who, I would have been accused of setting the whole thing up. 

You see, You-Know-Who has always perceived this entire ocean-divided-parenting thing the way that he wants. Which is that I’ve done everything I could to alienate him from Zander. Which isn’t true. HE believes all those things that were told to Zander. All those quotes in that report did not come from Zander. They were You-Know-Who’s explicit beliefs. I’ve heard them for years. I  never talked about any of that with Zander. We didn’t talk about You-Know-Who in our house. Zander never brought him up, why would I? He talked to him nearly every weekend. After his Maltese visits during the summer, he would sometimes talk about You-Know-Who. I just nodded my head and listened. I never offered anything back. I personally do not want to talk about that man. Never did. I didn’t like the way he treated me. If someone doesn’t like the way they are treated and spoke to, then that’s that. I’m not a bad person for avoiding a subject that caused me stress and anxiety and panic attacks. 

No one ever talked to Zander about the Skype issue. Even when my Mom took him to her job on weekends to Skype, we just said, “You’re going to speak to [You-Know-Who].” Yet he’s able to know the whole issue, by You-Know-Who’s perceptions, enough to discuss this openly with someone in Malta? No one can convince me this wasn’t schooling. Zander himself openly admits this. 

I can only pray that one day Zander realizes that he is not to blame for everything that happened. 

In a 2016 scientific paper, DSM authors Dr. Narrow and Dr. Wamboldt say that parental alienation may be diagnosed as Child Affected by Parental Alienation Distress (V61.29) if one is talking about the child. Parental alienation may be diagnosed as Child Psychological Abuse (V995.51) if one is talking about a parent alienating their child. This confirms that parental alienation is indeed in DSM-5. 

I researched these papers and examined them. Parental alienation tactics are clearly defined in those papers. I recognize those tactics in our case. Do I want to take Zander to a psychologist just to have this all diagnosed as Parental alienation? No I do not. Zander has been put through enough. Me knowing the results and conclusions based on research is enough for me. I also minored in Psychology for my brief period of time at University. I’m not a professional by any means of the word, but I have always had an inherent understanding of the subject.

This is the link to the clinical papers.

Just a few examples: Empowering the Child to Reject a Parent by emphasizing “child should decide on visitation”, “listen to the child”, and “advocating for child testimony”. My lawyer and I advocated to NOT involve Zander in the trial because we felt he was too young. The opposing side insisted and based their entire defense on Zander’s testimony. They insisted on making Zander talk about choice and who he wanted to live with. This is the very definition of parental alienation.

Instituting something known as “The Unforgivable Event” is another tactic of parental alienation. The one used in our case was You-Know-Who’s distorted and false claims that I kidnapped Zander when he was a baby.

When a child claims that the other parent is a “liar”, this is also an evident sign of parental alienation. How would this child know the other parent is a liar unless someone is telling them so? Just as You-Know-Who admitted in his email, he had been telling Zander “his reality” for the last 2-3 years. This is parental alienation. There is no reason for you to tell Zander any such things unless your goal is to alienate this child from his own mother.

Another clinical check off for parental alienation is Role Reversal Use of the Child, “It’s not me, it’s the child who…”. This is absolutely exactly what You-Know-Who claimed to everyone who would listen. “It’s not me who brought this up, it was Zander…”. “It wasn’t my idea, it was Zander’s…”.

My Maltese attorney stated based on what he witnessed during the trial, that You-Know-Who had his own interpretations of the parental agreement that were not true, legal interpretations. Just because someone perceives something a certain way, does not make it legally factual. I did not alienate. I lived my life avoiding this man, and I am not sorry for that. My family has been more than accommodating taking that role from me to save me from anxiety. My Mom finally knew what I went through. She finally saw You-Know-Who for what he really was in 2010, and she did all in her power to deal with You-Know-Who. To encourage communication between Zander and You-Know-Who. Just because I did not involve myself with those calls or talk to him on the phone myself or meet up with him in person for a sundae as he wanted, does not mean that I alienated Zander from him. 

I alienated him from myself. 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *