Direct Democracy proposal for Law - Family and Child Protection
Parental Kidnap, Parental Alienation and Forced Surrogacy to be recognised as crimes against children
Should the People's Administration install direct democracy, we propose to make Parental Kidnap, Parental Alienation and Forced Surrogacy criminal offences. Whilst none of these acts are recognised as harmful by UK politicians, it is currently not illegal for the custodial parent to be able to alienate the absent parent or, to abuse the rights of the child by conditioning the child to believe that the absent parent is not the parent or, was a bad parent.
We also propose that mothers become legally compelled to state the truth when completing a birth certificate because at present, while it is a legal obligation to complete a birth certificate, it is NOT a legal requirement for mothers to be honest about who the father actually is and as well as making the process meaningless, this enables mothers to lie to the child about paternity by using a legal document as 'evidence'.
If mothers were lawfully obliged to be honest about paternity at the time of completing a birth certificate, that children who are lied to about paternity will have at least one legal point of reference for if they decide to ascertain the truth of their paternity at any point in the future. In our view, allowing mothers to lie to children about the truth of their own paternity is lawful child abuse and while this is not recognised as a criminal offence, the proliferation of this form of abuse will continue.
While judges use the law to protect a child from possible harm caused to it by the mother's choice of name, there is no will to prevent possible harm caused to a child by it being lied to about the name of its father, who the father actually is, or why the child had no father and by cutting the legal aid budget, David Cameron has ensured that cases of Parental Kidnap and Parental Alienation have increased by 80% [since 2011] and, it is no coincidence that only 20% of parents in these cases are entitled to legal aid. By prioritising savings of just £1.5 BN above children's rights and welfare, the 'party of the family' clearly intends to destroy the family. As well as the negative effects placed upon the child in later life via reconciliation with the truth [if this should ever happen], non-custodial parents who become victims of Parental Kidnap and Parental Alienation are pushed into a life as a forced surrogate but, they are NOT recognised by law or by society as such.
Parental Alienation and Parental Kidnap infringe upon the rights of the child to know of its parentage and also exposes the child to potential emotional difficulties in later life, if the child is ever reconciled with the truth. Parental Kidnap and Parental Alienation serves only the emotional desires and wishes [not needs] of the custodial parent over the rights, needs and well-being of both the child and of the absent parent and so, this is not prioritising the protection and the well-being of the child and is therefore in our opinion, a direct form of legalised child abuse.
UK common law still refuses to recognise a man as a father unless he was wed [a religious ceremony] to the mother at the time of conception and, this is the only reason for why men always have to first fight for the right to be recognised in law as a father [Parental Responsibility] before they can even attempt to secure access rights [Parental Access] for their children. This corruption is then amplified when the state holds forced surrogates to account if they fail to pay maintenance [for example] because in this case, the law has no problem recognising a man as a father and doesn't even ask for any proof of paternity.
The state has much to hide regarding corruptions within family law and child welfare so, gagging orders are standard in family-related disputes that involve children so as to protect the courts and their corruption. It is not done to protect the child's identity [which is the excuse still given] because, if family courts care so much just to protect a child's identity, then they would care even more to protect the child from anything more harmful - such as Parental Kidnap and Parental Alienation. That's over 80% more children growing-up being wilfully lied to regarding why one of their parents isn't around and, with the full support of the courts because freely-elected politicians refuse to acknowledge that Parental Kidnap and Parental Alienation is harmful to children.
Politicians continue to ignore the hundreds of child psychologists across the UK who continually express concerns about the harmful effects of Parental Kidnap and Parental Alienation to children - such as having to endure the effects of neglect because in these cases, custodial parents have no option other than to lie to their children about why the absent parent [if proven innocent of any malicious accusations] isn't around and, this involves deriding the absent parent. This in-turn leaves children with a negative self-image and in a vulnerable state which can lead to depression, self-harm, bulimia, suicide attempts and many other conditions and, politicians have been made fully-aware of this for decades.
• Labour peer Joan Bakewell; "Eating disorders are a sign of narcissism."
• Alex Romane [PA founder] direct responses; 1 | 2
For example; if the mother [as the custodial parent] wilfully begins to programme the child to wrongly believe that another man is the child's father or, to programme the child to refer to the father as "Stephen" [for example], and not "Dad", the courts will state that she has the legal right to do all of this and when asked about the harmful effects to the child, they will refuse to justify or even reason their stance and instead, they will immediately threaten a father with prison for contempt of court if he asks again [and the same if he threatens to disclose any of this information in relation to a specific case]. The judges in such cases simply have no choice because, the laws that they have to consider come from Parliament and, not form child psychologists.
On Father's Day 2011 [of all days], David Cameron told the country that "Absent fathers should be stigmatised like drink-drivers." In his hypocrisy, he adds that; "leaving single mothers, who do a heroic job against all odds, to fend for themselves simply isn’t acceptable." refusing to acknowledge the hundreds of cases of Parental Kidnap, Parental Alienation and Forced Surrogacy committed daily by UK mothers. Every single case is thanks to Parliament's so-called 'representatives' who refuse to debate the issue and, who also refuse to state ANY reason for why they won't debate it. Ultimately, we hold the unelected President of the UK Family Courts during the 1990's [Elizabeth Butler-Sloss] responsible for all of this because it was her who MPs took their 'advice' from. Incidentally, she has also escaped accountability for running a child abuse cover-up that abandoned abused children so as to protect the bishops who she works along-side in the House of Lords.
We believe that politicians refuse to debate it [and to give a reason for why] because the UK is a theocracy [the Western world's last remaining religious state] and just as with abuse cover-up mistress Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, they want to keep it that way.
• No regard for child welfare - Cameron's policies actually proliferate child abuse
• Cameron and criminal friend blocked UNICEF-supported PA child protection strategy
• PA direct democracy media: State-assisted child kidnap, parental child kidnap and social engineering
Common symptoms of Parental Alienation in adults:
• Conditioning the child to refer to the targeted parent in name as anything other than 'mum'/'dad' [at present, when addressing this particular aspect with regards to how this can affect the child, UK family courts state that it is the choice of the custodial parent to do this if they so choose. More importantly, when questioned about why they continually ignore all of the advice from child psychologists that states the dangers to the child in the custodial parent doing this, they remain silent in their corruption and refuse to answer].
• Supporting or encouraging the child's refusal to visit the targeted parent without reason
• Refusing to attend mediation services provided by the courts [there is no penalty for custodial parents who refuse to attend and very little for those who ignore court orders awarded against them]
• Allowing the child to choose whether or not to visit the targeted parent when a court has not empowered the custodial parent or the child to make that choice
• Telling the child about why the marriage failed and giving them the details about the divorce settlement
• Refusing the targeted parent access to medical and school records or schedules of extracurricular activities
• Blaming the targeted parent for not having enough money, changes in lifestyle or other problems whilst in the presence of the child
• Refusing to acknowledge the child has personal property and denying the child control over taking personal possessions to the targeted parent's home
• Rigid enforcement of the visitation schedule purely to get back at the targeted parent
• Failure to adhere to court orders
• Preventing or restricting access
• Preventing the targeted parent from fulfilling their duties and desires as a responsible parent
• Denying the targeted parent the opportunity to be able to protect the child in any way that a parent deemed fit to parent, would so choose
• Assuming and expressing that the targeted parent may be dangerous because he or she had made threats in the past during an argument
• False allegations against the targeted parent of sexual abuse, drug and alcohol use or other illegal activities by the custodial parent
• Asking the child to choose one parent over the other
• Reminding the child they have good reason to feel angry towards the targeted parent
• Suggesting adoption or changes in name should a parent remarry
• Giving the child reasons for feeling angry toward the targeted parent, even when they have no memory of the incident that would provoke the feeling and, especially when they cannot remember the incident or reasons for being angry themselves
• Special signals, secrets, words with unique meanings or a private rendezvous arranged between the child and the custodial parent
• An intention to use the child as a witnesses against the targeted parent
• Asking the child to spy or covertly gather information to be used against the targeted parent
• Setting up temptations, distractions and/or obstacles that interfere with visitation
• Giving the child the impression having a good time on a visit will hurt the custodial parent
• Asking the child about the targeted parent's personal life
• 'Rescuing' the child from the targeted parent when there is no danger
Common symptoms of Parental Alienation in children:
Listed below is how the custodial parent's behaviour impacts upon the child's behaviour or attitudes towards the targeted parent. If Parental Alienation influences the child against the targeted parent, the observer will see symptoms of Parental Alienation syndrome.
For example; if a child doesn't appear to have a problem with visits, one can safely conclude Parental Alienation syndrome is not severe or present. That is not to say Parental Alienation is not occurring [over time, the child may display severe symptoms of Parental Alienation syndrome]. Often children appear healthy until asked about the targeted parent. Some of the behaviours an observer can expect to see in Parental Alienation syndrome in children include:
• A relentless hatred for the targeted parent
• Parroting the custodial parent
• Refusing to visit or spend any time with the targeted parent
• Having many beliefs about the targeted parent mixed-up with those of the custodial parent
• Holding delusional or irrational beliefs
• Not being intimidated by or not respecting the court's authority
• Reasons for not wanting to have a relationship with the targeted parent based only on what the custodial parent tells the child
• The child not giving the targeted parent the benefit of the doubt
• Difficulty distinguishing between personal memories and what the child was told
• No ambivalence in a child's feelings - feeling only hatred without the ability to see any positive in the targeted parent
• No capacity to feel guilty about behaviour towards the targeted parent or to forgive any past indiscretions
• Sharing the custodial parent's cause to attack and dismiss the relationship
• Hatred extending to the targeted parent's extended family without any guilt or remorse
"I believe that we should enshrine the equal importance of both parents in law because children need the input of both parents, where possible, to ensure maximum emotional stability and happiness in later life. At the moment it is extremely easy for the resident parent to restrict contact between the child and the non-resident parent, as I have found through my experiences, and the current system is extremely slow at rectifying this. Whilst I welcome the additional funds for mediation, in my experience this only works if both parties are aiming to achieve roughly similar things - it irons out the wrinkles. If either parent is simply unwilling to compromise, then mediation cannot work. It is especially difficult to get it to work if the resident parent simply wants to write the non-resident parent out of the child's life. Without parallel court proceedings to enshrine any agreement in an order of the court, there is no legally binding outcome from mediation at all. I would welcome a system whereby there is an agency outside of the court system with the authority to ensure contact between children and non-resident parents goes ahead as ordered. As it stands, if a resident parent breaks a court order for contact, they are likely to get a slap on the wrist and not a lot else."
Voting for direct democracy outside a general election
It is up to us, the people [not the politicians] to use the power that we have always had, to choose to implement direct democracy as soon as possible.
This is not a protest campaign.
In accordance with Magna Carta Article 61 and with UN UDHR Article 21 and with all democratic principals up-held by the UN [which the UK is signed-up to], the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog is a UN-sanctioned and legally recognised voting format for UK reform to direct democracy - even outside a general election.
Vote legitimately for a peaceful and structured UK reform to direct democracy now simply by following the People's Administration's Direct Democracy Twitter blog and when numbers reach a point of critical mass, we'll do the rest.
The People's Administration's constitution for reform to direct democracy and our voting protocols for implementing direct democracy have both been accepted by the UK Electoral Commission and the UN as legitimate. In a general election, the People's Administration DOES NOT have to field candidates to secure your vote on the ballot paper. Outside a general election, you can vote for a legitimate reform to direct democracy now by following @self_rule