• Cassazione, Sezione Prima Civile, n° 16593 del 29/04/2008 (presidente: dott.ssa Maria Gabriella Luccioli);
• ricorrente: P.G. (padre), contro precedente sentenza che affidava il figlio in forma esclusiva all'ex-moglie (R.A.);
• esito: ricorso respinto.

Riporto per esteso il passaggio più significativo della motivazione (pagg. 3-4, il grassetto è mio):

Nel quadro della nuova disciplina relativa ai "provvedimenti riguardo ai figli" dei coniugi separati, di cui ai citati artt. 155 e 155 bis, come modificativamente e integrativamente riscritti dalla legge n. 54 del 2006, improntata alla tutela del diritto del minore (già consacrato nella Convenzione di New York del 20 novembre 1989 resa esecutiva in Italia con l.n. 176/1991) alla c.d. "bigenitorialità" (al diritto, cioè, dei figli a continuare ad avere un rapporto equilibrato con il padre e con la madre anche dopo la separazione), l'affidamento "condiviso" (comportante l'esercizio della potestà genitoriale da parte di entrambi ed una condivisione, appunto, delle decisioni di maggior importanza attinenti alla sfera personale e patrimoniale del minore) si pone non più (come nel precedente sistema) come evenienza residuale, bensì come regola; rispetto alla quale costituisce, invece, ora eccezione la soluzione dell'affidamento esclusivo.

Alla regola dell'affidamento condiviso può infatti derogarsi solo ove la sua applicazione risulti "pregiudizievole per l'interesse del minore".

Non avendo, per altro, il legislatore ritenuto di tipizzare le circostanze ostative all'affidamento condiviso, la loro individuazione resta rimessa alla decisione del Giudice nel caso concreto da adottarsi con "provvedimento motivato", con riferimento alla peculiarità della fattispecie che giustifichi, in via di eccezione, l'affidamento esclusivo.

L'affidamento condiviso non può ragionevolmente ritenersi comunque precluso, di per sé, dalla mera conflittualità esistente fra i coniugi, poiché avrebbe altrimenti una applicazione, evidentemente, solo residuale, finendo di fatto con il coincidere con il vecchio affidamento congiunto.

Occorre viceversa, perchè possa derogarsi alla regola dell'affidamento condiviso, che risulti, nei confronti di uno dei genitori, una sua condizione di manifesta carenza o inidoneità educativa o comunque tale appunto da rendere quell'affidamento in concreto pregiudizievole per il minore (come nel caso, ad esempio, di una sua anomala condizione di vita, di insanabile contrasto con il figlio, di obiettiva lontananza...)

Per cui l'esclusione della modalità dell'affidamento esclusivo dovrà risultare sorretta da una motivazione non più solo in positivo sulla idoneità del genitore affidatario, ma anche in negativo sulla inidoneità educativa del genitore che in tal modo si escluda dal pari esercizio della potestà genitoriale e sulla non rispondenza, quindi, all'interesse del figlio dell'adozione, nel caso concreto, del modello legale prioritario di affidamento.

5-bis. Da tali principi, contrariamente all'assunto del ricorrente, non si è però, nella specie, discostata la Corte di merito.

La quale ha preso, infatti, atto del comportamento gravemente screditatorio, della capacità educativa della madre, adottato dal marito con non provate accuse anche di sue relazioni omosessuali ed ha correttamente quindi valutato tale comportamento in termini non di mera conflittualità tra i coniugi, ma di oggettiva inidoneità del padre alla condivisione dell'esercizio della potestà genitoriale in termini compatibili con la tutela dell'interesse primario del minore, "mentre la madre aveva mostrato, invece, disponibilità a favorire rapporti tra il padre e il figlio, che allo stato appare sereno e ben integrato scolasticamente".

Dal che, appunto, la non fondatezza anche del motivo in esame.

Detta sentenza, spazza via al tempo stesso entrambi i miti che resistono nel settore e che minacciano una corretta e ragionevole applicazione del principio di bigenitorialità:

• il "vecchio mito" (ancora diffusamente coltivato da una larga fetta di esperti e tribunali), per cui gli affidamenti condivisi sarebbero sempre da evitare in presenza di forte conflittualità genitoriale. Questa sentenza ci ricorda invece che la mera conflittualità, per quanto aspra (se resta "leale" tra i due coniugi, ovvero senza  tentativi di alienazione reciproca), non dovrebbe essere presa a scusa sufficiente per rinunciare all'ideale di bigenitorialità;

• un contrapposto "nuovo mito" (che sta prendendo sempre più piede tra i nuovi sostenitori della "bigenitorialità a tutti i costi"), secondo il quale l'affidamento debba risultare condiviso sempre e comunque, anche nei casi di PAS (sindrome da alienazione parentale), in aperto contrasto con la stessa interpretazione di Richard Gardner, che proponeva invece l'imposizione di duri regimi di separazione del minore dal genitore alienante, come unica arma per impedirgli di estinguere del tutto il rapporto con l'alienato. La piena bigenitorialità è un valore ideale per cui è certamente giusto spendersi, ma non andrebbe dimenticato che essa si può trasformare in una utopia illusoria quando è aggredita da un vero e proprio tentativo di alienazione da parte di uno dei due genitori, soprattutto se massiccio e guidato da importanti disturbi di personalità (del tipo che difficilmente si lascerebbero ammansire solo da buoni propositi e blande raccomandazioni). Coloro che non sentono l'urgenza di tenere il minore sufficientemente separato e protetto dall'alienante, spesso non ottengono altro risultato che lasciare spazio a costui per terminare la propria opera di soppressione del rapporto tra il minore e l'ex coniuge alienato. Ne deriva che, in barba alle speranze dei benintenzionati, di fronte alla PAS grave uno dei due rapporti genitoriali potrebbe risultare comunque spacciato, e rischia inoltre di sopravvivere proprio quello "peggiore" qualora ci si illuda di poterli salvare entrambi, impuntandosi su un condiviso impossibile. "Bigenitorialità" e "affidamento condiviso" non sono affatto sinonimi e non vanno ingenuamente confusi, come se fossero tra di loro in rapporto diretto ed univoco, per cui basti invocare l'uno per ottenere sempre anche l'altro. Venendo al caso trattato dalla sentenza n. 16593/2008, nonostante le citate manovre paterne di screditamento verso l'altro genitore e alienazione dal figlio appaiano solo di media gravità rispetto alla fenomenologia generale della PAS, la sentenza li ha valutati comunque come gravi comportamenti pregiudizievoli, in linea di principio sufficienti a giustificare inidoneità dell'alienante e disporre un affidamento esclusivo al genitore alienato. Si ribadisce in ciò lo spirito gardneriano originario dell'esclusione dell'alienante dall'affidamento come dispositivo anti-PAS e come manovra estrema di salvataggio di una bigenitorialità, magari temporaneamente amputata, ma almeno realistica.

In conclusione, la sentenza 16593/2008 impone una radicale differenziazione operativa tra mera conflittualità genitoriale da un lato, e le vere e proprie manovre di alienazione dall'altro, riconoscendo solo a quest'ultime la grave potenzialità di pregiudizio per il benessere del minore, criterio necessario e sufficiente a motivare una sospensione della bigenitorialità e la scelta di affidamento univoco al genitore alienato.

Whoa, just a second now, you might want to wait just a little bit before you go and buy that Macbook you've been craving. Why? Because new Macbooks are expected to be released within a month from now. The rumor has been around for a little while now that the new Macbooks were to come late this year. As we got closer and closer to the end of the 2008 the rumors started getting more precise speculating a September/October announcement. Rumors then changed to October 14th after Apple only announced their new iPods and iTunes at their "Let's Rock" event last week. But now Engadget, MacRumors, and other sites have been reporting that the new Macbooks have already started to ship! CitiGroup's Richard Gardner claims that he has received confirmation that new Macbooks are shipping. He describes the new Macbooks to be, "very thin aluminum casing, an LED-backlit display and an aggressive entry-level price point." and cites "field checks" as the source of his findings. Here is an excerpt of what Macrumors had to say about this report:

This description matches many of the circulating rumors, including photos that claimed to depict the new MacBook. Also, the "aggressive" price point could also represent the lower margins that Apple predicted for future quarters during their Q3 2008 Financial Results. At that time, Apple described a "future product transition" which could impact margins. 

So there you go, I'm sure you can wait just one more month before buying a brand new Macbook. The most recent claims have reported an Oct. 14th release date. Are you planning on getting a New Macbok? Do you already own a Macbook and plan to upgrade? Let me know in the comments!

I was once given advise that if you are going through a custody battle that it is best to "lie your ass off". I went in telling the truth. Even when tough questions were asked about myself, I told the truth. The court decided to follow the formula of Dr. Richard Gardner--mother sexually obsessed with ex makes false allegations of abuse, the only cure is to take the children from the mother (even though she is the primary caretaker) and place them in the unstable home of the abuser, the mother must be mentally ill or something, any therapist who substantiates abuse has been manipulated, pack up them kids--let's go! Would I have been better off to lie? I don't know. I can say that speaking out about abuse to family court, has only caused more harm than good. I have seen that Family Court wil always presume that the family should stay intact, no matter the cost. A woman who leaves a man is held in suspicion, If she makes allegations of abuse, the amount of "proof" required is higher than the actual standards of the "best interest of the child". The system is set up to fail the ones that need protection the most. Why? Those who win litigation make the rules, and Dr. Gardner wasn't paid upwards to $500 an hour as a paid court witness to loose. Legal circles are simliar to feudal circles, created with complex social and professional ties and loyalties. Only a selected few remain in key positions of power and rulership. A single mother has the odds stacked against her when she walks in the door and the children have no voice. The message of the abuser will be again pounded into her: Or else...

I applaud the brave advocates, volunteers, therapists, friends, family, educators, suvivors and all those who assist abuse victims--and take a stand even while so many deny or look away.

____________________________

Why I Stayed:

A Victim of Domestic Violence Answers the Question that Haunts

As a woman escaping abuse, I am often asked, “Why did you stay for so long?” The answer is unthinkable, but simple—I stayed because all the threats my ex husband made against me are real. My ex says that he will make up stories that I am crazy to get custody of the children, and not only will people believe him but I will never see the children again. The family court system fails to protect victims of domestic violence. It elevates abusers to heroes, while repeating their taunts: shut up and it’s your fault. My ex is like many of the abusers who gain custody of their children: a history of violence, a history of addiction, a criminal past and anti-social tendencies. I am told I have nothing to fear because my ex has a house, a car and a job.

My family is not unusual. What I have learned does not make me feel any comfort but rather asserts that I am not alone. I am one of countless grieving mothers: "The vast majority of these mothers (97%) reported that court personnel ignored or minimized reports of abuse. They reported feeling that they were punished for trying to protect their children and 65% said they were threatened with sanctions if the "talked publicly" about the case. In all, 45% of the mothers say they were labeled as having Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). The protective parents reported that the average cost of the court proceedings was over $80,000. Over a quarter of the protective parents say they were forced to file bankruptcy as a result of filing for custody of their children. Eighty-five percent of the protective parents surveyed believe that their children are still being abused; however, 63% say they stopped reporting the abuse for fear that contact with their children will be terminated. Eleven percent of the children were reported to have attempted suicide." "Myths That Place Children At Risk During Custody Litigation". Dallam. S. J., & Silberg, J. L. (Jan/Feb 2006). Leadership Council. Sexual Assault Report, 9(3), 33-47.

 Why did I stay for so long? I struggle against the thought that I didn’t protect my children enough at home and now, I can do little to protect my children because of the corrupt court system. My ex won’t be held accountable. However, by fleeing abuse, I have shown my children that their lives are valuable; and by facing my abuser in court, I have shown that no one deserves to be hurt.

 

A Pirate Alienation Story” is a classic tale dedicated to Dr. Richard Gardner updated with spectacular courtroom antics and unbelievable legal loopholes that will leave single mothers stunned and abusers cheering and sneering. “Cap’n Hook” is a modern remake of Steve Spielberg’s 1991 film, “Hook” with an all star cast: Alec Baldwin as Cap’n Hook, Paris Hilton as Tinkerbell and John Edwards as middle-aged lawyer Peter Banning aka Peter Pan. This must-see film is rated “G”, in the best interest of the children, of course. 

   In this new adventure, Peter Pan flees Neverland after being forced to “walk the plank” and other abuse committed by Capn’ Hook. Peter strips off his tights and elfish hat with red feather to join the modern world, where he struggles to forget his past. He grows up to become a middle-aged lawyer named Peter Banning whose hair is sprayed on from a can and whose ability to spit legal jargon can rival any hard core rap artist. Peter marries Moira Darling, and invites everyone to the wedding but Cap’n Hook—who holds a grudge. Peter and Moira have two children together, and life seems normal until Cap’n Hook crashes through the window, in his pirate ship, demanding custody of the children through a legal loophole called “Pirates Rights”. An outrageous custody battle, clashing with dueling swords, begins. Cap’n Hook hires Dr. Richard Gardner (played by Robert Blake) as an expert witness who condemns both Moira and Peter with various mental conditions, using unproven, unscientific theories to bolster his claims. Dr. Gardner proclaims Moira is a “feisty wench” and Peter is suffering from “Peter Pan Syndrome”. Worst of all, they have alienated the children from Cap’n Hook!

A judge with an eye patch and peg leg, an hunch back guardian ad litem who has joined the “Pirates Rights Movement” and various other corrupt family court officials then grant Cap’n Hook full custody of both children. Peter and Moira are ordered to pay child support and are slapped with a gag order to remain silent or face being sent to the dungeon. An hour of supervised visitation every blue moon is granted to both parents, if they can make their way through an overgrown labyrinth then cross a moat to a heavily guarded tower in the middle. Cap’n Hook whisks the children away on his pirate ship, captured in a net.           

In the eyes of the court, Cap’n Hook is a sympathetic pirate who has employed hundreds of thieves, smugglers and petty criminals aboard his ship. His quarters are lavishly decorated with troves of treasure and the skull and cross bones on his flag show he is firm disciplinarian, not an abuser. Cap’n Hook provides attention and nurturing to the children by exposing them to gambling, drinking and providing schooling aboard the ship that includes swordplay and Pirate-bonics such as “Arrrgh!” and “Aye, Matey!” Despite his best efforts, both children express that they miss their parents and often cry, as a result of the rigorous brainwashing Peter and Moira have inflicted. Dr. Gardener counsels Cap’n Hook. Dr. Gardener assures that full custody is the only cure for “pirate alienation syndrome” and that Moira is only hateful Cap’n Hook because she has a secret lust for the pirate. As for Peter, the Lost Boys hardly provided a legal defense with their slingshots and grade-school taunts. While aboard the ship, Cap’n Hook tries to convince both children that their parents hate them, and works hard to manipulate them into becoming pirates. He almost succeeds if not for Tinkerbell, who has stolen onto the ship in an effort to try to with the children back to Peter and Moira. High fashion Tinkerbell flits amid the pirate ship among glittering pixie dust and disco music, bringing a musical score to “Cap’n Hook” as the pirates break out in song and dance, and the children sneak off the ship in a dingy. “Cap’n Hook: A Pirate Alienation Movie” will leave viewers stunned in its explosive finale, followed by exclusive web cam clips of the provocative Tinkerbell.  

Note: This essay is based on the 1991 movie “Hook”. There is a scene in “Hook” where Captain Hook has stolen the children of Peter Pan, and attempts to alienate the children by telling them that their parents don’t love them, and manipulates the children’s feelings to instigate hostility against their parents. I also found it interesting that in “Hook” a Lost Boy child named Rufio is killed by Captain Hook when stabbed in the heart with a sword. The movie largely ignored the death of Rufio, and Peter Pan was even willing to give Captain Hook a second chance—the death of this child went unnoticed and unpunished. Many of the fairytale events in this film echo the unbelievable injustice and drama of the family court system.

Evanlee, 2008 

The Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is It Scientific? by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP

 http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/3.html

 _____________ 

Stop Family Violence: Parental Alienation Articles Page 

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/ocean/host.php?folder=63 

 ______________

“..(Because of) the given tendency for incestuous fathers to deny their abuse, the more normal appearing and less disturbed abusers may be more effective at preventing disclosure.”

“While some studies reported some fathers with evidence of psychological disturbance, Williams and Finkelhor found that the majority of incestuous fathers are unlikely to manifest severed [sic] psychiatric impairment. Indeed, they felt they could state with confidence that ‘there are an important group of incestuous fathers, at least a quarter or a third, who seem virtually completely normal, and who would likely pass psychological testing or psychiatric evaluation without problem.’
‘CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE: TREATMENT, PREVENTION AND DETECTION’
by Rod O’Connor, Senior Research Fellow at Monash University
in Australia.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=347329
The pdf file can be downloaded and viewed here:
http://chpe.buseco.monash.edu.au/pubs/wp16.pdf

Or you can read it in your browser from Google’s cache:
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:od5iIDN0EywJ:chpe.buseco.monash.edu.au/pubs/wp16.pdf 

__________________________ 

Personality Traits in Abusive Relationships

http://www.recovery-man.com/abusive/abuse_rel_types.htm

“Abusiveness is a family dysfunction that repeats through generations. Just as addictions pass down through generations, abusers often leave their families for a family of choice - then repeat the abusive cycle from the other side….Abusive relationships are marked by attempts by the abuser to isolate their partner from social interaction. This is due to jealousy and to an unconscious awareness that outsiders will see the relationship dynamics and attempt to intervene.”