So Judge says to me, “Why does it matter why child is afraid of Dad? Child is afraid of Dad”
I’m stymied. How could Judge not “get it”?
It matters because it’s called parental alienation. Dad is stripped of parenting time and forced to go to child’s therapy session. Dad learns that child is afraid of Dad because Mom tells child:
Dad is putting razor blades and nails in Mom’s car;
Dad is going to kidnap child and child is never going to see Mom again
Mom tells child not to talk to Dad because Dad will say mean things about Mom and make child upset and Mom will have to hospitalize child (Mom involuntarily hospitalized older sibling for 24 hour psych hold)
Mom has previously “kidnapped” child violating court ordered parenting time because child is “fearful” of Dad.
End result, Dad has parenting time with child stripped due to child’s fear. Although Dad doesn’t see child, child becomes more fearful of Dad. Mom fails to tell Dad where child’s game is and points out Dad isn’t there and doesn’t care. When Dad is at game, Mom points out Dad is there “stalking” child. Mom does more to shelter scared child from Dad’s abuse ala Munchausen. Self-fulfilling. I think thild suffers from Stockholm Syndrome.
Why can’t Judge see the alienation? Especially since child keeps getting more fearful even though dad’s time keeps shrinking?