Lena Hellblom Sjögren, Ph.D. and licensed psychologist 2017-07-26
All over the world mothers and fathers, after a separation when they have not been able to see to their child´s best interests and human and legal rights to have a loving contact with them both, they can be made dangerous. Without, in fact, being dangerous, or having done any harm to their child.
This is a process of influencing the child to think as negatively about a parent as the other parental part does. It also includes making the child understand that showing positive feelings for the other parent can make him or she lose also the parent who has taken control over the child´s life.
When the child has incorporated the other parent as the ”monster” the controlling parent has pictured that parent, the effect is that the child expresses it as the child´s own thinking and will not to have any contact. The child rejects a former loved parent as an alien and calls that parent by the first name, doesn´t want to have any contact with anyone connected with that parent, and come up with often absurd explanations why. The child´s mind has been kidnapped. The child shows no ambivalence, contrary to the case when the child has a substantiated reason to reject a parent.
This process of being taken hostage harms the child. In Brazil, Romania and Croatia it is criminalised to emotionally abuse a child. It is a fact that psychological abuse, can be much more harmful to the child´s health and development than physical abuse.
To grow to a healthy, whole and moral person the child needs to be allowed to receive love and acceptance from both parents and to be able to a great extent share a daily life with both parents. These needs, in accordance with the best interests of the child,
are sadly enough not on the agenda in most custody conflicts taken to court. One example is the long process between two parents in the US, Paul and Anna Anka.
As I, and many with me, see it, there are no winners in these processes. The biggest loser, though, is the child.
When judge Walsh recently decided that their son should not, against ”his will”, see or have any contact with his mother, this, in my opinion, harms him. Here is what his mother, who had been made dangerous, wrote as her comments after the judgment.
”Here are my comments to the Judge order.
I am not giving up this fight…..since the appellate court has the last word, not Judge Walsh.
Judge Walsh failed to find me guilty of any abuse or that I am detrimental in any way to my child. So failing to provide for any visitation or solution as Family Bridges program that I had asked for is incorrect as a matter of law!
An appeal means that the court of appeal will review Judge Walsh recent orders to determine whether or not Judge Walsh acted within the boundaries of the law. If the court of appeal determines that Judge Walsh acted improperly they can reverse his orders and make new orders or give me a new trial.
Judge Walsh has strayed outside the boundaries of the law in several respects, including but not limited to:
First: Judge Walsh made findings that it WAS in Ethan’s best interest to have a relationship with me, his mother, especially taking Paul’s old age of 76 years into consideration and then only to award me NO contact 2 months later???? Based on no facts or evidence!
Second: Failing to make orders consistent with the evidence presented by courts own 730 expert Dr. Katz and other experts from the trial.
Third: making an order that is inconsistent with the public policy of the state of California that Ethan has frequent and continuous contact with me his mother.
Fourth: making an order that terminated my parental rights without making any findings required by law. He took my constitutional rights away and it is not allowed in the US.
It is extremely sad that Paul would say it was the best day of his life when the court said Ethan did not have to see his mother. There is nothing happy about Ethan, or any child losing a LOVING, CARING mother who wants to have a relationship with their child.
Ethan’s mind is being held captive and he behaves the way Paul wants him to behave.
Paul can poison his mind but he can not poison his heart!
Sincerely Anna Anka”
A few quotations from the court documentation about what some of the experts
:
”The data strongly supports that Mr. Anka has not compiled with Court Orders and has not followed the instructions of therapists, in particular, because he feels he knows what is best for his son.” /page 94/
”His desire to punish Ms. Anka seems to be more important that Ethan´s need to have a healthy relationship with his mother.” /page 94/
”All experts agree that the circumstances of this case equate to severe PA (=Parental Alienation), Katz found this is severe alienation when he said that E couldn´t see AA because she is mentally ill; he found AA not mentally ill and therefore PA´s statement is a statement of alienation. /1131:24-1132:28/”
To make this mother, and other mothers and fathers, dangerous when they are not at all dangerous to their children,
can be expressed as psychologically killing on of the two persons who matters most for nearly all children.
Is it ok that it goes on?
Avskilda barn - Secluded children 