Is Charlie Sheen the Victim of Parental Alienation? (Part II)
Background: In my blog post Is Charlie Sheen the Victim of Parental Alienation?, I discussed the Charlie Sheen/Denise Richards divorce and apparent attempts by Richards to minimize and control Sheen’s relationship with his children. Richards claims that the children–ages two and three–don’t want to be with their father, and often return from his house “sad and upset.” I doubt the kids have any problem with their father outside of what Richards manufactures and tries to make them think or feel.
Richards has many made claims against Sheen which Sheen has denied, and for which there is apparently no independent authentication. As I explained in the previous post, neither Sheen nor Richards have clean histories.
Tara Fields, Ph.D., a licensed marriage and family therapist, has some interesting comments in the article Inside the Charlie & Denise Custody Battle (OK! Magazine, 9/21/07) that suggest that Richards has a credibility problem, and that she is trying to manufacture a conflict between Sheen and their children in order to limit his time with them. According to the article:
“Already questionable is Denise’s assertion that Sam and Lola were upset to learn of their father’s engagement through a celebrity news show, which raised eyebrows as many feel 2- and 3-year-olds are not old enough to understand the story and the meaning of an engagement through a TV program.
“Tara Fields, Ph.D., licensed marriage and family therapist, also of Decision House, tells OK! that the cognitive development of toddlers isn’t advanced enough to comprehend such an abstract concept. At that age, the most that could upset them is seeing their dad with another woman, but it is common knowledge that the girls have met and spent time with Brooke.
“‘Someone would have to explain it to them, what that means is they don’t have the cognitive ability at these young ages unless someone has explained what that means either before, during or after seeing the segment,’ Dr. Fields says. ‘Living in L.A., they could be that sophisticated since they might be around others whose parents may be in the same situation. However, somebody, whether in the past or now, would have to explain what that means.’”
I agree with Fields. My daughter is the smartest little girl in the world, but there is no way at age three that she would have been able to have noted and understood this kind of complicated, adult issue, much less to have been upset about it and explained it to a two-year-old. It’s nonsense, it didn’t happen, and it’s one more indication that Richards is trying to alienate the children from Sheen. One common alienator behavior is called the “Independent Thinker,” wherein the alienating parent tries to convince everybody that it is the children, not her, who have an aversion to the other parent, and that they (sigh) are forced to do what they must in order to protect their children from the other parent.
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
September 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
If Denise Richards is getting professional advice for handling the child custody case, it must be from a PR expert who wants to position her as the actress most trouble-making divorcees identify with. She’s laying off some pretty common drivel that doesn’t require a PhD to see through.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
It may not need a PhD to see through it but it’s what the family courts always seem to cater to. Dads are ignored and his request are seen as “not in the best interest of the children”, a comment that is never qualified or followed up..
Makes the “in the best…” comedy that courts use just another feminist scam against Fathers.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Projection? I don’t want to be with the father, so the children don’t.
Is it an authentic sense, sincerely thought out and therefore indicative of a complete inability to differentiate between one’s self and one’s children, or is it all just manipulation and even she doesn’t believe it. It seems the statistician agage needs revision and extension. There are lies, damned lies and ex-wives.
September 26th, 2007 at 6:49 am
That stuff usually comes from a desire to control, the roots of which are the feelings of insecurity of the perpetrator. Judges, especially male judges (and females who hate men) eat it up. The male judges like the powerful position they’re in as judges – that’s why they became judges. They’re ready to recognize and respond to “the little woman’s” distress. Of course we realize that the feminists are not going to protest that sort of condescending behavior.
Anyway – Charlie hasn’t lost yet, has he?
September 26th, 2007 at 7:10 am
It appears that she is slightly better off up stairs than he, but not by much.
Very insightful comments from all.
September 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
2 1/2 Men saved the half hour sitcom.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:39 am
With all his resources, and what he’s been through – I truly can’t believe he is not an activist about this cause – where are the heavy hitters for this action: Sheen, Baldwin, Combs, McCartney, etc, etc.
They are all silent, for the most part.
September 27th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Thomas hit the nail on the head:
Alec Baldwin and Charlie Sheen are both part of the Hollywood elite that owe their careers to bashing white men as the cause of all world’s problems. I remember Bruce “commie” Springsteen trying to claim he was a resident of New Jersey in order to get out of california community property laws.
They’re getting hoisted by their own petards. Put on some microwave popcorn and enjoy the show.
September 27th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Hollywood or not, I haven’t noticed a lot of rich guys signing up to become group activists. The left has realized their dream in this area, by making American justice something only the wealthy can afford; doing so necessarily by eliminating the constitution as a mechanism to stop them. It’s the masses that can’t afford the huge legal bills that might lead to acceptable court judgments. It’s obvious that since wealthy people can afford the battle, that it would be trouble for the system if they decided to get together and finance the fight. So, they built into the system a sure fire way to fool them (you know I focused on child support, whether it has anything to do with this case or not so here comes …) … they show up with a result from use of the state formula that’s so huge it would make Donald Trump flinch … then their lawyers get them a discount … makes it look like they’re really getting a break …. rather than the truth, which is that they’re ordered to pay many times more than they should be ordered to pay.
For those who are involved in custody / visitation disputes … what would be the advantage of joining or supporting a fathers’ rights group?
September 27th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Charlie Sheen, 41 years old, twice divorced with two children, is currently engaged.
Sheen is one of the highest-paid comedy star on television, earning about $350,000 per episode for “Two and a Half Men”.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000221/bio
Sheen ought to be asked to help support the father’s tight movement.
September 28th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Maybe we can resurect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudrun_Schyman Gudrun Schyman’s “man tax” and use the proceeds for fathers’ rights instead of deadbeat feminist initiatives.