From The Golden Lasso
She’s crazy. That bitch is whacked. She’s just being hysterical. She’s too emotional. She’s not emotional enough; she must be lying. She’s a malicious c–t. She’s a maneating succubus. She’s alienating me from the kids. I’m gonna screw that bitch in court.
Karin Wolf, Executive Director of the MCLU, recently filed a new federal ADA lawsuit against the State of New Jersey for using the misogynistic and discredited theory of “PAS” to discriminate against her and her two children, and all women and children similarly situated, in order for the State to extract federal funding via the controversial Responsible Fatherhood initiative.
When women are accused of “PAS” or otherwise being treated as if they have some phantom mental illness in family court, they are being discriminated against under the regarded as prong of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA/ADAAA) and sex-based stereotypical assumptions of “PAS.” This puts them on unequal footing – they do not have a meaningful opportunity to be heard; they do not have full and equal access to the courts. This is a violation of the ADA. States and state agencies such as DCF, CPS, family courts and their judges – are all public entities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA. When they violate the ADA and are receiving federal funding, they can be stripped of that funding under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and made to pay compensatory damages. Under Title II and Title III of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, states, judges, attorneys, and custody evaluators do not have immunity; they’ve waived it as a condition of receiving federal financial assistance.
This is not saying any woman in family court has a mental illness. It’s saying that if the family court is going to treat a woman like she’s got one, they’ve likely opened up a Pandora’s box of broken federal regulations for which they are now liable.
“PAS” is junk science, and using it in family court proceedings as if it were a real mental impairment, violates the ADA. A court can’t take away someone’s kid(s) based on perceived notions of a mental illness, and assumptions and stereotypes of that perceived disability (i.e. Richard Gardner’s misogynistic stereotype that women are the foremost culprits – a convenient excuse for men raping their kids and vehicle for Jedi mindf–king women and children).
“Crazy is the new ‘c’ word.” – interview with Karin Huffer, Therapists: When your traumatized client must face an abuser in court, the federal ADA law can help.
Women being accused of parental alienation (“PAS” and “PAD”), Bipolar Disorder, Malicious Mother Syndrome, being “emotional” (code for Hysteria), or, wait for it, an “unknown mental illness” (code for “PAS” and “PAD”) – all are ADA violations.
Yet, Gardner’s disciples, many of whom are occult, I meant cult, members of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), keep zealously pushing “PAS” and pitting the Responsible Fatherhood initiative against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to generate a cyclical “need” for federal funding and profit.
Because Richard Gardner’s “PAS” theory originated in Bergen County, NJ, all women in all 50 states and U.S. territories might have a claim against the State of New Jersey for allowing him to keep his license and spread discrimination by testifying in over 400 child custody cases. Those claims may even extend to adjudication in the International Court as we see women in countries such as Australia and Canada facing the same discrimination. Incidentally, the AFCC has international chapters in those two countries.
Gardner zealots, such as a one Dr. Judith Brown Greif, has dispensed misogynistic training all over the U.S. Licensed in NJ and NY, and also doing business in PA, MA, DE, CT, VA, and MN, chances are Dr. Greif has come to your area at some point, training your local family court judges, CPS social workers, GAL’s, etc. to discriminate against women. Those who know, would tell you she’s New Jersey’s dirty little secret.
So, here are some insights and Karin Wolf’s recent federal filing further below. And by the way, if a flurry of ADA complaints by women started flooding the USDOJ and federal courts, hmmm….did I mention that the U.S. Attorney General has a duty to investigate pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12133 and 12188 ???
“Parental Alienation Syndrome” (“PAS”) falls under the regarded as prong of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1)(C) and (3)(A); and 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (2).
“Persons with disabilities may not be treated on the basis of generalizations or stereotypes. For example, prohibited treatment would include the removal of a child from a parent with a disability based on…stereotypical belief.” See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b)(3) and (h)
See ADA Technical Assistance Manual published by the U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS):
Protecting the Rights of Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities: Technical Assistance for State and Local Child Welfare Agencies and Courts under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
In addition to filing a federal lawsuit, complaints can be filed with both the USDOJ and HHS:
Thank you to Karin Huffer for cracking the code on how the ADA applies to child custody proceedings when “PAS” is alleged, and Susan Skipp for shining a light on this.
Karin P. Huffer, M.S., M.F.T., PhD, is an American marriage and family therapist, who is known for identifying a potential consequence of legal abuse, the condition known as Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS), a form of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which can be caused by ethical violation, betrayal, abuse of power, lack of accountability, or fraud within the legal system. – Wikipedia
Susan Skipp is a Director at MCLU, has a Masters in Education (MEd), and is a certified Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Advocate and Forensic Disability Specialist.