Search Results

Do Guardian ad Litems wield more power than their Family Court Judges in the Charleston South Carolina Family Court System? In September of 2022 a Disabled Veteran Father presented his case to a Family Court Judge. The Gal also submitted her affidavit where she stated that father had indeed done what was asked of him, by the standing court order, and notified the child’s mother that he would be taking their child for his scheduled parenting time. The parenting time that the mother had denied, stating that he had not given her proper notification. The GAL also stated that this family should undergo a parenting evaluation with an alienation component and that she believed that the mother’s current method of supervision of their child was not adequate to keep the child safe, although she recommended that that Judge keep the status quo and keep the child in the mother's primary custody. Due to the mother's denial of father's parenting time in the past, the Judge awarded the father more parenting time which included an up and coming holiday. The mother spoke up and told the Judge that he had that Holiday last year and the Judge quickly replied that he will have it again this year. The Judge also awarded this father all long weekends when the child was not in school. The Judge made his ruling of father's parenting time, application of the Bark app so both parents could monitor the child's phone and an award for an evaluation to include a parental alienation component. He then retained jurisdiction of the case which he scheduled for December after the conclusion of the evaluation. This father was under the impression and believes the Judge was as well, that this evaluation would be concluded before December given the severity of the allegations of parental alienation. Much to the father's dismay the evaluation was not concluded in December and the Judge released his jurisdiction and canceled the December hearing as he was not a Charleston County Judge and did not know what his schedule would look like for the following year. The attorneys for the father and the attorneys for the mother had agreed on an evaluator for the parental alienation examination. The father’s attorneys placed great emphasis on the importance of an evaluation that would contain the proper examination and diagnosis of parental alienation. Unfortunately the evaluator that they had chosen does not believe that parental alienation is part of the DSM-5, the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States, and therefore he would not be using the word alienation in his report. The examiner shared this with the GAL but the GAL told him to go ahead with the examination anyway. The GAL did not share this information with the father’s counsel but she did share it with the mother’s counsel. Parental Alienation is a form of mental child abuse and had the evaluation come back containing the words and diagnosis of parental alienation, the mother stood a great chance of loosing custody of their child. The father does not believe that the GAL followed the order of the Judge in this evaluation instead taking it upon herself to make this determination with blatant bias towards the mother and a blatant disregard for the severity of parental alienation and the long lasting affects this can have on a child's life. This is not the only instance where this GAL has disregarded the order of the Judge. The father was granted and ordered every long weekend and was denied his visitation in February and in May under the supervision and knowledge of this GAL. The father was and is under the impression that the GAL is supposed to make sure that all court orders are abided by and bring attention to the courts if the court orders are being broken. In June 2023, father received a message from mother that she would be taking the child for the whole summer leaving father with no Summer parenting time leaving him with no time with their child since April. This was due to the fact that the temporary order from the Judge, in September, had still not been filed. This left the father unable to force his Court Appointed time with his child so he did all he could think to do and he wrote both the GAL and the court ordered therapist asking them many questions as to why he was being denied his time and do they believe that to be what was ordered and expected by the Judge. The next day father received a letter from mother granting him two weeks with their child. Father states that neither the GAL nor the Counselor answered his questions. Adding insult to injury the father has not been able to get the words out of his head. "The mother's current plan for supervision is not adequate to keep this child safe" written in the report of the GAL. The father questions what is more important than his child's safety and has yet to come up with a good answer. The father was grateful that the Judge ordered the Bark app so he could also monitor what their child was doing online but he quickly learned that the app only works when mother has the application running on her computer and the child is home with the Wi-Fi on their phone and that messages can be erased and risky apps such as TikTok and Snapchat can be added and deleted when the app is off or the child is not in the home. Father claims he has told the GAL on numerous occasions that the Bark app is not being used properly as it should automatically connect as soon as the child is in their mother's home and that he has no problem when with it connecting when the child is with him. He also told the GAL and provided proof that the child set up part if not all of the Bark Application on their phone their self, as they were given the password and instructed by the mother. Just last week father informed the GAL that the Bark app has once again not been connected to the child's phone and has not been on since the beginning of November and to this day he has not heard from the GAL and the child's mother still has not allowed the app to monitor the child's phone. This leads father to question whether the GAL told the mother to leave the app off of the phone, again regarding herself in a higher position than the Judge or the Judge's now signed, order. These three instances in particular have left the father and those with knowledge of this case wondering if the Guardian ad Litems in the Charleston County Family Court System have more power than their Judges or if this one in particular has a blatant disregard for the standing order of the Judge in this case. This story leaves me wondering if out of County Judges hold the weight or power over the GAL’s as do the Charleston County Judges or are Guarduan Al’s Litems just that much more powerful. This is an opinion piece provided with the knowledge of this case by a third party and may not reflect the actual thoughts of the father but is believed to be factual in its content. If you have a story about the Charleston County Court System or those who work within it, or any other Family Court System please email News@ParentalAlienationResource.com

In the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court established a higher standard for defamation cases involving public figures. This case, decided in 1964, significantly strengthened First Amendment protections for free speech and press. The standard set in the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case is known as the "actual malice" standard. To successfully sue for defamation as a public figure, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made false statements with "actual malice." Actual malice requires two elements: The defendant knew that the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Reckless disregard means that the defendant knowingly made false statements without bothering to verify their accuracy. The plaintiff must be a public figure or someone involved in a matter of public concern. Public figures include high-profile individuals such as celebrities, politicians, or government officials, as well as private individuals who voluntarily inject themselves into public controversies or issues. This standard was established to protect freedom of speech and press, recognizing the importance of robust public debate and the potential chilling effect of defamation lawsuits on the media's ability to report on matters of public concern. It places a higher burden on plaintiffs, requiring them to demonstrate that defendants acted with actual malice, rather than mere negligence or mistake, when making defamatory statements about public figures.

This case centers upon the very cornerstone of our society: the family. Deeper still, this case involves the intersection of the family and the law: parents’ fundamental rights in directing the care, custody, and control of their children as a family and the State’s power to affect, limit, or even terminate those rights. This Court has determined that parents have a fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children. This Court also has determined that the government shall not interfere with this right unless and until a parent is proven unfit. In contradiction to this determination, the North Carolina Supreme Court in the case below declared protection of that fundamental right irrelevant in a custody dispute between two natural parents. Routten v. Routten, 843 S.E.2d 154, 159 (2020). Instead, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s denial of custody and reasonable visitation to the Petitioner based on the judge’s findings related to the best interest of the child, even though the trial judge did not find the mother unfit. Id. at 159. The holding below directly contradicts this Court’s recognition of parents’ primary and fundamental rights in the care, custody, and control of their children. Read the full Supreme Court Ruling https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-618/162853/20201207145434898_20-616%20Amicus%20Brief%20The%20Justice%20Foundation%20cert%20stage.pdf

Charleston County Court System Under Scrutiny for Failing to Address Parental Alienation and Neglecting a Military Veteran's Plea for Justice Delays, Incompetent Representation, and Neglected Child Support Result in Undue Stress for a Cancer Survivor Charleston County, South Carolina - In a distressing case that highlights the failures of the local court system, a military veteran who has triumphed over two battles with cancer is now fighting an uphill battle against parental alienation. The veteran's desperate plea for justice has fallen on deaf ears, with lengthy delays, incompetent attorney representation, and the neglected support of the Veteran's and child's relationship has exacerbated an already difficult situation. This heart-wrenching case sheds light on the need for immediate action and reform within Charleston County's family court system. Parental alienation is a form of emotional child abuse where one parent manipulates and undermines the relationship between the child and the other parent. It can cause severe psychological harm to the child involved and has long-lasting effects on their well-being and future relationships. Unfortunately, despite mounting evidence of parental alienation in this particular case, the Charleston County court system has neglected to recognize and address this harmful behavior, leaving both the veteran and the child in a state of distress. One of the primary concerns in this case is the significant delays experienced in the judicial process. Months have turned into years without any resolution, dragging the veteran through unnecessary stress and frustration. These delays not only undermine the importance of swift action but also perpetuate the cycle of alienation, making it increasingly difficult for the alienated parent to repair and rebuild their relationship with the child. Furthermore, incompetent attorney representation has further hindered the veteran's pursuit of justice. Inadequate legal counsel and ineffective advocacy can significantly impact the outcome of any legal proceedings, especially those involving sensitive family matters. The veteran, already burdened by their health struggles, has been left feeling unheard and unsupported, compounding their distress. Another critical aspect of this case is the neglect of support given to reestablish this once happy and healthy father daughter relationship by both the Guardian ad Litem, the court ordered therapist and the evaluator. Failure to enforce court-ordered visits and communications between the child and her father adds an emotional strain to the alienated parent, potentially preventing him the ability to provide a stable and nurturing environment for the child. The court's inability to ensure timely and consistent child father interactions only magnifies the victim's struggle in this already arduous battle. It is essential for the Charleston County court system to recognize the urgency of addressing parental alienation and implement much-needed reforms. This includes prioritizing cases involving allegations of alienation, expediting the legal process, and providing competent and compassionate legal representation for all parties involved. The plight of this military veteran and their child serves as a wake-up call to the Charleston County court system, urging it to fulfill its duty to protect the best interests of children and provide fair and efficient resolution to matters of parental alienation. It is imperative that the necessary changes are implemented promptly to prevent further harm and injustice. Only by addressing these issues head-on can Charleston County truly provide the justice and support that our military veterans and their children so rightfully deserve. This is an opinion piece provided with the knowledge of this case by a third party and may not reflect the actual thoughts of the father but is believed to be factual in its content. If you have a story about the Charleston County Court System or those who work within it, or any other Family Court System please email News@ParentalAlienationResource.com

Military Veteran Survives Cancer, Battles Neglect and Injustice in Charleston County Family Court System Undue Stress Placed on Veteran Whose Daughter Suffers from Blatant Parental Alienation Charleston, South Carolina - In a heart-wrenching case of alleged parental alienation, a military veteran who has triumphed over two bouts of cancer finds himself battling not only the effects of the disease but also an unsympathetic court system that neglects to recognize the blatant manipulation his former spouse is subjecting their daughter to. The veteran, whose name we have withheld for privacy reasons, has faced numerous obstacles in his quest for justice. Delays in court cases have exacerbated the distressing situation, leaving the vulnerable child exposed to further emotional harm. Despite the urgency of the matter, the court system's failure to expedite proceedings has perpetuated the prolonged suffering endured by both father and daughter. Adding insult to injury, demands for high-priced specialists who lack expertise in parental alienation have only compounded the veteran's frustration. These specialists have openly admitted that they will not even mention "parental alienation" in their reports, raising serious concerns about the adequacy of professional evaluations. Compounding the injustice, the veteran has been represented by attorneys who display incompetence and disregard for their client's needs. Rather than fulfilling their obligations, these attorneys have grown resentful when asked to carry out their professional duties. This lack of support has left the veteran feeling isolated and abandoned by a system that should be protecting his rights. Furthermore, the appointment of a guardian who has never witnessed the veteran and his daughter together raises questions about the impartiality and credibility of the system. Relying solely on the mother's narrative and dismissing the father's side of the story undermines the very purpose of guardianship - to ensure the child's best interests are prioritized. Equally troubling is the apparent oversight by a therapist who claims to specialize in working with victims of parental alienation. Despite being entrusted with the care of the child, this professional has failed to recognize the clear signs of parental alienation being perpetrated by the mother. Such disregard for the well-being of the child raises concerns about the integrity of the therapist's practice. The plight of this military veteran serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need for reform within the Charleston County court system. It is imperative that judges, attorneys, and court personnel receive specialized training on military-specific challenges and parental alienation. Expedited processing of cases involving military veterans and parental alienation should be implemented, offering a glimmer of hope to those desperately seeking justice. In addition, access to competent legal representation must be improved through the establishment of legal aid programs specifically tailored to the needs of veterans and those affected by parental alienation. This would ensure that every individual, regardless of their financial means, receives fair and equitable representation in court. The Charleston County court system must heed the call for change and restore faith in the pursuit of justice. Failure to address these systemic shortcomings will perpetuate the suffering experienced by this brave military veteran and countless others in similar situations. Our veterans deserve better, and the time for action is now. This is an opinion piece provided with the knowledge of this case by a third party and may not reflect the actual thoughts of the father but is believed to be factual in its content. If you have a story about the Charleston County Court System or those who work within it, or any other Family Court System please email News@ParentalAlienationResource.com

A plea for action as a deserving father faces unjust denial of visitation and constant parental alienation, while the Charleston County Family Court system remains indifferent to his plight. Date: Tuesday August 15, 2023 Charleston County - The Charleston County Family Court system is facing severe criticism as a Veteran, Service Disabled Veteran Business Owner, two-time cancer survivor, and esteemed member of society fights tirelessly to regain his rights as a father. Despite his exemplary character and numerous contributions, he has been subjected to relentless denial of visitation, harassment, and coercive control by the child's mother, leaving him isolated from his own daughter. In an alarming turn of events, the courts have failed to recognize the gravity of the situation, dismissing the father's claims and perpetuating the cycle of parental alienation. Despite being granted an examination specifically addressing the issue of alienation, the appointed guardian ad litem allowed an unqualified individual to conduct the assessment, undermining any chances of a fair evaluation. Adding further fuel to the fire, the court-appointed therapist, whose role is typically to support families and children affected by parental alienation, has inexplicably refused to acknowledge the presence of alienation in this particular case. Both the guardian ad litem and the therapist have seemingly allied themselves with the alienating parent, exacerbating the father's struggle for justice. Disturbing evidence has emerged, shedding light on the mother's inappropriate behavior and neglectful actions. A forensic analysis of the child's phone has revealed over 250 photos and videos of the then 12/13-year-old child engaging in provocative behavior while listening to highly sexual music. Additionally, instances of truancy were uncovered, with the mother failing to ensure regular school attendance throughout elementary and middle school. Shockingly, the analysis also uncovered articles on how to pass a drug test, along with conversations where the mother admitted to receiving drugs from a neighbor. Despite this compelling evidence, the guardian ad litem failed to present any of these findings to the examiner, who, in turn, omitted crucial details from the report, such as the mother's inability to control her anger and her continuous manipulation during the evaluation. Recently, the father had his daughter for a two-week visitation period, during which the child experienced positive and memorable moments, as testified by over 20 individuals who interacted with them. However, following a court hearing on July 20th, the father has once again been subjected to the unjust denial of his parental rights, leaving him uncertain about future visitations or communication with his beloved child. We, as concerned members of the community, must rally together to demand justice for this loving father. The Charleston County Family Court system must be held accountable for their failures and biases exhibited in this case, while the father's rights must be reinstated without delay. This is an opinion piece provided with the knowledge of this case by a third party and may not reflect the actual thoughts of the father but is believed to be factual in its content. If you have a story about the Charleston County Court System or those who work within it, or any other Family Court System please email News@ParentalAlienationResource.com

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 "Code of Conduct for United States Judges The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities". SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATEMENT OF THE COURT REGARDING THE CODE OF CONDUCT November 13, 2023 The undersigned Justices are promulgating this Code of Conduct to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court. For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice. The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CANON 1: A JUSTICE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY. A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary. CANON 2: A JUSTICE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES. A. RESPECT FOR LAW. A Justice should respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. B. OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. A Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment. A Justice should neither knowingly lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others nor knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Justice. A Justice should not testify voluntarily as a character witness. C. NONDISCRIMINATORY MEMBERSHIP. A Justice should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin. CANON 3: A JUSTICE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF OFFICE FAIRLY, IMPARTIALLY, AND DILIGENTLY. A. RESPONSIBILITIES. A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism. A Justice should participate in matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in judicial proceedings. A Justice should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to all individuals with whom the Justice deals in an official capacity. A Justice should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. A Justice should not retaliate against those who report misconduct. A Justice should require similar conduct by those subject to the Justice’s control. A Justice should take appropriate action upon receipt of reliable information indicating the likelihood of misconduct by a Court employee. Except as provided by law or Court rule, a Justice should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. If a Justice receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing on the substance of the matter, the Justice should promptly notify the parties of the subject matter of the communication and allow the parties to respond. A Justice should not knowingly make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. The prohibition on public comment on the merits of a matter does not extend to public statements made in the course of the Justice’s official duties. For scholarly, informational, or educational purposes, a Justice may describe the issues in a pending or impending case. A Justice should require similar restraint by Court personnel subject to the Justice’s control. A Justice should not direct Court personnel to engage in conduct on the Justice’s behalf or as the Justice’s representative when that conduct would contravene the Canons if undertaken by the Justice. B. DISQUALIFICATION. (1) A Justice is presumed impartial and has an obligation to sit unless disqualified. (2) A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, but are not limited to, those in which: (a) The Justice has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (b) At a prior stage of the proceeding, the Justice represented a party, or a lawyer with whom the Justice previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer for a party, or the Justice or lawyer has been a material witness in the proceeding; (c) The Justice knows that the Justice, individually or as a fiduciary, or the Justice’s spouse or minor child residing in the Justice’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding; (d) The Justice or the Justice’s spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such person, is known by the Justice: (i) to be a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) to be acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or (iv) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (e) The Justice has served in government employment and in that capacity participated as a judge (in a previous judicial position), counsel, advisor, or material witness concerning the proceeding or has expressed during prior government or judicial service an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy. (f) The Justice’s spouse or a person related to the Justice or the Justice’s spouse within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such person, is known by the Justice: (i) to have served as lead counsel for a party below; or (ii) to be an equity partner in a law firm that appears before the Court on behalf of a party to the proceeding and the Court has not received written assurance that the income from Supreme Court litigation is permanently excluded from the person’s compensation. (3) The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification. (4) Neither the filing of a brief amicus curiae nor the participation of counsel for amicus curiae requires a Justice’s disqualification. (5) A Justice should keep informed about the Justice’s personal and fiduciary financial interests and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal financial interests of the Justice’s spouse and minor children residing in the Justice’s household. (6) For the purposes of this section: (a) The degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system; the following relatives are within the third degree of relationship: parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great grandparent, great grandchild, sister, brother, aunt, uncle, niece, and nephew; the listed relatives include whole and half blood relatives and most step relatives; (b) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian; (c) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that: (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund; (ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization; (iii) The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, or a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest; (iv) Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities. (d) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation. (7) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Canon, if a Justice would be disqualified because of a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the Justice (or the Justice’s spouse or minor child) divests the interest that provides the grounds for disqualification. CANON 4: A JUSTICE MAY ENGAGE IN EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE. A Justice may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and government activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a Justice should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the Justice’s office, interfere with the performance of the Justice’s official duties, reflect adversely on the Justice’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below. A. LAW-RELATED ACTIVITIES. (1) Speaking, Writing, and Teaching. A Justice may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice subject to the following limitations and considerations: (a) A Justice should not speak at an event sponsored by or associated with a political party or a campaign for political office. (b) A Justice should not speak at or otherwise participate in an event that promotes a commercial product or service, except that a Justice may attend and speak at an event where the Justice’s books are available for purchase. (c) A Justice should not speak to or participate in a meeting organized by a group if the Justice knows that the group has a substantial financial interest in the outcome of a case that is before the Court or is likely to come before the Court in the near future. (d) A Justice may attend a “fundraising event” of law- related or other nonprofit organizations, but a Justice should not knowingly be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program of such event. In general, an event is a “fundraising event” if proceeds from the event exceed its costs or if donations are solicited in connection with the event. (e) In deciding whether to speak or appear before any group, a Justice should consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public. Except in unusual circumstances, no such appearance will be created when a Justice speaks to a group of students or any other group associated with an educational institution, a bar group, a religious group, or a non-partisan scholarly or cultural group. (2) Consultation. A Justice may consult with or appear at a public hearing before an executive or legislative body or official: (a) on matters concerning the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; (b) to the extent it would generally be perceived that a Justice’s judicial experience provides special expertise in the area; or (c) when the Justice is acting pro se in a matter involving the Justice or the Justice’s interest. (3) Organizations. A Justice may participate in and serve as a member, officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds. A Justice may make recommendations to public and private fund-granting agencies about projects and programs concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. (4) Arbitration and Mediation. A Justice should not act as an arbitrator or mediator or otherwise perform judicial functions apart from the Justice’s official duties unless authorized by law. (5) Practice of Law. A Justice should not practice law and should not serve as a family member’s lawyer in any forum. A Justice may, however, act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the Justice’s family. B. CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES. A Justice may participate in and serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a nonprofit civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organization, subject to the following limitations: (1) A Justice should not serve if it is likely that the organization will either be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the Justice or be regularly engaged in adversary proceedings in any court. (2) A Justice should not give investment advice to such an organization but may serve on its board of directors or trustees even though it has the responsibility for approving investment decisions. C. FUNDRAISING. A Justice may assist nonprofit law-related, civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social organizations in planning fundraising activities and may be listed as an officer, director, or trustee. Use of a Justice’s name, position in the organization, and judicial designation on an organization’s letter head, including when used for fundraising or soliciting members, is permissible if comparable information and designations are listed for others. Otherwise, a Justice should not personally participate in fundraising activities, solicit funds for any organization, or use or knowingly permit the use of the prestige of judicial office for that purpose. A Justice should not personally participate in membership solicitation if the solicitation might reasonably be perceived as coercive or is essentially a fundraising mechanism. D. FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES. (1) A Justice may hold and manage investments, including real estate and engage in other remunerative activity, but should refrain from financial and business dealings that exploit the judicial position or involve the Justice in frequent transactions or continuing business relationships with lawyers likely to appear before the Court or other persons likely to come before the Court. (2) A Justice may serve as an officer, director, active partner, manager, advisor, or employee of a business only if the business is closely held and controlled by members of the Justice’s family. For this purpose, “members of the Justice’s family” means persons related to the Justice or the Justice’s spouse within the third degree of relationship as defined in Canon 3B(6)(a), any other relative with whom the Justice or the Justice’s spouse maintains a close familial relationship, and the spouse of any of the foregoing. (3) A Justice should comply with the restrictions on acceptance of gifts and the prohibition on solicitation of gifts set forth in the Judicial Conference Regulations on Gifts now in effect. A Justice should endeavor to prevent any member of the Justice’s family residing in the household from soliciting or accepting a gift except to the extent that a Justice would be permitted to do so by the Judicial Conference Gift Regulations. A “member of the Justice’s family” means any relative of a Justice by blood, adoption, or marriage, or any person treated by a Justice as a member of the Justice’s family. (4) A Justice should not disclose or use nonpublic information acquired in a judicial capacity for any purpose unrelated to the Justice’s official duties. E. FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES. A Justice may serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary only for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the Justice’s family as defined in Canon 4D(3). As a family fiduciary a Justice is subject to the following restrictions: (1) The Justice should not serve if it is likely that as a fiduciary the Justice would be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the Justice or if the estate, trust, or ward becomes involved in adversary proceedings before the Court or in a court under the Court’s jurisdiction. (2) While acting as a fiduciary, a Justice is subject to the same restrictions on financial activities that apply to a Justice in a personal capacity. F. GOVERNMENTAL APPOINTMENTS. A Justice may accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission, or other position only if it is one that concerns the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice, or if appointment of a Justice is authorized by federal law. A Justice should not, in any event, accept such an appointment if the Justice’s governmental duties would tend to undermine public confidence in the integrity, impartiality, or independence of the judiciary. A Justice may participate in national, state, or local ceremonial occasions or in connection with historical, educational, and cultural activities. G. CHAMBERS, RESOURCES, AND STAFF. A Justice should not to any substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in activities that do not materially support official functions or other activities permitted under these Canons. H. COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT, FINANCIAL REPORTING. A Justice may accept reasonable compensation and reimbursement of expenses for permitted activities if the source of the payments does not give the appearance of influencing the Justice’s official duties or otherwise appear improper. Expense reimbursement should be limited to the actual or reasonably estimated costs of travel, food, and lodging reasonably incurred by the Justice and, where appropriate to the occasion, by the Justice’s spouse or relative. For some time, all Justices have agreed to comply with the statute governing financial disclosure, and the undersigned Members of the Court each individually reaffirm that commitment. CANON 5: A JUSTICE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY. A Justice should not: (1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization; (2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or (3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate. A Justice should resign the judicial office if he or she becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office. A Justice should not engage in other political activity. This provision does not prevent a Justice from engaging in activities described in Canon 4. The undersigned Members of the Court subscribe to this Code and the accompanying Commentary. NOVEMBER 13, 2023 JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR. CLARENCE THOMAS, SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, ELENA KAGAN, NEIL M. GORSUCH, BRETT M. KAVANAUGH, AMY CONEY BARRETT, KETANJI BROWN JACKSON Commentary This Code of Conduct is substantially derived from the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, but adapted to the unique institutional setting of the Supreme Court. In certain instances, the foregoing Canons provide fairly specific guidance. A Justice, for example, “should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.” Canon 2B. A Justice “may serve as the executor . . . only for the estate, trust, or person of a member of the Justice’s family.” Canon 4E. In many cases, however, these Canons are broadly worded general principles informing conduct, rather than specific rules requiring no exercise of judgment or discretion. It is not always clear, for example, whether particular conduct undermines, promotes, or has no effect on “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” Canon 2A, or whether a Justice has acted in a “patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous” manner, Canon 3A. This concern is heightened with respect to Canons applicable to Justices of the Supreme Court, given the often sharp disagreement concerning matters of great import that come before the Supreme Court. These Canons must be understood in that light. This Commentary does not adopt the extensive commentary from the lower court Code, much of which is inapplicable. It instead is tailored to the Supreme Court’s placement at the head of a branch of our tripartite governmental structure. Canon 3B addresses the inherently judicial function of recusal. The Justices follow the same general principles and statutory standards for recusal as other federal judges, including in the evaluation of motions to recuse made by parties. But the application of those principles can differ due to the effect on the Court’s processes and the administration of justice in the event that one or more Members must withdraw from a case. Lower courts can freely substitute one district or circuit judge for another. The Supreme Court consists of nine Members who sit together. The loss of even one Justice may undermine the “fruitful interchange of minds which is indispensable” to the Court’s decision-making process. See Dick v. New York Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 437, 459 (1959) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). Recusal can have a “distorting effect upon the certiorari process, requiring the petitioner to obtain (under our current practice) four votes out of eight instead of four out of nine.” S. Ct. Stmt. of Recusal Policy (Nov. 1, 1993). When hearing a case on the merits, the loss of one Justice is “effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner. The petitioner needs five votes to overturn the judgment below, and it makes no difference whether the needed fifth vote is missing because it has been cast for the other side, or because it has not been cast at all.” Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 541 U.S. 913, 916 (2004) (memorandum of Scalia, J.). And the absence of one Justice risks the affirmance of a lower court decision by an evenly divided Court—potentially preventing the Court from providing a uniform national rule of decision on an important issue. See Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2000) (statement of Rehnquist, C.J.). In short, much can be lost when even one Justice does not participate in a particular case. This Canon’s recusal provisions thus differ from those in the lower court Code in that they: restate the Justices’ 1993 Statement of Recusal Policy; recognize the duty to sit and that the time-honored rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification, see United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 217 (1980) (28 U.S.C. § 455 does not alter the rule of necessity); ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 cmt. 3 (“The rule of necessity may override the rule of disqualification.”); and omit the remittal procedure of lower court Code Canon 3D. Canon 3B(2)(d) retains language from the lower court Code relating to known interests of third-degree relatives that might be substantially affected by the outcome of a proceeding. Because of the broad scope of the cases that come before the Supreme Court and the nationwide impact of its decisions, this provision should be construed narrowly. For example, a Justice who has school-age nieces and nephews need not recuse from a case involving student loans even though the disposition of that case could substantially affect the terms on which the Justice’s relatives would finance their higher education. The Canon’s recusal provisions depend on the Justice’s knowledge of certain relationships or interests. The Court receives approximately 5,000 to 6,000 petitions for writs of certiorari each year. Roughly 97 percent of this number may be and are denied at a preliminary stage, without joint discussion among the Justices, as lacking any reasonable prospect of certiorari review. Recusal issues must be considered in light of this reality. In view of the Canon’s knowledge requirement and the large volume of cases docketed, the Justices rely on the disclosure statements required under the Court’s rules in identifying interested parties that may present grounds for recusal. Individual Justices, rather than the Court, decide recusal issues. See Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 540 U.S. 1217 (2004) (“In accordance with its historic practice, the Court refers the motion to recuse in this case to Justice Scalia.”). Recusals are noted in the Court’s decisions, both at the certiorari and merits stages. In contrast to the lower courts, where filing of amicus briefs is limited, the Supreme Court receives up to a thousand amicus filings each Term. In some recent instances, more than 100 amicus briefs have been filed in a single case. The Court has adopted a permissive approach to amicus filings, having recently modified its rules to dispense with the prior requirement that amici either obtain the consent of all parties or file a motion seeking leave to submit an amicus brief. In light of the Court’s permissive amicus practice, amici and their counsel will not be a basis for an individual Justice to recuse. The courts of appeals follow a similar approach to ameliorating any risk that an amicus filing could precipitate a recusal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2) states that “a court of appeals may prohibit the filing of or may strike an amicus brief that would result in a judge’s disqualification.” Canon 4 reflects the principle that Justices, like all judges, are encouraged to engage in extrajudicial activities as long as independence and impartiality are not compromised. Justices are uniquely qualified to engage in judicial activities that concern the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, such as by speaking, writing, teaching, or participating in scholarly research projects. Justices are also encouraged to engage in educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic extracurricular activities not conducted for profit, even when those activities do not relate to the law. Participation in both law-related and other judicial activities helps integrate Justices into their communities and furthers public understanding of and respect for the judicial system. Canon 4G clarifies that a Justice “should not to any substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in activities that do not materially support official functions or other activities permitted under these Canons.” This provision recognizes the distinctive security concerns that the Justices face as high-profile public figures and allows the Justices to accept comprehensive security protection. See 40 U.S.C. § 6121(a)(2)(A) (authorizing the Supreme Court Police to protect the Justices when they are not performing official duties). It also allows Court officials and chambers staff to perform their official duties in enhancing security and providing legal, ethics, and other appropriate assistance to the Justices in light of the high public interest in the Justices’ activities and the acute security concerns that are distinct from such concerns for lower court judges. And, consistent with historic practice, chambers personnel including law clerks may assist Justices with speeches, law review articles, and other activities described in Canon 4. Canon 4D(3) and 4H articulate the practice formalized in 1991 of individual Justices following the financial disclosure requirements and limitations on gifts, outside earned income, outside employment, and honoraria. Justices file the same annual financial disclosure reports as other federal judges. Those reports disclose, among other things, the Justices’ non- governmental income, investments, gifts, and reimbursements from third parties. For purposes of sound judicial administration, the Justices file those reports through the Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure. In regard to the financial disclosure requirements relating to teaching and outside earned income, a Justice may not accept compensation for an appearance or a speech, but may be paid for “teaching a course of study at an accredited educational institution or participating in an educational program of any duration that is sponsored by such an institution and is part of its educational offering.” 2C Guide to Judicial Policy § 1020.35(b) (2010). Associate Justices must receive prior approval from the Chief Justice to receive compensation for teaching; the Chief Justice must receive prior approval from the Court. See S. Ct. Resolution ¶ 3 (Jan. 18, 1991). Justices may not have outside earned income—including income from teaching—in excess of an annual cap established by statute and regulation. Compensation for writing a book is not subject to the cap. Like lower court judges, Justices engage in extrajudicial activities other than teaching, including speaking, writing, and lecturing on both law-related and non-legal subjects. In fact, the lower court canons encourage public engagement by judicial officers to avoid isolation from the society in which they live and to contribute to the public’s understanding of the law. In deciding whether to speak before any group, a Justice should consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public. In addition to this Code of Conduct, the Justices also comply with: • The Constitution of the United States, see, e.g., U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 8 (foreign emoluments clause); Amdt. 5 (due process clause). • Current laws relating to judicial ethics including, but not limited to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 2109; the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 13101 – 13111, 13141 – 13145; the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7342; Pub. L. 110-402, § 2(b), 122 Stat. 4255; and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-105, §§ 12, 17, 126 Stat. 303; and • Current Judicial Conference Regulations on: Gifts; Foreign Gifts and Decorations; Outside Earned Income, Honoraria, and Employment; and Financial Disclosure. See, e.g., S. Ct. Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices (Apr. 25, 2023). The Justices may also take guidance from their colleagues, judicial decisions, the Supreme Court’s Office of Legal Counsel, the Judicial Conference Committees on Codes of Conduct and Financial Disclosure, lower court judges, executive and legislative branch practice and guidance, state judicial ethics authorities, and from scholars, scholarly treatises, and articles. The Justices also continue to look to the Court’s own past resolutions and opinions for guidance. The Court provides mandatory training on judicial ethics principles to all Court employees. In urging the judiciary to promulgate and adopt what became the lower court Code, Justice Tom C. Clark observed shortly after his retirement from the Supreme Court that judges “must bear the primary responsibility for requiring [appropriate] judicial behavior.” Hearings on Nonjudicial Activities of Supreme Court Justices and Other Federal Judges before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 174 (1969). The same is true for Justices. To assist the Justices in complying with these Canons, the Chief Justice has directed Court officers to undertake an examination of best practices, drawing in part on the experience of other federal and state courts. For example, some district courts and courts of appeals have deployed software to run automated recusal checks on new case filings. The Court will assess whether it needs additional resources in its Clerk’s Office or Office of Legal Counsel to perform initial and ongoing review of recusal and other ethics issues. The Court will also consider whether amendments to its rules on the disclosure obligations of parties and counsel may be advisable. In regard to financial disclosure, the Justices will continue to seek guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel and the staff of the relevant Judicial Conference committees, including the Committee on Financial Disclosure, which reviews each Justice’s annual filing for compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The Office of Legal Counsel will maintain specific guidance tailored to recurring ethics and financial disclosure issues and will continue to provide annual training on those issues to Justices, chambers staff, and other Court personnel.

"See something, say something" should be the motto when witnessing a parent belittling or alienating the other parent in front of a child. Parental alienation is a widespread issue affecting millions of targeted parents worldwide, creating a harmful epidemic. It is crucial to support these helpless parents and children and make it known that we believe in happy, healthy families. No one has the right to keep a child away from their loving parent. Let's spread awareness and hold accountable those who perpetrate this abuse. Parental alienation occurs when one parent intentionally turns the child against the other parent through negative comments, false accusations, or manipulation. This toxic behavior not only harms the targeted parent but also has long-term detrimental effects on the child's emotional well-being. Children caught in the grip of parental alienation often suffer from confusion, anxiety, and a strained relationship with one of their parents. It is essential to prioritize the child's best interests and ensure they have access to both loving parents to foster their overall development and emotional stability. To combat parental alienation, we must break the silence and encourage individuals to speak up when they witness such behavior. By reporting these incidents and raising awareness, we can create a culture of accountability where parents who engage in alienation are held responsible for their actions. Targeted parents need our support in their struggle against parental alienation. Providing resources, counseling services, and legal assistance can help them navigate the complex family court system and ensure their rights as loving parents are protected. Communities, organizations, and professionals should collaborate to offer solutions and interventions to mitigate the harm caused by parental alienation. It is our collective responsibility to address the issue of parental alienation and promote healthy, happy families. By speaking up against this harmful behavior, spreading awareness, and providing support to targeted parents and children, we can change the narrative and create a society that prioritizes the well-being of all family members. Remember, if you see something, say something, and be a voice for those affected by parental alienation.

The Importance of Accountability in a Guardian ad Litem and Why They Should Not Be "Untouchable" A Guardian ad Litem (GAL) plays a crucial role in advocating for the best interests of vulnerable individuals, such as children or incapacitated adults, in legal proceedings. Their responsibility is to provide an independent voice and ensure that the rights and welfare of those they represent are protected. However, it is essential to recognize that accountability is equally important for GALs. This article explores the significance of accountability in the role of a Guardian ad Litem and emphasizes why they should not be considered untouchable. Accountability is crucial to ensure that GALs always act in the best interests of the individuals they represent. By holding them accountable, we create a system of checks and balances that helps prevent any potential misconduct or negligence. Upholding their responsibilities diligently provides reassurance that their decisions and actions are driven by the interests of the vulnerable party, rather than personal biases or external influences. GALs are expected to adhere to strict ethical guidelines and professional standards. Accountability ensures that these standards are met consistently, allowing for transparency and integrity in their work. When GALs are held accountable for their actions, it reinforces the importance of ethics, fosters public trust, and maintains the credibility of the entire guardian ad litem system. Accountability allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or shortcomings made by GALs. No professional is infallible, and being able to acknowledge and rectify mistakes is a vital aspect of growth. By holding GALs accountable, we promote a culture of continuous improvement, where lessons learned from previous cases can inform and enhance future decisions and practices. Accountability serves as a safeguard against bias and partiality in the work of GALs. It highlights the need for objective decision-making, fair representation, and unbiased advocacy. When GALs are not considered untouchable, it encourages them to remain impartial, ensuring a fair process for all parties involved. Accountability promotes public trust and confidence in the GAL system. When individuals perceive that GALs are accountable for their actions, it fosters belief in the system's fairness and reliability. This trust is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the legal process and ensuring that those in vulnerable situations receive the support and advocacy they deserve. The role of a Guardian ad Litem is of vital importance in protecting the rights and well-being of individuals who cannot advocate for themselves. However, accountability must be an integral part of the GAL system to ensure the best possible outcomes. Holding GALs accountable enhances transparency, maintains ethical standards, corrects mistakes, ensures fairness, and builds public trust. By recognizing that GALs should not be untouchable, we can strengthen the system and ensure that those who rely on their advocacy receive the utmost care and protection.

Allegations of Bias and Injustice Rock Charleston County Family Court System Date: August 20, 2023 Charleston County, SC - A navy combat veteran and Service Disabled Veteran Business Owner, known for his upstanding character and dedication to his community, has been left devastated after the Charleston County Family Court system inexplicably stripped him of his parental rights to his only child. Despite being an involved and loving father with a clean record, he has been informed that supervised communications will now be mandated between him and his child, leaving him and his supporters shocked and seeking answers. It has been nearly one month since this heart-wrenching decision was handed down, blindsiding the veteran and leaving him without any explanation from his attorneys or the court. This sudden ruling has left him unable to understand why his rights as a parent have been taken away, especially considering his time spent with his child and the clear documentation of his parenting time granted through a final order from his divorce many years ago. What further complicates this painful situation is the disturbing history of the veteran's ex-wife, who has repeatedly weaponized their child against him both prior to and since their divorce. Allegations of restricted communication, denied parenting time, and the manipulation of court proceedings by involving their child have been raised against the mother. These actions have only intensified the veteran's determination to protect his relationship with his daughter and seek justice. However, the veteran's pursuit of justice has been hindered by a series of incompetent and self-serving attorneys, as well as a guardian ad litem (GAL) who has displayed undeniable bias towards the mother. Despite having knowledge of the child's truancy issues, unsafe internet usage, and the mother's ongoing alienation tactics, the GAL has failed to act impartially, undermining the legitimacy of the court proceedings. Even the court-appointed therapist, initially eager to assist in repairing the damaged father-daughter relationship, has now seemingly turned against the veteran. This unexpected shift in the therapist's stance has added to the sense of injustice felt by the veteran, who had been hopeful that the professional would help bridge the divide between him and his daughter and revive their once happy healthy relationship. In an effort to rectify the situation, the veteran was awarded a parental alienation examination against the child's mother and for the child. However, the GAL approved a doctor who discredits the examination due to its absence from the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), neglecting crucial evidence against the mother. This disheartening turn of events has left the veteran questioning the integrity of the court-appointed professionals involved in his case. Despite these obstacles, the veteran remains determined to fight for his rights and the best interests of his daughter. In June, he had a two-week visitation period with his child, during which time she had the opportunity to bond with him, his fiancé, and numerous witnesses who observed their loving relationship firsthand. Over 30 individuals who have witnessed the strong bond between father and daughter have expressed their support through heartfelt letters, pleading for their reunification. Now, more than ever, it is crucial to shed light on this distressing case and rally support for this military veteran who deserves justice. Accountability needs to be demanded from those responsible for impeding upon his rights and tearing apart the bond between a loving father and his daughter. In the spirit of raising awareness, it is our collective responsibility to share this story and advocate for the swift reunion of this deserving father and his daughter. Let us stand together to ensure that justice is served and families are protected from the devastating consequences of bias and injustice within the family court system. Please share your support for this father as he is not only a good father, Vetran. business owner, friend who touches many lives he is also a 2 time cancer survivor who won't admit it but the stress of all of this is taking a toll on his already poisoned body. Please help reunite this father and daughter before it is too late and all she has are distorted memories due to her mother's manipulation and the many stories from his adoring fiancé and friends. Please share this post with the hashtag #justiceforveteranfather

The UNSRVAW has ignored contrary evidence, including accounts of women victims and esteemed experts in the field, and broken her promise to publish the submissions she received. The UNSRVAW recommends States prohibit parental alienation from being considered in family law cases. The UN Human Rights Council are due to vote on a resolution for this in its 53rd session commencing 19 JUNE 2023. There are no speakers scheduled to present an alternative view to the UNHRC. There is a high risk for consequential harm to women (and men) victims of domestic violence and vulnerable children if the UNHRC acts on the Report. A UNHRC resolution will disenfranchise people of their human rights:• children of their rights to know and be cared for by their parents pursuant to Articles 7-9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, • children and parents of their right to a fair trial, • children and parents of their rights to family life. -Terrence White What Parents and Family Members Affected by Parental Alienation are Saying; I am an alienated father, my case was heard over 4 years and the evidence submitted proved without any doubt that my children are victims of parental alienation, and contrary to what others say, it was the court themselves who brought up the question of PA being a factor, I had never even heard of PA at this time. The evidence was overwhelming and damning. I have my court documents which made a finding of PA and am happy to share name redacted copies, also court location redacted to prove to anyone that my children's mother is indeed guilty of enacting the venal brainwashing of my children, who adored their father prior to brainwashing them away from their father, whom court determined no safety issues with reference to myself whatsoever. It should be recorded as a criminal offence, but incredibly still is not. - Matt H I have a friend who is alienated from one of her sons because of her ex husband's narcisism trying to get back at her. It has broken her. - Janet J There is a considerable and growing body of credible research evidence showing that parental alienating behaviour is real, not gender-specific, and extremely harmful to parents and children alike. -Anton L I am an alienated parent. I haven't seen my daughter for 7 years. Parental alienation is a form of abuse against children, who are coerced, manipulated and emotionally abused, and against the alienated parent. It causes long term psychological harm. Domestic abuse and child abuse are crimes and should be dealt with and prosecuted as are other forms of abuse. -Eleanor M Family law in Australia is biased towards mother and has nothing to do with child welfare and everything to do with extracting money from fathers. It's a national disgrace. Judges are clueless and corrupt. -Deryk P It is time to help affected children and it is time to clear up false allegations and false theories that always come from a direction where child protection is not the first priority. - Rebecca K I have experienced alienation and it is very traumatic for families and their children. - Corrine Parental Alienation Syndrome is serious children abuse that is happening in South Africa, and RSA justice ⚖️ system is continuing to turn a blind eye in this form of child abuse. -Thembi N Parental alienation is the worst form of child abuse. It should be put to an end immediately. -Riddhi B I am an alienated mother and I support all alienated parents. Parental alienation is not a legal ploy this is real and damaging child abuse designed to punish the other party, get financial gain or simply that the other party does not want to share their perceived possession. Every child deserves two loving parents and not to be used as a pawn in a war. -Renate D This is critical to the freedom of children from the alienating, toxic behaviour of the vengeful parent. -Shared Parenting For India Parental alienation affects Mums, Dads and extended family. Domestic violence is not just happening to women and girls it affects Men and boys as well. -Donna N I am a woman who watched my partner have his three beautiful boys alienated against him for no reason other than she didn't like that we had found happiness with each other.... this is VERY real. Don't be naive. -Emma Children are not property and have the right to a relationship with both parents. -Stephanie D I am the founder director of Split the Difference an organisation born from 6 years international research into the inequality for boys and men. We are currently running a UK campaign for a violence against boys and men strategy due to the gross neglect of their needs and the disproportionate discrimination they experience in services and government spending. I have created and delivered procured services for over 20 years. Prior to this worked within social services and homelessness and through my work , my education and experience, through well researched academic research what we know is that parental alienation exists, it has a specific set of behaviours that can be measured and show traumatic impact on children that is undeniably evident. -Salle Anne B If parental alienation is not real then why do we have so many children spewing hate toward one parent? Does that not tell a story? BOTH mothers and fathers are victims of PA. PA is child abuse and those that do not recognise it are contributing to generations of children who grow up with mental health issues due to being denied safety with the REAL loving parent. Blood is on YOUR hands when you deny PA. -Sarah R Parental Alienation does exist, and is not gender specific. It's time the legal system acknowledges this form of control ! This is damaging innocent children and breaking innocent parents ! -Jenny T I am an alienated mother. The immense grief this has caused to my family and the irreparable harm for the children who have been alienated is unmistakable. I helplessly watch as their lives have been destroyed under the alienating parent -Marijka J Alienated parents have not been able to have a voice in Court systems globally. We live with abuse on a daily basis so can only imagine what it is like for our children when they are unnecessarily involved due to the dysfunctional parent. Please learn more about trauma and parental alienation. I have been robbed of parenting and my child has been completely cut off from me and my family. I am watching the damage from afar and can do nothing to help her. It's excrutiating as a parent. -Louisa W I have not seen my daughters for 8.5 years because of Parental Alienation. -Christine W There is extensive research that is being ignored here. I have generational parental alienation, losing my mum to this form of abuse, then later lost my children for half of their childhoods. I am the founder of Eeny Meeny Miney Mo Foundation. We specialise and do research on this form of abuse. -Amanda S I think the situation needs looking at and the whole system needs an overall alienation is abuse not only to children but the parents who love thier kids should not have that family bond taken away it's wrong the whole system stinks -Rita M I'm paternal grandmother and have not seen my grandchild for 3 yrs . He is being alienated by his mother from his father and grandparents. He was extremely attached to them but this type of pressuring the child into avoiding his own family is no less than child abuse . It's a crime. Parental Alienation is the worst form of child abuse. It needs to be addressed by ensuring that a child enjoys love of both parents and extended families. Please implement shared parenting. -Dr. Sadhna G I have a good and honest friend that has been alienated from his son for many many years, and I have seen how it has eaten him up inside. Dishonest, selfish and narcissistic mother serving her own agenda instead of what's best for the child. -Zane W My son’s mother successfully alienated my son from me. Fortunately, he came back into my life as an adult and we are closer than ever. But the damage she did will scar him for life. PA is real and the motivation and ability of parents who perpetrate it are obvious. The financial and political motivation of those who falsely disparage it are also obvious. -Fredrick H I have seen many crooked women extorting husband making child as a tool of extortion. Although father was loving all the time but he was deprived of his child by the legal system. I need to see change in it. Child should has equal rights by both parents. -Ajay T Parental alienation is a social disease. Which should be abolished for the holistic development of our future generations -Debashree T I was a decent, capable, loving and dedicated father. I faced malicious false allegations and both I and my entire family were Alienated from my two young daughters without reason. -Adam B Parental alienation is real. It has been proven to exist and it is a coercive controlling device used to perpetrate psychological abuse of the child and alienated parent. Denying it's existence will aid personality disordered parents to continue to use it as a tactic to exact punishment and keep control. Woman also perpetrate alienation. Recognizing the dangers of PA will not give male abusers access to vulnerable children f proper investigation is done of circumstance. I am a women and mother - the victim of parental alienation perpetrated by a possessive, controlling, vengeful man. It is a reality!!! -Roxana F I am an alienated mother. My children have been psychologically damaged, some of which is likely irreversible. The alienation has stolen their childhood and peace of mind. For years I have dealt with this, along with consistent verbal abuse, false allegations, public humiliating and isolation. Professional after professional has not only abandoned is in fear -Rael L Loving parents who experience the alienation of their children know that this report is utter nonsense. Worse still, it fails to protect children who, by their alienation from a loving parent, are being subjected to abuse. Shame on you! -Dan F Alienation started in my family over 40 years ago. It’s inter-generational and has no gender. The longer we refuse to recognise it for what it truly is, the longer children, the targeted parent and extended families will suffer. Pretending it isn’t happening or is only happening to mothers is dishonest and damaging society as a whole. -Felicity S If you're looking for proof that Parental Alienation exists and that it affects real families and real lives, this doesn't even scratch the surface. It has been estimated that over 22 Million adults have been the target of parental alienation in the United States alone. The effects of Parental Alienation can cause irreparable damage to whole family units that can last for generations. If you would like to make a difference please consider signing this petition before June 19th Sign this petition Parental a Alienation: UN Human Rights Council to investigate UNSRVAW's Report

I can’t say that I’m an alienated child per se. But my mom to this day won’t tell me who my father is. My daughter took a different dna test and matched with someone who is said to be a first cousin to her. That means that person’s uncle is my dad. Well she has two uncles and they are both dead. I will never get to know if he knew about me, if he would have loved me, if he would have been proud of me. I’ve wanted to know for so long and here’s my chance as the cousin says that her cousins have done this test and one of them should be my half brother or sister. And for all of you alienating parents out there keeping your kids from thier other parent. Maybe you should ask my mom what I said to her the last time I spoke with her. #parentalalienation #kidsdeservebetter #kidsdeservebothparents #dadsmatter