Til Death... (Oh Captain, My Captain)

I was watching an episode of Elementary the other day, and Sherlock said something to the effect of "when you frame someone, the best result is for the framed person to end up dead, that way they can never prove their innocence".

This is the same goal for a parent who sets out to deliberately alienate a child (children) from the other parent. If the alienated parent ends up dead, the alienator wins. There is no way for that parent to prove their innocence and love for the child(ren).

After all, when an alienator sets out on their path of destruction, they don't just target the parent, the entire circle of family and friends gets drawn in to the abuse. Either others become supporters, or they also become secondary targets of alienation.

For the longest time, the saying "it takes a village to raise a child" was legitimately recognized as a valid concept. It takes both parents (whether together or apart) and both sides of the family, as well as the extended network of friends on both sides to truly help a child grow into a productive member of society. This is how our society once grew and prospered, and it was revisited again as recently as this past decade in educational circles.

Yet this whole idea is totally contrary to the interests of a sociopathic, psychopathic, or narcissistic parent. A parent who alienates the other parent and/or all family members and friends is not interested in raising a healthy child. They are interested in being the center of the universe, and the focus of their child's attention.

Saddest of all is when the alienated parent dies.

I witnessed just such an episode. In this case, the parent was custodial and able to minimize the negativity and attacks by the other parent simply because it could only occur during visitation.

However, once this parent died, the alienator was given custody and immediately kicked into overdrive - making up for years of lost time.

The children were completely isolated from the network of family and friends that they had once enjoyed. Any requests for contact or visits was rebuffed or given conditionally. (The alienator was placing financial demands on others - employment or outright requests for money) as the terms for "possibly" seeing the children.)

It is time to take a stand - to promote awareness of this form of psychological and emotional abuse directed at children and parents. It is time for the "family" courts to recognize that it is a real phenomenon and to enact appropriate evaluative techniques to minimize or prevent its occurrence.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose the flaws in our system!

A Small Death!

Many of us have suffered through the death of a loved one or family member, and have learned about the stages of grief through that experience. (For more information, click here for one source.)

Here is a quick summary of the stages:

1. Denial — The survivor imagines a false, preferable reality.
2. Anger — The individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, it becomes frustrated, especially at nearby individuals or those perceived as being involved. 
3. Bargaining — The third stage involves the individual making negotiations, whether internally or externally, to try to get a desired outcome.
4. Depression —During the fourth stage, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen, or have physical symptoms such as sleeplessness, stomach aches and headaches.
5. Acceptance — The individual embraces the inevitable future, as they perceive it, believing that nothing can or will change.

For a child, being removed from a parent is a form of loss. It may not be permanent (although an alienator and CPS will do their best to make it permanent), but the stages are no different.

CPS and parental alienators, either consciously or subconsciously, through planning or ignorance, take advantage of these stages in order to "prove" their case against the targeted parent.

Let's walk through each one.

1. Denial - Initially, a child will act as though everything is "business as usual" when they are dealing with being removed from a parent, or denied access to that parent. Children are usually very resilient and will perceive the situation as just a small problem. CPS uses this apparent "lack of caring" as "proof" that the child has been abused and is now "relieved" that they are no longer in the "abusive" environment. An alienator uses this stage as an opportunity to point out that the child really doesn't have feelings for the other parent and the denial of contact or change in custody should continue.
2. Anger - As time passes, and the child realizes that what has been forced on them isn't just a temporary problem, the child begins lashing out, especially at the targeted parent. Children are very instinctively intelligent, and realize that reacting against the people who have custody and care would result in punishment and repercussions. Instead, they respond with anger towards the targeted parent for several reasons - they are encouraged to do so by CPS or alienators, and because the child perceives that the targeted parent has failed to protect them and rescue them from the situation. Meanwhile, both CPS and alienators are able to strongly advance their case in court at this stage, by pointing out that the child "lashing out" at the target parent is further "proof" that the child was abused and should be kept from contact with that parent.
3. Bargaining - The next phase the child moves through is often known as "magical thinking". The child believes that if they do everything that is expected of them they will be able to get back to their parent. They usually do not express this outwardly, but instead become fully compliant with all expressed and unspoken wishes from CPS or the alienating parent. And once again, this is used as "documentation" and "proof", but now CPS and the alienating parent are able to present "documentation" for their case. The marked improvement (in behavior, attitude, grades, etc.) is now highlighted by CPS as being "proof" that the child was abused - confirming any false allegations that have been made. (This falls under the misuse of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, read more by clicking here.) The alienating parent uses the changed behavior as further "proof" that the child does not need or want contact with the target parent.
4. Depression - During the grieving process, the child will often exhibit symptoms of depression - sleeplessness, crying, headaches, stomach aches. These may occur concurrently with other phases. These symptoms are "welcomed" by both CPS and alienators - they are able to point to concrete "proof" that any relationship with the target parent is causing the child physical distress. Regardless of when the child exhibits the symptoms, they are used to indict the target parent. If the target parent is still being allowed contact with the child, the physical symptoms are used to "prove" that the child is distressed before a visit or after a visit (so they can cover all the bases, because it is always before or after a visit). If the target parent has no contact, CPS and the alienating parent use the symptoms as "proof" in a different way - they claim that the child is fearful that visits will resume.
5. Acceptance - Children actually know much more than they are given credit for. When, in their minds, the child believes that they will no longer be able to resume their relationship with the target parent, they become resigned to the situation. This is the point when CPS uses the situation to justify adopting the child out, and when the alienator justifies sole custody with no visitation.

The saddest part of all is that an abusive system (CPS and Family Court) and abusive parents (alienators) utilize a time when a child is grieving to further victimize and abuse the child and the family. Most sane and rational people are able to recognize the common sense of what is spelled out above, and realize that neither CPS nor alienating parents are doing what is in the best interests of children.

Stop the insanity! Stand up, speak out! Expose CPS!

Drop the S

I didn't do my homework...and so I had to go through and revise my blog to change a number of references.

In my blog entry (now PA + NPD = Toxic Parenting) I mentioned that PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) was not recogonized by the APA and did not exist in the DSM-IV or DSM-5. Neither does Parental Alienation - without the "Syndrome" designation.

But when I did some further digging as to why Richard Gardner, the "author" of PAS was considered rather fringe in the psychiatric community, I had some interesting information forwarded to me by Mike Volpe.

I would recommend that all of you who are using the #PAS and identifying yourselves as victims shorten it to PA, Estrangement, or PT (for Pathological Triangle - as it is identified in the DSM-IV and DSM-5).

Read through the article: Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner's Opinions and scroll down to the bottom to find out how inappropriate many of his views on pedophilia actually are.

Alienation strategies and tactics do exist. There is no doubt about that and I have been subjected to some of the worst, as have many of you reading my entries.

Estrangement is used as a weapon by parents to "gain the upper hand" or "win" in Family Court with custody issues. Alienation techniques are used by CPS to fracture the bond between parents and children to fast track adoptions. These methods are encouraged by unscrupulous attorneys hoping to boost their "track record" in Family Court and secure more clients - sort of a warped pyramid scheme.

But you are known by the company you keep, and affiliating (unknowingly) with the junk science of a man who has less than desirable views on pedophilia damages credibility of a legitimate cause.

Lose the "S" - use Alienation or Estrangement, Pathological Triangle, but don't affiliate with a cause that defends the sexual abuse of children.

Stand up, speak out, educate yourself!

PA + NPD = TOXIC PARENTING

One thing that has stood out throughout my readings on PA (Parental Alienation) is that it carries many of the same markers as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

Although PA has not been included under that label in the DSM-IV or DSM-5, it actually has been present in both editions under other descriptions. The phrases used are "pathological triangle" and "estrangement", and there are several different codes that are used for a diagnosis of what is essentially Parental Alienation. Click HERE for an article describing the presence of PA in the DSM.

However, NPD is definitely listed as a DSM-IV and DSM-5 disorder and many attribute the presence of PA to a parent who has NPD or borderline NPD. Two of the specific traits which most likely contribute to the inability to recognize that the PA they are inflicting is wrong is their lack of empathy, and their intimacy issues. They see relationships as being superficial and self-serving and are unable to recognize the harm that they are doing to others.

Indeed, when you google PA + NPD, there are multiple pages of articles that appear. To a tee, whether or not they acknowledge the legitimacy of PA, they acknowledge that NPD causes very toxic parenting - almost a scorched earth for the alienated parent as well as the children and any family members who are included under the umbrella of the alienator's abuse. The only one who "wins" (at least in their warped perspective) is the alienator him/herself.

Worthy of a read are the following selections:

• Narcissistic Personality Disorder and PAS
• Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
• Parental Alienation & Narcissistic Personality Disorder
• Adult Children of Parental Alienation
• Borderline Personality Disorder and Parental Alienation Involve Similar Abusive Behaviors
• How Sociopathic Parents Use Police Reports for Defamation

There are many others available, but these seemed to be fairly comprehensive and research based.

Ultimately, what is important to recognize is that the techniqes and strategies used in what is now commonly known as Parental Alienation (PA) definitively fall into the range of emotional and psychological abuse - not just for the child(ren) involved, but also for the targeted parent and family members.

The environment of Family Court and the CPS system not only don't discourage PA, they actually provide a venue which fosters the behaviors. This is totally contradictory to their stated mission - providing support to maintain families. Yet without PA and NPD, the entire system would collapse for lack of business. So they maintain this unhealthy climate to provide themselves with job security.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt agency and system for the abusers that they are!

The Ten (CPS) Lies

The Ten Lies

that CPS will tell the Family Court and you:

1. We present the truth and nothing but the truth. (Even CPS caseworkers will admit that they lie and "embellish" reports to win cases.)
2. We do not let monetary reward, promise of promotion or threat of discipline, political aspirations, opinions of superiors or outside agencies, or anything else influence our quest for the truth. (The Federal Adoption Incentive is a prime example to the contrary. CPS caseworkers are coming forward in increasing numbers to expose the threats and promises that are used to govern their behavior and document the lack of regard for the truth.)
3. We have thoroughly investigated every case and collected all evidence, reports, and statements. (Multiple case files document that CPS caseworkers routinely ignore or suppress statements from any individual who does not support their case. Additionally, some documentation can be found to support the idea that CPS recruits local law enforcement to assist in this effort.)
4. We only put facts into our paperwork. (CPS uses "copy and paste" to create court documents, and often fails to delete incorrect information from a prior case or enter correct information from the current case. Even when changes and modifications arise as a result of court action, the CPS paperwork remains uncorrected resulting in continued need for court action to correct it. Additionally, CPS caseworkers often shred their handwritten notes to prevent fact checking regarding cases.)
5. We honor the concept of family and respect the father and/or mother and their right to be different from us in their parenting approach. (The reality is that CPS is a "nanny state" entity that believes in "our way or the highway", and will punish any parents/family who have different beliefs or practices. Many caseworkers are young and do not have children of their own, so do not have a realistic concept of parenting. Additionally, in some instances caseworkers can be documented as having inappropriate parenting skills themselves.)
6. We will not kill familial relationships through the use of alienation tactics. (CPS is one of the prime manipulators in PAS and whole family alienation - they remove children from their parents, block contact between family members, and encourage caseworkers and foster parents to discuss cases with the subject children in a way that is derogatory to the parents and other family members.)
7. We are impartial and only represent the best interest of children and families. (In reality, CPS will support whichever parents and family members assist them in pursuing their actions. CPS has also been known to place children with parents and foster parents who have a history of abuse or other inappropriate behaviors.)
8. We don't take children from their parents unless we absolutely have to. (CPS will take children from their parents even when there are no issues that endanger the child in any respect. Then the parents must jump through hoops that fiscally benefit them and their partner agencies before their children are returned to them.)
9. We do not bear false witness against any family member. (Except when they can win cases by doing so...which is pretty much every time.)
10. We do not desire to remove children or destroy family relationships. (Enough said - they do it because it gives them job security.)

This is a companion resource to The Ten Commandments - which should be a blueprint for the reform of the CPS and Family Court System.

PA - Connect the Dots

At the time of the false allegations against Jon Massey, my youngest daughter was on visitation with her father in Canada (he is a Canadian citizen, we only live 30 minutes from a border crossing).

My daughter was born here in the US, had lived with me her entire life (she was almost eight), and I had been granted full custody by NYS Family Court, a United States court. This was reaffirmed when she was three years old due to some issues that had arisen.

Ken Shaw had only asked for visitation every third weekend, two weeks during the summer, and half of her Christmas vacation (beginning on Boxing Day - December 26th), and recently he had dropped off even some of his summer visitation time on weekends - despite the fact that he repeatedly claimed that he wanted her more and that I was keeping him from having her more. We have the court transcripts to confirm the true version, not the line of revisionist history that Ken Shaw was giving to CPS, Family Court, and his family members.

Additionally, at the time of the false allegations, Ken Shaw was 17 months in arrears in child support - he had failed to make any payments since March of 2011. The amount owed was over $3000, more on that later.

At the onset, Ken Shaw repeatedly stated to: my neighbors, myself, Jon Massey, my attorney, Jon's attorney, the CPS caseworker, and even my youngest daughter's AFC that he did NOT believe the allegations against Jon, that Ruby was a "liar and a troublemaker" and had been even when he knew her while we were dating, and that she had "told lies about his sons".

He and his wife were reasonably cooperative, allowing my middle child and I to spend extended amounts of time with my youngest daughter, unsupervised at my house while he and his wife went shopping or ran errands. This continued for almost two weeks. And then his attorney, who had been on vacation, came back into town.

I have since gotten multiple reports from local attorneys, as well as several attorneys from other surrounding locales, that they have all had personal experiences in court, similar to what appears next, when they have opposed this particular attorney in a divorce/custody battle. Some of this attorney's former clients have even come forward to document similar behaviors.

My middle daughter was due to graduate from high school, a full year early with a college level math course already under her belt, and Ken Shaw agreed to bring my youngest daughter down to go to dinner and then the graduation, as he already had an appointment with his attorney. But on the day they were due to arrive, Ken informed us that they wouldn't arrive in time for us to go to dinner, and then eventually they arrived barely in time to accompany us to graduation. Afterwards they whisked my youngest daughter away immediately.

Additionally, Ken had taken the time that day to file for custody of my daughter, simply on the grounds that there was an order of protection against me.

Things went downhill from there.  We were going to court at least once a month at this point, and so there was opportunity to address issues fairly frequently. (And I have the transcripts of these proceedings to document what I am reporting here.)

At the next court date Ken and his attorney insisted that all visitations now needed to occur in Canada. They claimed that it was "too far to drive" and "unfair". So visitation now occurred in Canada.

Understandably, my middle daughter and I wanted to see my little girl as much as possible since she had lived continuously with us since birth, but Ken expressed that he didn't want to let us see her every weekend. And the next time we were in court, Ken and his attorney claimed that we were "stalking" him and my youngest daughter using her iPod touch that I had bought for her and let her take to his house - with his permission. (For those of you not familiar with the iPod touch, it can only connect to the internet using wi-fi, and there is no GPS chip in an iPod.) Now I was pleasantly surprised that even my youngest daughter's AFC realized that his claim was a little bit bizarre, to say the least.

So the judge ordered him to return the iPod to me - but for some reason he refused to do so, despite email requests and reminders at visitation, for another four months. When we got it back, there was documentation that someone in his household, other than my daughter, had been using it for a variety of things.

Additionally, at this point, the judge clarified that I was to get visitation with my youngest daughter every other weekend, since Ken had been less than cooperative in allowing us to see her. Other than that there was to be "a supervisor" (not necessarily Ken) specified in the paperwork, there were no other restrictions.

At this point in time, a matter of serious concern came to our attention - my youngest daughter reported that "they" were putting "stuff" on her thumbs to keep her from sucking her thumbs, and both Ken and his wife bragged that they would go into her bedroom at night and "pull her thumb out of her mouth" while she was sleeping. The conversation took place on two consecutive visits, and my middle daughter and I witnessed that my youngest daughter's thumbs were red and raw. My youngest daughter actually named the "stuff" as "Stop and Go", and we researched thumb sucking substances on the internet to get an idea of what was being used. (Sidebar: although we couldn't find "stop and go", we did learn that thumb sucking liquids contained either propylene glycol - antifreeze; acetone - nail polish remover; or capsaicin - extract from hot chili peppers...none of which should be used on a child.) Ignoring the issue that my daughter was obviously under stress from what had been done to her by CPS, use of force or chemicals is not appropriate on a child. So my daughter and I reported this to the CPS caseworker.

And at the next court date, Ken and his attorney claimed that we were trying to avoid his supervision and were "whispering" to my youngest daughter and telling her "inappropriate things". (Apparently in their eyes it was inappropriate to tell her that we loved her and missed her and that her best friends that she had known for three or more years had been asking about her.) We explained that Ken and his wife had been less than cooperative in scheduling visitations, and that they would sometimes cut the visits short because they "had shopping" or "had to visit Mary's mother".

The judge then specified that visitations were to occur for four hours every other weekend. So at least we got a little more specificity that we could hold them to. Meanwhile, during visits Ken and his wife would walk away, and do their own shopping - or on one occasion even got into an argument in a public location. Ken would repeatedly tell my youngest daughter that she was a "spoiled little girl" if we bought her things - books, dolls, puzzles, toys - somthing that we would do every other weekend when she lived with us. My youngest daughter reported that Ken and Mary had started telling her that she was NOT allowed to have us buy her anything. I had to explain that during visitation time it was her time to spend with me and that she was allowed to pick out items and I would tell her whether or not she could have them based on appropriateness or cost. (Yes, there were several times that I told her no based on those criteria.)

Additionally during this time period one of our attorney's approached my daughter's AFC to inform her about the thumb-sucking issue and to request Thanksgiving visitation.

So at the next court date was ANOTHER set of false allegations from Ken and his attorney - once again claims that we were trying to violate the supervised visitation guidelines. And again we presented to the judge that this wasn't the case and that we were getting the runaround on visitation being scheduled, and that we had attempted to schedule time at Thanksgiving and had been blocked by Ken and my youngest daughter's AFC (who had expressed Ken's opinion without ever speaking to my daughter).

The judge ordered that visitation be four hours every other weekend on Saturday, and at this point was really disgusted and kept stating that he wanted the parents to COOPERATE and jointly plan visitation with input from my youngest daughter. Additionally the judge addressed the issue of Christmas visitation and ordered that I be allowed six hours either on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, or the day after Christmas in ADDITION TO the every other Saturday four hours, and for the attorneys to work it out.

Meanwhile, my attorney submitted a petition for custody of my youngest daughter that included details of Ken's behavior over the past years, including the issue of back child support and screenshots from his Facebook page that documented some serious concerns about his mental stability.

About now is also when the nasty emails from Ken began. Every time I attempted to work with him, he would send me an email that stated "I am in charge", "I am in control", "the judge put me in charge", and all sorts of abusive language.

And at the next court date, Ken and his attorney still had not responded to repeated requests from my attorney to schedule the Christmas visitation, so the judge ordered that I not only have visitation on December 22, but also for five hours on December 26. And AGAIN the judge ordered cooperation.

At a home visit with the CPS caseworker on December 21, we informed her that the placement of my youngest daughter outside of the US was a Hague Convention violation and that we would be taking action accordingly. In order to place outside the country, there had to be proof of "imminent danger" and mere 'neglect' did NOT qualify.

Then we had visitation on December 22, which turned into a mess at the instigation of Ken and Mary Shaw. Click here to read the specific details.

So after these inappropriate and physically aggressive incidents that were demonstrated by Ken and Mary Shaw, with accompanying false allegations, we were facing Christmas vacation on December 26th.

At the time, it appeared that that visit went reasonably well, even though Ken and Mary Shaw apparently had a different agenda and later made more false allegations. Click here to read specific details.

Things didn't get any better - on or around February 5, Ken and his attorney filed a response to my custody petition that claimed, among other things, that Ken had overpaid me over $3000 in child support. (This is laughable because I have the reports from BOTH NYS support collections and Canadian support collections that demonstrate his debt and lack of payment.) He also made a number of other false allegations, but NONE of them were about me physically or sexually abusing my youngest daughter.

Since every court date and visit with the CPS caseworker resulted in new claims that my middle daughter and I were being inappropriate at visitation, I started carrying a digital audio recorder that would record the entire length of the visit.

At the beginning of February there was a nasty incident in a movie theater at visitation. We went to a kid's movie on its opening weekend, and the theater was very crowded. We finally found five seats in a row, and I went in first followed by my youngest daughter. Ken and Mary pushed past my other daughter, and I asked if they could move down a seat so that she could sit on the other side of me (which would have still meant that Ken was sitting on one side of my youngest daughter). Ken immediately, in the middle of a theater full of parents and other children, began screaming about the judge's orders and how he "had to sit by Amelia". I once again calmly told him that I just wanted him to move down one seat so that my middle daughter could sit on the other side of me, and I gestured to give him a visual at the same time. Finally, after continuing to yell and make derogatory statements, he moved down.

Within days, he went to the Kingston Police Department and filed another false report. (Note: Kingston Police have been very cooperative in providing dates of reports filed with them. They have stated that they don't believe Ken and feel that my youngest daughter has been coached and coerced.)

The nasty, controlling emails continued as well as snarky comments at visitation. Meanwhile, the automated phone line for Canadian support collections was indicating an escalating level of actions that were being taken against Ken for his lack of payment of child support. The automated system also indicated that notices had been mailed to Ken about the actions that they were taking/going to take.

On March 2 Ken and Mary were late to visitation with no reason, and we learned later that they left Canada and entered the US (Homeland Security was very helpful at that point). Despite the fact that there were no restrictions on phone contact with my youngest daughter at that point, all our attempts to contact her by phone were unsuccessful for a period of two weeks.

On March 9 the Canadian support system phone line listed that Ken Shaw was being served with a Writ of Seizure and Sale for non-payment of his child support arrears.

My daughter and I were denied our court ordered visitation on March 16 because Ken and Mary Shaw wouldn't even respond to phone calls. Later, Ken made the false allegation via email that I had been making harassing phone calls to his parents during that time period. All of our phone records document that the only calls made to any Canadian number were to his and Mary's home and cell phones.

On March 20 Ken made a report to the therapist who was seeing my youngest daughter, and on March 21 Ken made another false report to Kingston Police claiming that I had sexually molested my youngest daughter. These reports were basically dismissed by both Kingston Police and Canadian CPS, we have documentation of this in a letter from Canadian CPS.

On April 2 Ken, after realizing that he was getting nowhere with Canadian authorities, filed a false report of sexual abuse with NYS CPS - and also included that I had sexually and physically abused Ruby and my middle daughter.

We were in court on April 4, and even the judge expressed disbelief, and didn't suspend my visitation. However he also didn't appoint a different supervisor for my protection. I hired a Canadian private investigator to monitor the visitation, and the only thing that she witnessed was inappropriate physical aggression and behaviors from Mary towards my youngest daughter.

We were back in court in May, and the fact that I'd had a PI there came up. The judge blew his top but then understood that in light of the false allegations it had been for my protection. At that time he ordered that I be allowed an adult in addition to my middle daughter to accompany me on visitation. Ken and Mary Shaw and his attorney sat right there, listened to it and acknowledeged the judge's orders. The judge also ordered that there were to be NO MORE electronic recordings, NO MORE private investigators, and there was to be cooperation.

At the very next visitation, I brought an adult neighbor who had known my youngest daughter since she was born. We were already at Denny's when Ken and Mary Shaw walked in. When they saw that I had someone with me in addtion to my daughter, they grabbed my youngest daughter by the wrist and dragged her out of the restaurant without saying a word. The neighbor and I followed them out and I reminded them that the judge had ordered that I could bring another person, and they began screaming that I was I liar and that another adult was not allowed, and they left.

They also sent a fax to CPS inquiring as to when the judge had ordered that I be allowed a second person, and demanding that they have complete control over who I was allowed to bring.

At the following visit, we brought a different adult, with even worse outcome. Not only did Ken start the visitation by placing a recording device in the middle of the table at the restaurant (in direct violation of the judge's orders), his behavior went far beyond what is acceptable or right. You can read specifics of it here.

The judge ordered that an independent psychologist be brought in to evaluate the situation with my youngest daughter, and the DSS attorney ignored the judge's orders to the point that the judge sanctioned him with a $1000 fine. Yes, we have the paperwork on that too.

The outside psychologist interviewed Ken and Mary Shaw, myself, did a psychological evaluation on my middle daughter (he had been given orders to do so by the CPS caseworker - without her attorney's knowledge or consent, and the caseworker later denied it), and my youngest daughter. He then tried to arrange to be at a visitation so that he could get an accurate picture of what was going on.

He called the CPS caseworker and got permission to have Ken and Mary Shaw leave while he supervised. (The court order only specifies a "supervisor", not Ken or any other individual.)On Thursday before a visitation he attempted to call Ken - and a man answered the phone, told him "wrong number", then hung up. A few minutes later Ken called back from the same number and admitted that it had been him. The psychologist made the arrangements that Ken and Mary would leave the visitation on Saturday (with the permission and prearrangement of the CPS caseworker), and Ken agreed to it.

On Saturday I showed up at Denny's and that is when the psychologist let me know that he would be observing the visitation. He explained the arrangements he had made above - it was fine by me since someone else would finally witness the interactions and dynamics going on, someone hired by the court.

When Ken and Mary Shaw arrived, they weren't surprised to see him, but when he asked them to leave, both Ken and Mary became belligerent. Ken refused to leave claiming that he was the only supervisor allowed. When he asked Mary to leave, she insisted that she would NOT leave unless the adult I had with me left also (exceedingly inappropriate as we had ridden together about an hour and a half and crossed an international boundary and he had no transportation of his own).

The psychologist continued to observe the visitation, and Ken and Mary Shaw showed their true colors throughout the whole time. When he appeared at a hearing to testify in February, the DSS attorney refused to admit the psychologist's report, even at the judge's order. My attorney finally admitted the report, over the objections of the DSS attorney, Ken Shaw's attorney, and the AFCs on the case.

Meanwhile, I had an expungement hearing scheduled in January, and the DSS attorney called Ken Shaw to testify. At that hearing Ken admitted that he had lied to the police about at least one incident, and he also claimed that not only did he witness the alleged incidents where I "sexually molested" my daughter and he did nothing, that my youngest daughter had also told him the night of December 26 that I had molested her that day (yet not a word was said to her AFC, to CPS, to DSS attorney, to her therapist, to Kingston Police, to her therapist, or to the court).

Within a few days of the expungement hearing I received a packet in the mail from a Canadian attorney. The packet contained a petition that Ken Shaw had filed in Ontario for custody of my youngest daughter. Filing for an action in a different court while it is already an open matter in a court is known as venue shopping, and illegal in both countries as signatories to the Hague Convention. Yet despite having the signed and notarized petition with us at the Family Court hearing in February, Ken Shaw lied and said that he never filed paperwork in Canada, then changed his story and claimed that he had only filed for child support.

By the time that the trial rolled around in July, the DSS attorney not only did not call Ken Shaw as a witness (despite the fact that he was reportedly an eyewitness to me abusing my youngest daughter and the primary source for her therapist and the CPS worker regarding the abuse), he and the judge effectively blocked the ability of my attorney to call him as a witness.

Par for the course. Connect the dots on this story for yourself. We have the paperwork documentation to support all of this.

PA - The Details

For more information on how Ken Shaw was able to get his foot in the door to get started on his destructive campaign of Parental Alienation, please refer to the Jon Massey Case.

A helpful resource to refer to if you are not familiar with PA is the Canadian Article on Parental Alienation.

It is somewhat ironic that this is one of the easiest articles to understand, as Ken Shaw is a Canadian citizen who has engaged repeatedly in false allegations and attacks on US citizens, and has been supported and endorsed by a United States Family Court and CPS branch, as well as a New York State based police department.

The attacks by Ken Shaw are definitively bullying, and almost a form of terrorism. Ken Shaw is pursuing the ideological goal of punishing myself and my family, and securing monetary benefit to himself. He has not restricted his actions to myself and my children, he has also involved multiple other US citizens, and engaged law enforcement and the courts in Canada to further his goals.

If you read the article cited above, all four factors of PA are present in our case.

Ken Shaw repeatedly used Contact Denial and Access Blocking to limit my ability to spend time with my youngest child, often despite court orders to the contrary. That included coaching her to hang up during court ordered phone conversations and walking out of court-ordered visitations either at the onset or before time was complete. We have witnesses and documentation regarding all of this, that CPS and the Family Court refused to hear. On visitation, Ken Shaw would continuously interrupt my conversations and activities with my youngest daughter and attempt to impose his will on her - telling her what moves to make in board/card games, what books to pick out to read at the library, etc.

The second factor, Unfounded Abuse Allegations, was also present. Ken Shaw began making allegations that I was abusing my youngest daughter within a few months of being given custody by Family Court. The irony is that he was "supervising" each and every one of the visitations where this allegedly occurred. The agency he initially reported to, the Kingston Police Department, not only took no action - they told the CPS investigator in Jefferson County and the Watertown Police Department that they believed that the child had been coached! Yet because these reports came in almost a year after CPS had commenced a case against us (see the Jon Massey Case), CPS proceeded against me full speed ahead. What is most telling is that Ken Shaw claims that he "witnessed" some of the alleged abuse and that he did nothing at the time. To be more specific, he claims that he witnessed an episode (or more) of abuse in the beginning of February, yet he never tried to report it to CPS until April. When Ken Shaw called his report in to CPS, he claimed that I had abused not only my youngest child, but also her two older sisters (who both denied all of it). Even the original Family Court judge stated that he "was very skeptical", that he "saw this happen in contested custody cases far too often", and at that point he wanted an outside psychologist to do an evaluation. Ken Shaw even went so far as to tell two other people that I had molested all my children, one of my friends, several of my students, and that my father had molested me. Additionally, Ken Shaw's testimony at hearings in January and February of the following year was so unbelievable and included his admissions that he lied to the police about at least one incident, as well as an episode in which he repeatedly lied at the hearing to a judge about another matter, CPS REFUSED to call him as a witness at the actual trial. On the other hand, I had people accompany me to each and every visitation, and I had also carried an audio recorder around during visitation - until CPS objected and the judge ordered recording stopped, and the witnesses and recordings can verify that I did not abuse or otherwise violate any court orders regarding my daughter. I find it rather coincidental that the abuse allegations did not even begin until after the CPS worker was informed that placement of my daughter in Canada was a Hague Convention violation as there was no allegations against me that constituted an imminent threat of danger to her.

Addition - April 2, 2015:
In reviewing all the documentation that we have, I just located some very important pieces of paperwork regarding Ken Shaw's false allegations. 

The first is a report from the Canadian version of CPS that he made on December 28, 2012. He claimed that I was being emotionally abusive to my youngest daughter during the visitations. The Canadian CPS report clearly states that they weren't going to act on his claims, and closed the case. This is critical, because later on, when he opens a case with the US CPS division and when he testified at two hearings, one in January 2014 and a second in February 2014, he claims that my youngest daughter told him (or his wife - depending on the version he remembers at the time) on the night of December 26, 2012 that I had sexually molested her in a hot tub (while he was present and watching us, as well as there being three lifeguards, my middle daughter, a family friend, and several other families, one of whom shared the hot tub with us.) Yet in the report of December 28, there is no mention of anything about sexual abuse.

Then there is a second letter from the same agency indicating that they once again became involved with Ken Shaw's "family" on February 19, 2013. This was a few days after a visitation in which Ken Shaw screamed and swore at my middle daughter and I in the middle of a crowded movie theater. Once again, in the letter dated April 22, 2013, the agency states that the Kingston Police are not making any charges based on their interviews with my youngest daughter. As a point of interest, the police never even bothered to contact me for my version - which indicates how strongly they felt the reports were false. The Canadian CPS agency once again closed the case, also without ever contacting me.

Factor three is Deterioration in Relationship Since Separation, and it follows that since Ken Shaw had done everything that he could to interfere with and damage our relationship, this occurred. From birth until the false allegations of Ruby, my youngest daughter had lived with me in the same house, going eventually to the same schools, and had regular contact with her siblings - every day with my middle child and Ruby, at least once a week with her older brother, and at least once a month with her oldest sister. But due to the actions of CPS and the judge, she was no longer allowed ANY contact with her oldest two siblings, and her contact with my middle child was limited to when I was allowed to see her. She was ripped away from her friends (who live in houses on either side of ours, her school that she had attended for three years, and her pets) by the actions of the judge and CPS. The judge decided (as a result of Ken Shaw's deliberate vicious attack on my middle child at a visitation in 2013) that my middle daughter would no longer be allowed any contact. And as a result of Jon's wrongful conviction and subsequent suicide, the judge terminated all my visitation.

Finally is the Intense Fear Reaction which has been repeatedly witnessed by those who were accompanying me to visitation. However, my youngest daughter was not responding to me with fear, but rather to Ken Shaw. This was huge - my youngest daughter has always been eager to please and very compliant - which got her in trouble a few times at school for "following the crowd". What was witnessed repeatedly by the multiple individuals who accompanied me to visitation (including a psychologist who was hired by the court) was that my youngest daughter repeatedly looked to her father and/or step-mother for permission to answer questions or to engage in activities in a way that indicated worry and/or fear. When Ken and/or Mary Shaw moved suddenly or began to speak, she would flinch or get a startled and scared look on her face. But CPS did everything they could to discredit all my witnesses at trial, even the psychologist that had been hired by the court and was considered an expert in these matters in much of Central New York.

Additionally, Ken and Mary Shaw made it clear that they were stalking the social media profiles of everyone who came with me on visitation - often continuing with this behavior long after the visitation.

I'm sorry that I can't give more specific details at this time, however we are heading into appeal and have found that after every hearing and trial, the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses changes to reflect what they have learned from the previous court action.

If you had never heard of PA (Parental Alienation) before - the link at the beginning of the article is a good starting point, as well as the link given in "PA - The Most Recent Chapter".

PA - The Most Recent Chapter

For a view on how we got to this point, visit the Jon Massey Case.

As a result of the direct actions of CPS, the DSS attorney, Ken Shaw's attorney, and Ken Shaw, the judge's disposition specified that the only contact that I was allowed with my youngest daughter was to send letters, cards, and gifts to her through her counselor.

Given Ken Shaw's track record for ignoring the orders of the judges in this case, even when they are written orders, I had to wait until I had a copy in writing to start sending anything to my daughter.

I sent out the first package for her November birthday, and received no response or acknowledgement from the counselor (supposedly a "professional") that it had been received.

So before Christmas I made a phone call to the counselor to check on the status of the first package, and whether or not the counselor still saw my daughter - and received no return call. A few days later I made a second call, thinking that the first had been overlooked.

At that point, apparently the counselor called the DSS attorney, and he contacted my attorney. The DSS attorney informed my attorney that the counselor was no longer employed by the agency in question and that I was to send packages directly to the agency where my daughter allegedly was receiving counselling. I have a letter from the DSS attorney to document.

This whole process took several weeks, so I put together a Valentine's day package and sent it off in plenty of time for her to receive it before Valentine's day.

Imagine my surprise to have the package returned by the agency with a letter explaining that they "were not in a position to accept or forward the item".

The DSS attorney states in his letter that I can send items to the agency, the court order specifies that I am allowed to send "letters, cards, and gifts", and the agency claims that I am not allowed to do so.

So apparently Ken Shaw has either taken my daughter out of counselling to prevent me from contacting her at all, or he has presented the agency with "documentation" that I am not entitled to send her anything.

This is known as Parental Alienation, and Ken Shaw is a master at it. In forthcoming chapters of PA I will describe how he has used this with his other children in the past. He is also a master of deception in other areas and the blog will document how this is a pervasive behavior pattern with him and not just isolated to this case.

Stay tuned, this isn't over yet.