Monday, July 24, 2017

Parental Alienation: Life in the Void for Discarded Parents

Few people would argue that one of the worst experiences one can have in life as a human on this planet is losing a child. When a child dies, it is normal for the bereaved parents to experience grief and emotional distress. It is not a normal experience to have to bury one’s own biological child. Often families come together in order to console and support one another at such a time.
However, there is another way to lose a child – through parental alienation. Cases such as kidnapping, abduction, court orders or contact denial can cause similar grief responses in the targeted parent where a child is still alive, but non-existent in the life of one of its parents. 
The response and the suffering can even be worse than had the child actually died, because the knowledge that the child is still out there, somewhere, means that the targeted parent is unable to go through the usual processes which relieve the symptoms of grief – making sense of the loss and coming to terms with it, and finding positive outcomes from the loss. Many parents never adapt to the bereavement caused by the sudden and complete removal from their life of their biological child, regardless of the cause. 
Some of the symptoms associated with complicated grief and which can cause impairment include:
  • Shock and disbelief;
  • Separation distress – yearning, craving, pining;
  • Failure to adapt – difficulty accepting the loss, avoiding reminders of the loss;
  • Detachment, numbness, absence of emotion;
  • Loss of trust, difficulty moving on making friends and pursuing interests;
  • Feelings of emptiness, meaninglessness; and
  • Rumination, bitterness and anger related to the loss.
Depression and anxiety are also common, often leading to alcohol and substance abuse and general lowering of quality of life.
Alienated parents suffering these grief symptoms can then choose to engage with the legal system and court process, which can be drawn out and gruelling, as the only restoration oriented process available to recover the relationship with their child. They may present with these pathological symptoms at court ordered psychological and psychiatric evaluations, which may influence their evaluation as a capable parent by that ‘expert witness’.  In giving evidence to the court that parent might exhibit depression and anxiety or may get angry and blame the other party – none of which will usually help the case of that party for access to or residency of the child. However, these are normal responses to grief and if an alienated parent were not experiencing them, it would be abnormal.
An alienated parent cannot be expected to have a ‘normal’ grief response and ‘find meaning’ through the court process while enduring ongoing and protracted denial of contact and/or contempt of court orders. It is difficult for any parent to be told that you have to wait six months or longer before getting a court hearing because of procedural delays inherent in the system, during which time you probably won’t see your child at all. Imagine the despair when that hearing gets adjourned for another three months, with no outcomes. Many parents find it difficult to accept the injustices of the system and to not respond with blame and anger, which is not always inappropriate or unjustified. Even in situations where the removal of the child is required for the protection of the child, there should still be concern for the grief responses of both the parent and the child.
In most cases the primary concern is supposedly the “best interests of the child”, however such interests need to consider the mental health of both parents, especially the one left behind. How is a parent expected to accept a court ruling that it is in their child’s best interests to have no relationship with them? How is a child expected to react and cope if the alienated parent commits suicide?
For many alienated parents the result is Prolonged Grief Disorder. For others the pain is so difficult to tolerate that suicide seems like a solution or resorting to other desperate measures such as violence or abduction/kidnapping of the child.
In every family law case there is a winner and a loser, usually after years of waiting and uncertainty. More care needs to be provided to any parent who is faced with losing contact with their child, to prevent the harms that can ensue, the worst and most permanent being suicide. For many alienated parents there is a vacuum left in their life where their children used to be, a void that seems all consuming. The knowledge that their child is out there somewhere, and that restoration of their lost relationship is possible can keep some going, but can drive others off the deep end with emotional distress and eternal yearning.
Of course there are other factors that can exacerbate and further complicate the grief such as financial stress resulting from property settlements weighted in favour of the other, custodial parent, possibly also leading to homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse etc. Nobody can be properly compensated for the loss of a child, but the system doesn’t even try.
Unfortunately it seems there is little that can be done to resolve the grief of losing a child, other than to get as much counselling as possible, to do everything possible to restore your relationship with your child, or to walk away and get on with your own life and hope the child will seek you out when they are old enough and want to find out why you weren’t there for them. All you can do is try not to blame yourself for their emotional and mental issues and other harm that may have come to them as a consequence of being raised by a controlling and emotionally abusive parent, and accept them back into your life, as best you are able to be there for them, and let them know you love them, and always have. 
Published October 17, 2016
Written by Andy Gough    Copied from Linked in

Monday, June 26, 2017

Privacy vs. Freedom of Speech

Privacy vs. Freedom of Speech

Seven years ago I started my first blog, here, on eblogger which I have included as part of this blog. During these past seven years I have continued to be stalked and harassed over my inherent right as a U.S. citizen in sharing my opinion and my videos pertaining to the parental abduction and parental alienation of Ron Cornett's two children, Shelby and Ronald, to include in recent years his grandchildren Korah and Lucas from him and myself. I, as a journalist will continue to present my opinion and my truth.  Journalists are protected by "freedom ... of the press" that is explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while privacy rights of individuals are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Until such time as Shelby and Ronald, themselves take issue with what I've said or done and we as individuals have a discussion about it, I will continue.  All either of them have to do is contact me themselves directly as themselves to talk about it.  I will not accept an alias to be them.  It lacks integrity and character.  From my perspective, until such time as that happens, their omission implies their consent.  Because of Jodi and Donald's lack of positive effective communication and refusal to discuss the matter with Ron, their father or myself their stepmother rationally, and resolve this issue as mature adults I am hesitant to entertain any input from either of them at this point in time as serious, meaning Jodi and Donald.  More explicitly the website where the blogger only identifies themselves with a pseudo name.  This may be an impostor lacking integrity, character and credibility.  If whomever you are is serious enough about your assertions, then one would think you would be serious enough to own up to what you say; take personal responsibility for your own words and attach your full name. Talk about playing games. How immature, irresponsible and adolescent you are.  Still "stuck" in your juvenile behavior!!

Furthermore, anyone who takes only part of a texted conversation/message, newspaper article, medical history, letter or police report and misconstrues the information to imply something negatively biased is a disappointing exploitive, devious, destructive and toxic individual who I do not respect or consider credible.

To Everything There is a Season 2012

Freedom of Speech (written in 2010)
This being my first blog on eBlogger I find it rather synchronistic that it just so happens to be the 4th of July weekend that I post my initial entry. The reason I titled by blog "Freedom of Speech" is because as of late I've come to appreciate living in the United States of America as well as my inherent freedoms that go with being a U.S. Citizen. I am truly blessed. Every now and again something happens in my life to remind me how precious a particular aspect of my life is. Lately, "Freedom of Speech", my first amendment right, is an aspect which I have taken for granted until it was tested recently. I've had my Facebook, My Space pages and 2 websites I've established pertaining to Parental Alienation sabotaged by an individual/individuals that don't respect this as my inherent right. Every one has an opinion and as a U.S. Citizen has the right to express it. However, it is obvious this person doesn't know how to respect boundaries or how to "Agree to Disagree". This person is willing to violate a tenant so basic because it is in conflict with their own point of view and agenda. Such arrogance. This is why we have a justice system in our country. To address such issues. No one person is judge, jury and executioner of anything pertaining another person, as in my case, my opinion. I will say what it is I have to say irregardless of this kind of self serving childish behavior. All this does is fuel my consternation to continue on all the more. So I continue to fly my father's American flag high and carry on. Dad was a veteran of the Korean War. I'm so proud of him. It is because of men and women like him that we live in the country we do today and have all of
our Freedoms. "Freedom of Speech" just being one of them. I say-Thank You to all of our founding father's, veteran's, active duty service men and women. God Bless America.

 Journalists are protected by "freedom ... of the press" that is explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while privacy rights of individuals are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. A public figure has great difficulty recovering for defamation (i.e., publication of false statements). N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580A. See also Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967)(Require finding of "knowing or reckless falsity" before plaintiff can recover under state privacy statute for false portrayal). There would presumedly be even less protection for publication of true statements (i.e., inventory of a garbage can) of a public figure. For the same reasons, a public figure can not recover for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" caused by a parody or satire. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988).

In 1910, William Sidis, a child prodigy, was a public figure. Many years after he became a recluse, a reporter for The New Yorker located Sidis in 1937 and wrote an article that described in detail Sidis' current activities. Sidis sued the publisher for invasion of privacy, what would now be called "unreasonable intrusion on seclusion". The Court of Appeals held that Sidis' life was still of public interest, therefore The New Yorker could publish an article about him. Sidis v. F-R Pub. Corp., 113 F.2d 806 (2d Cir. 1940). This famous case is typical of many subsequent decisions: journalists have the right to report anything that is arguably of interest to their readers. Courts do not want to get involved in evaluating whether the reader's interest is in good taste, socially decent, etc. Still, I am concerned that Sidis' right to solitude — his right to be let alone — was violated because of a nosy public's curiosity about Sidis as a freak. Sidis

There are several television programs in the USA that show paramedics or firemen rescuing people. When someone calls for emergency assistance and a television camera crew also appears and enters their house, the victim is in no condition for either consent or protest to this invasion of his/her privacy. There have been several reported cases in which the victim later sued the television program for invasion of privacy.

Shulman v. Group W Productions, 59 Cal. Rptr.2d 434 (1997);

Miller v. NBC, 232 Cal.Rptr. 668 (1986);

Anderson v. Fisher Broadcasting, 712 P.2d 803 (Or. 1986).

In commenting on the dearth of precedents for similar intentional trespasses and invasions of privacy, the court in Miller noted

There is little California case law based upon facts showing actual physical intrusion to assist us in making this determination, probably because even today most individuals not acting in some clearly identified official capacity do not go into private homes without the consent of those living there; [FN6] not only do widely held notions of decency preclude it, but most individuals understand that to do so is either a tort, a crime, or both.

FN6. There are surprisingly few cases in other jurisdictions as well, probably for the same reason. There have been some hospital intrusion cases where the person whose privacy was invaded was ill or dying; see, e.g., Barber v. Time, Inc., 159 S.W.2d 291 (Mo. 1942); Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, M.D., 365 A.2d 792 (Me.1976); Froelich v. Werbin, 548 P.2d 482 (Kan. 1976); and see, in a different privacy context, Bazemore v. Savannah Hospital, 155 S.E. 194 (Ga. 1930), where hospital authorities summoned the press to take pictures of a deformed infant who had died in the operating room. In California there is Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 109 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1973) where the investigative efforts on behalf of defendant Sears led to intrusion into a hospital room (not a privacy case at all). Many of the fact patterns involved in the above-cited cases are bizarre, and not accidentally so; all involve intrusions generated by a curiosity or misplaced zeal that most persons eschew.

Miller v. NBC, 232 Cal.Rptr. 668, 678-679 (1986). [citations edited to conform to modern Blue Book format]

It is not yet clear exactly where the boundary between "freedom of the press" and privacy of individuals should be drawn. Miller made clear that a film crew entering a home with paramedics (not only was the film crew uninvited, but they never asked permission from the homeowners) was an intentional trespass that is actionable in tort. The court in Shulman held that victims did have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside an ambulance, however this case is currently under review by the California Supreme Court. review granted 934 P.2d 1278 (Calif. 1997). These two cases describe the law only in California.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared

The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office.

Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 249 (9th Cir. 1971).

Saturday, May 20, 2017

May is National Missing Children's Awareness Month

                                                Missing Children Support Ribbon Pendant

Monday, April 3, 2017

April is Child Abuse Prevention Month

This is a Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Dichroic Glass Ribbon Pendant that I made.  I have them for sale at my Etsy Store--here is the link:Sancia's Scented Corner and Stoney Fork Glassworks

"Child stealing is child abuse.....Children are used as both objects and weapons in the struggle between the parents which leads to the brutalization of the children psychologically, specifically destroying their sense of trust in the world around them.....We must re-conceptualize child stealing as child abuse of the most flagrant sort." (Huntington, 1982, p. 7)

Monday, December 26, 2016

Stalking and False Victimization Syndrome

It is time once again to re-post this update on my previous posts on this topic: As you read on take a special note of section discussing "projective identification"..where a stalker claims to be a victim of stalking.

I find it rather sad that some people are such perpetual victim's.

Once again, the mother of Ron's children is claiming that Ron and I are STALKING and HARASSING her and his own children. Yeah, right. Talk about PARANOIA....and out there. She has admitted to instilling this abusive and hateful fear mongering rhetoric into her own children when you read her posts. So sad. So sick. So "mentally ill". When she is the one who initiated contact first, this past March-2010, with phone calls in the middle of the night followed by emails, fake profiles and vitriolic websites. Hacking into my Facebook email accounts and emailing inaccurate information to 100 of my friends and family. Oh yeah and that we've been stalking her for 10 years. Okay then, if so, PROVE IT. News to me. In 2006 and 2007, Ron was commercial fishing. We were traveling extensively on the East Coast and to the Midwest, plus providing hospice care to my Dad while he was dieing in Minnesota. We were away from our home in Maine for 7 months that year. No where near Oklahoma back then. Who had the time or the inclination to stalk her?? Once again, she's putting stuff out there with NO PROOF to back it up. Only more, Confabulation. I try hard not to be condescending, sarcastic and rude, because she is the mother of Ron's children. This past spring of 2014 we did drive to Guymon, Oklahoma where Ron could see where his children were taken some 19 years ago when they were abducted. We spent the day in the court house and police station talking police officer Dolan Sedge getting advice on how to proceed in Ron getting the truth to his children with the assist of law enforcement.

Ron loves his children very much and would never do anything intentionally to put them in harms way. That is all his ex's creation because of her own paranoia, delusions and fear mongering rhetoric that she uses to abuse her own children with because of her obsession with Ron and myself and her narcissistic need to alienate us from his she makes up stories. They are and always will be his children and there is nothing she can do to change the fact of it. We/Ron and I, have both put up information on our web pages and made videos in our attempt to reconnect with them as they mature and come to an understanding of their abduction. We will NEVER give up on this or quit in our attempts to contact them until they are recovered and reunited with their father, Ron. We will always be here for them as their parents which is our prerogative. That however, does not make us mentally ill stalkers, predators or pedophiles because we have a vested interest in the safety and well being of his children and grand children. We have NEVER and WOULD NEVER malevolently "STALK" them or anyone else. If Shelby and Ronald are unhappy, feeling threatened or harmed by anything Ron and I have done or are doing we encourage them to have the tenacity on their own to call us and let us know. 1-207-868-3490. Any lack of contact on their part will be considered as their consent until they inform us themselves, otherwise and we discuss it and resolve it rationally. To this day Ron's children have not contacted me credibly as themselves in a mature manner to discuss any of this. Not withstanding the fake aliases, that are not credible IMO. Neither are the sarcastic comments left on my FB pages. That only shows their immaturity, lack of being taught proper respect of their elders/parents. This kind of behavior is not that of someone wanting to resolve a complex situation as an adult. Furthermore, any information received from Jodi is not taken seriously at all and will not be considered as valid in making any decision relating to us and Ron's children, grandchildren. If she can show proof otherwise then we will reconsider her opinion. Until then, it is da..capoot, you get my drift?? We only want to reconnect with Shelby and Ronald. Not her. We do not care about her; her delusional fantasies or what she has to say. She has had ample time and opportunity to communicate with us in a credible manner, as a mature and responsible adult and has chosen no to. So go away, leave us alone. Quit stalking and harassing us because she doesn't like what we say and our perspective pertaining to herself, Donald, Shelby, Ronald, Korah or Lucas. She has had many, many uncontested years of flapping her jaws and spouting her nasty spew to anyone who would listen to her malicious fabrications. Not any more. The other side of the story-"Ron's Story" will be told over and over again...loudly and clearly. Shelby is now 23 and Ronald 21; and their minor children Korah, 4 years old and Lucas, 2 years old. Both are adults capable of making their own decisions.

Years ago Jodi said that she turned us into the Aroostook County Sheriff for our web pages because we were threatening and harassing her. When she is the one that is going there on her own to look at them. Since when is it harassment to invoke a person's 1st Amendment Right called Freedom of Speech? Since when is it harassment to have a different point of view and opinion other then your own? Do I need to pull out a "Get A Clue Card" here..again? I guess so. Well, evidently, the Sheriff's office didn't take her too seriously since we never even got a phone call from them. Plus, when either of us take down a photo or web page it has nothing to do with trying to look "innocent". It has to do with the fact that whatever the picture or web page was there for has served its purpose. Neither, Ron nor myself have done anything to be guilty about, you.....sick and twisted woman. No matter how hard you try to make us or find us "guilty" of just isn't happening. Just like when Jodi called Montana repeatedly trying to get Ron into trouble for stealing his own car. Give it up...already. We are not the big bad boogy man, creeps, mentally ill escapees, perverted drug addicted drunks, predators, pedophiles, stalkers, extortionists and murderers she's trying to make us out to be...stalking, abusing and harming children. Just because she says it, in her delusional fantasy doesn't make it so. It is only the creation of her "sick and demented" mind. Those who choose to support and believe her fantasies will only get what they are naive enough to believe, from a ...liar. Get over the paranoia and get on with life in the real adult world. All Ron wants, is to have a relationship with his adult children and grand children. To share with them his side of their story pertaining to their abduction and alienation from them. Not her. Which she doesn't seem to get. Her, repeatedly putting these unfounded obstacles in his way is not only immature on her part (grow up-already), but easily documentable of Parental Alienation and child abuse of a mentally ill person.

False Victimization Syndrome occurs when an individual attempts to convince others that he or she is being stalked through the invention of claims made to re-establish a failing relationship and/or gain attention (Zona, Palarea, and Lane, 1998).

Individuals who exhibit these characteristics may also fit the criteria for histrionic personality disorder (DSM-IV, 1994): demanding to be the center of attention, shallow expression of emotions which shift rapidly, and speaks in a manner that is overly impressionistic and lacking in detail.

* This is not to be confused with situations where a stalker claims to be a victim of stalking. Oddly, sometimes a stalker will feel victimized by the person he or she is stalking. This is referred to as projective identification. In other words, the stalker's rage at being rejected (and other unconsciously disowned stalking-related attributes) is "projected" or "put" into the true victim, so that the true victim is now perceived by the stalker to have this rage (attributes/behaviors) and directing it back, hence stalking the stalker.

* A notable problem with the False Victimization Syndrome (FVS) is that it wastes valuable resources. More importantly, FVS is rare and the few cases that do occur should not undermine the reporting and investigation of legitimate stalking cases.

* A conceptual model that categorizes false allegations was developed by Mohandie, Hatcher, and Raymond (1998). Three types of false victimization syndromes are delineated.

1. a. Hysterical paralysis: An example of this would be converting a psychological distress into physiological problems. There are often secondary gains to having a paralyzed limb, such as not having to participate in a stressful or frightening event.

b. Munchhausen: An individual intentionally creates or feigns physical or psychological symptoms in order to assume the sick role.

c. Munchhausen by proxy: The intentionally produced or feigned physical or psychological symptoms in another person, such as a child, under one's care and indirectly assuming the sick role.

2. Known perpetrator:

a. Single event

b. Multiple event (stalking):

3. Unknown perpetrator:

a. Single event:

b. Multiple event (stalking)

The last two categories are similar, save the obvious difference that one involves claiming to have known the perpetrator and the other involves stating that the perpetrator is unknown. Also, these last two types entail more complex motivations and sophistication of procedures by the false victim than the other types (1a, 1b, and 1c).

The characteristics that classify FVS type 2 and 3 similarly are

* multiple situations over time when the victim has been alone with no witnesses and is approached by the suspect;

* major incidents begin as noncriminal contact, but then advance quickly to criminal contact;

* the victim reports these criminal contacts based on what has been learned from the media or someone known to the false victim who has reported these occurrences;

* and claiming to have received injuries, letters, phone calls, threats, followed, or chased.

Given the fact that authorities will be assessing the veracity of stalking victims' claims, having a written documentation of events, saved evidence, and available witnesses makes gaining support and assistance less problematic.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Left Behind Parents of a Child Abduction-Ronald Cornett and Susan Arendsee

In 1997 my partner's children, were abducted from their father's home in Kalispell, Montana along with everything he owned by their mother, A Psychopathic Obsessed Alienator,Child Abductor and Child Abuser and Donald Wayne Griffing, her enabler/accomplice/lover who then absconded with them to Donald's home in Guymon,Oklahoma where they have hidden the children from their father (Ronald Cornett), the Cornett family and myself ever since. 
This leaves Ron as the "Left Behind Parent" of a child abduction.
Eventually Jodi and Donald changed his children's identities by changing their last names from Cornett to Griffiing without their father Ron's permission or consent.  Thus performing a "Parentectomy"  in their attempt to have Ron erased from his children's lives.  Donald Griffing then stepped into Ron's role as their father and had Ron's name replaced with his own on their birth certificates while adopting them.  Ron never gave anyone permission to do this.  His children and his paternal rights as their father was literally stolen from him.  Shelby and Ronald now have two birth certificates registered with the Pierce County Courthouse (1-715-273-3531) in Washington State.  The original from the time of their birth with Ron noted as the biological father.  The second, with Donald's name as their adopted father.
Later Donald divorced Jodi and obtained primary custodial care of Ron's children.  Ron's son, Ronald is now in the legal primary custody of his abductor, not either of his biological parents.  Ron's daughter Shelby, is now 19 and legally an adult.  This is why even though they were abducted and have been reported as "missing"  to The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by Ron and Ron has an open case with caseworker's guiding him in reconnecting with Shelby and Ronald, they are not listed as "missing" on the NCMEC website.  Both of them are listed in the statistic's of children that have been abducted but, not yet recovered on the NCMEC website.  They are "two" of the 13,000 children that have not been recovered and reunited with their left behind parent.  They are still "missing" to their father Ron, who has not seen either of them since they were abducted 15 years ago. 
What would you do if these were your children that were stolen from you and your life, by their own mother and an accomplice-her lover?  What would you do if a stranger came into your home and stole your family and all of your possessions?    Think about it.  Does it sound preposterous?  Well, it is real and is what really happened to Ron and his children.  I call it "Legal Kidnapping"......another form of "Child Trafficking".  It shows you what you can do in the United States of America with enough money, an "ambulance chaser" attorney, like Christopher J. Liebman and a determined unscrupulous agenda.  You can literally "steal" or "buy" someone else's children....legally.  Then step into that "parents" role as the "father".  All a person needs is the opportunity, motivation, an unscrupulous agenda, an unscrupulous attorney and  the money available to do it. 

Sunday, May 22, 2016

From Where You Are

A video we made about Parental Abduction. Ron's children remain unrecovered and unreunited with him since their abduction. We will never give up Hope and will continue to Reach Out to them until the reunification process begins.