Friday, December 17, 2010

Profile of an Alienating Parent

There is a type of parent who holds a grudge against, wants to punish or wants to continue to control a former spouse and engages in a series of predicable and almost uniform events that ultimately harm their child. This person is the alienator.

The Scarberry case provides a great opportunity to see this in action. When the Scarberry marriage dissolved in early 2007 Craig and Christine decided and settled upon an agreement that they would share both legal and physical custody of their three young children. This process worked well for them and the children. Even as recently as February 2010 they were having sexual relations together but not co-habiting.

Then came a bit of tension in the relationship, almost as though they were experiencing the moments leading up to divorce again. As the parties had maintained an amiable relationship for the past three years, which had served the children well, Craig wished to maintain that. To do so, he offered and scheduled for them to meet with a mediator and Christine agreed.

But when the time to meet the mediator came Christine was not there. Three days later she filed a Motion for Modification of Child Custody. Contemporaneously she also filed a Petition for an Order of Protection which was granted ex parte, which means without an opportunity for the Respondent, Craig, to respond.

At a hearing on the Petition for Protective Order and Motion to Modify Custody her claims were refuted by witness testimony. She also admitted that when she stated that she would try to resolve issues through mediation that she actually had no intention of doing so. She simply wanted to catch Craig off guard. A typical strategy of an alienator.

Throughout the 20 hours of hearings Christine Porcaro continued to insist that the man she had selected to have three children with was unfit to be the father of her children.

Sound like Christine Porcaro? Are the children of the "Christian" woman better off without their father's involvement in their daily lives and the major decisions that will affect their education, health care and religion? Christine Porcaro and her attorney Anthony C. Lawrence think so.

To make an accurate assessment though let us first look at the record.

Based upon her admissions in court an investigation by the Madison County Department of Child Services has an open investigation on Christine Porcaro for suspected neglect of their children. MCDCS visited Porcaro's home on Thursday 02 December 2010.

So why did that happen? Scarberry and Porcaro's youngest child has Cerebral Palsy which causes her some difficulty in walking resulting in some falling. Did Porcaro feel that it was necessary to attend to this child's needs or that it was fine for her and her older brother, now age 6, to be left home alone? She admitted in court and the court including in its findings that she chose to leave the children home alone.

Did Porcaro feel that it was necessary to attend to the children's need to be properly nourished or that it was fine to send them to school or daycare without breakfast? She admitted in court and the court including in its findings that she chose to neglect them by failing to provide them with proper nourishment in the morning.

Research indicates that proper nourishment has a positive impact on learning.

Did Porcaro feel that it was necessary to properly restrain the children while they were traveling in her vehicle? These children are now age 4, 6 and 7. She admitted in court and the court including in its findings that she chose to use child safety restraints for the children at times when they were traveling in her car. This is a violation of Indiana law.

Could it be that mother's live-in boyfriend, Brandon Galbraith, who came to reside with her in early 2010 provides such a stable and supportive environment for the children that she feels the children no longer need their father's involvement in their lives? After receiving the Court's Order in November 2010 which denied to the children their right of access to their father, Porcaro allowed Brandon Galbraith to send taunts to Scarberry through email.

More upsetting though is that during the next parenting time exchange Porcaro allowed the children to watch Brandon Galbraith violently attack Scarberry for about three to four minutes. The children were screaming and crying, visibly shaken by witnessing the physical assault on their father which resulted in emergency care at a local hospital.

Brandon Galbraith is now scheduled for an initial appearance in the Anderson City Court on 29 December 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to face criminal charges in the case.

You must be wondering at this point what did Craig Scarberry do that would lead Master Commissioner George Pancol and Judge Thomas Newman to collectively decide that Porcaro is significantly more fit to parent these children than Craig Scarberry. Could it be that he used profanity within earshot of the children at some point during his marriage? The Court says he did.

In Master Commissioner Pancol's 83 years I am confident that he has heard the phrase; sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. Not so in Pancol World where words hurt but leaving young children unattended at home, not using safety restraints for them in vehicles and failing to feed them is not potentially hurtful to these children.

I don't seriously think that custody was decided upon some utterances made after someone stubbed his toe, got frustrated over someone's failure to care for the children or whatever the circumstances may have been. No, I think it had to do with what the Findings actually said; that Scarberry had changed his religion from Christian to agnostic.

What type of parent thinks that her religious preference is better than the other parent and the children should lose their connection to that parent? Christine Porcaro.

What more can Porcaro do to alienate the children from their father. She could deny them the opportunity to have parenting time with their father as she did on 09 December 2010 after her attorney, Anthony C Lawrence, told her to do so.

She could try it again which she did. I was there while an Anderson Police Department officer told her she was in violation of the law for concealing the children and not allowing them to see their father during the time ordered by the court. Porcaro argued with the officer, lied to him during his investigation but ultimately conceded and said she would allow Craig to come retrieve the children.

So what happened when Craig went to get the children. Police were there who informed him that there was a complaint that he had been calling her on the phone and harassing her. Yet, just moments earlier I was there while Craig was not on the phone but instead listening to Poracaro argue with a police officer about whether she would follow the court's order and allow the children to have time with their father.

Another false allegation by Porcaro who with the assistance of her attorney, Anthony C Lawrence, lie to police and the court in an attempt to manipulate the legal system for the purpose of alienating three children from their father and, instead, placing them in potential harm.

So what type of person selects a mate, takes a vow to remain committed to that person for life, breaks that commitment and then tries to remove that person from the children's lives? The Parental Alienator.

David Pissara describes this person as an individual who often "suffers from some type of mental illness. The alienator perceives and portrays themselves as the victim. They are obsessed, consumed and driven, by the goal of destroying the “target” (rejected) parent in the eyes of the child (or children). They enroll family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, schools, churches, police, and the courts in their quest to remove the target parent from their child’s life."
"They need the rejected parent branded as an “abuser” in order to feel good about themselves and their actions. These people are damaged and in desperate need of professional psychological help and extensive therapy."

Christine Porcaro is so neglectful of their children and mentally damaged that the only way she can feel better about being a worthless parent is to try to destroy the relationship that their children have with their father. She is neglectful of the children and emotionally unstable that she tries to portray herself as a victim. She convinces herself that she is not the harmful parent by saying Craig is. Well Christine Porcaro is wrong and needs extensive therapy.

Complete information by Pissaro about parental alienators may be found here.

Stuart Showalter's Political FaceBook page


Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates

©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.


whymewhynot said...

Although, i agree with your findings. I find it kind of stigmatizing that mental illness is brought up any time felt fit. I am mentally ill and have done nothing more than tried to be a good parent to my children. I was stay at home more after medically retiring from the military. I was home when all my children were born. Three girls ages 11,10,and 9. Upon my divorce so that i could be humiliated my ex -husband constantly used my mental illness in the courts to make me out to look fit. Evan after showing letters that he prior wrote how great of a mother i have been. I recently tried to commit suicide and because of this i now have to have supervised visitation. I understand the courts wanting to protect my children from any more harm but, what about the harm it's doing to them from not allowing to be around my kids for no more than 12 hours of which 6 of those are used to travel. This man has constantly kept me in court. This will be the fourth time he's tried to take custody and the first time he's one.But, what i want to know why wasn't the courts on my side after years of not providing support to his children, after his wife verbally attacked me in front of my children, after she spanked my youngest at the age of 2 and left bruises. And even after owing me $1200 in court fees. Why am i looked different because i have a mental illness, when he now takes more medication than me. oh maybe it's because he's white and i'm black. Sorry just had to share my thoughts, the system sucks.

whymewhynot said...

corrections to make me look unfit.