GOOD DADS DON’T ACT LIKE TROY DEEL Haunted by the truth this chronic trespasser on my motherhood says he will sue in email without subject, substance,

...and spellcheck.
_______
...

People don’t want to believe it. -DL
_______

Subject:
From: tadeel@comcast.com
Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010

Veronique,

Please do not show up on Saturday. This is not the way to get back into Brigitte's life. If you embarish her on Saturday, this will further deminish any chance of ever being a part of her life. Brigitte has grown into a wonderful person whose feelings you seem to not care about. You have been gone from her life for over six years. If you really want a chance with her you must start communicating with me and only me without hostility or anger. I will not allow you into her life unless you seek and continue for a sustained period of time certified physicological counseling and medication.

Furthermore, you are not allowed into Belmont. If I find you inside the gates I will have you arrested for tresspassing. These words should sound familiar as these are the last words you said to me the last time you saw Brigitte at your home July 4th weekend of 2004. You said to me "You and Brigitte are never allowed on my property ever again and if you do it will be tresspassing". You should remember this, I have. Up until that time I made every attempt to insure that Brigitte got to see you during your scheduled visitation. You were a no show on many occasions and several times I brought Brigitte to your home. I do not know what took place that holiday weekend during your visitation with Brigitte, but you must understand that Brigitte has never asked to come back to your home since that weekend. If she had, I would have brought her. Unless you take serious what I have said above your chances to have a normal relationship with Brigitte will not happen.

You have defamed and libeled my wife and I in public for several years now. Please stop. Do not send emails to Lisa's employer, my employer, my employers associates or anyone else connected to me or my wife. Any further defamation will cause me to take action. Please remove Lisa's name and my name from your blog. Your linkage to Shivani's Face Book must also be removed. Your public posting of Brigitte's picture without asking her did not sit well with her or her friends.

There's a good chance this email will only enrage you. It is my hope that it does not. It is my hope that you take what I have said above very seriously and seek help.

Sincerely,

Troy

14 July 2010 at Rivercrest Pool

“Brigitte has a mother who loves her very much.”
And after six years of separation, I have
a daughter who still loves me.

TROY DEEL CAN GO JUMP IN A LAKE.

____________________________
comments and commentaries...

This comment by Anonymous can be found at, http://misconductinvirginiafamilycourts.blogspot.com/2010/07/brigitte-deel-of-ashburn-va-is-taken.html or, Brigitte Deel of Ashburn, VA is taken captive by her Sociopath Father Troy Deel:

It is just like the emails from my abusive X who through lies and accusations of me abusing our son with the help of his unethical attorney got custody. Not making much money, I have been unable to fight. After taking custody, he and his wife abused and neglected my son. He was expelled from school, not fed, not clothed and did not receive medical care for his TS. Then they pressed not once but three times assault charges on this young man and refused to give me custody of which I have been fighting in the courts for. Now do to the confusion and hysteria and abuse in the courtroom, my son is with DFS just rotting away. I had medical appts scheduled, clarinet lessons, etc and live in the best school district and residence possible in Maryland. Sadly his dad is in Fairfax. I have never experienced such horrible [male chauvinism] ever. It is horrible. The GAL and others just poster and say anything they want to say about me and get away with it The judge never asks for authentication of their comments etc and argue and yell at me in front of my son! I am a respected member of the community and a teacher and my X abused me and now my son and the judge and others will not see it. It is truly a man's world in Virginia and almost like a police state too! It is incredible. My son has been destroyed. He was ready for a top college and now he has not had the chance to even attend HS the past few years. I am sick from this He and I love each other so much. The dad and attorney did PAS on him and made him believe the lies and tried to alienate him from me but our love was too strong. Even though they continue to say they do not want him they refuse to drop the custody fight even though it is destroying his only son.
I have so many crazy emails from him bordering on psychopathology also sounding so very similar. Wonder if he found this website and copied it!

# # #

This commentary is by The Leadership Council,
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/DVP.html or,
Domestic Violence (DV) by Proxy: Why Terrorist Tactics Employed by Batterers Are Not "PAS":

As more and more abused women lose custody to batterers in family courts, they are wrongly embracing the very ideas that enabled their abusers to gain custody in the first place. False accusations of “parental alienation" are often used by batterers to gain custody and to defend against accusations of abuse.

Some unfortunate women after years of enduring domestic violence have lost custody to the batterers who abused them. In these cases, batterers have made good on their threat to attack their ex-partner in the place she is the most vulnerable—by taking her children away from her. After separation, these batterers continue to wage their campaign of manipulation and abuse by attempting to convince involved children that their mothers never loved them. Looking for a way to describe their batterers' behavior, some mothers have called what their batterer is doing "parental alienation syndrome."

In reality, what these women are describing from their ex-partners is better termed Domestic Violence by Proxy (DV by Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson, author of Health and Healing. DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior [in] a parent with a history of using domestic violence or intimidation, [who] uses a child as a substitute when he no longer has access to his former partner. Calling this behavior “parental alienation” is not strong enough to convey the criminal pattern of terroristic behaviors employed by batterers.

When his victim leaves him, batterers often recognize that the most expedient way to continue to hurt his partner is to assert his legal rights to control her access to their children. By gaining control of the children, an abusive male now has a powerful tool which allows him to continue to stalk, harass and batter an ex-partner even when he has no direct access to her. Moreover, by emotionally torturing the child and severing the bond between children and their mother, he is able to hurt his intended victim -- the mother -- in a way she cannot resist.

DV by Proxy includes tactics such as: threats of harm to children if they display a positive bond to the mother, destroying favored possessions given by the mother, and emotional torture (for example, telling the child the mother hates them, wanted an abortion, and is not coming to get them because they are unloved).

DV by Proxy may also include coaching the child to make false allegations regarding their mother's behavior and harming or punishing the child for not complying. DV by Proxy perpetrators may also create fraudulent documents to defraud the court in order to prevent the mother from gaining custody. Whether or not the child is biologically related to them is irrelevant to perpetrators of DV by Proxy. The perpetrator's main motivation is to hurt his ex; whether or not his own child is harmed in the process is irrelevant to him.

This is very different from "parental alienation syndrome" as described by the late Richard A. Gardner. Dr. Gardner described PAS as an internal process by which a child aligns themselves with a preferred parent to protect themselves from the divorce conflict. “PAS” is conceptualized as a psychological process of identification with a parent who, according to the theory, encourages this identification at the expense of the other parent.

PAS inducing parents, according to Gardner, are often unconscious of what they are doing to encourage the identification. In contrast, perpetrators of DV by Proxy are very conscious of what they are doing. Controlling, coercive, illegal acts often done by abusive and controlling people, usually men, are not subtle, and do not encourage an identification with a parent. Criminal, fraudulent, coercive acts are visible and obvious. These behaviors encourage compliance by threats and fear. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and often illegal. These behaviors include: battery, destruction of property, locking children in rooms to prevent them from calling parents, falsifying documents, along with other similar overt behaviors.

The most dangerous aspect of Gardner's PAS theory is that that the alienating parent's behavior is theorized to be so subtle as to be unobservable. In other words, the behaviors that are supposed to cause the alienation are assumed to be happening without any proof that they have actually occured. As many women have discovered this makes a charge of "alienation" almost impossible to defend against.

While Gardner's theories regarding PAS have been shown to be overly general and have not been supported by careful research, behaviors seen in DV by Proxy can be readily observed. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and planned; many are illegal, and if the child is given the freedom to talk, will be described in great detail by the child.

If the child's formerly favorable view of the victimized parent changes when exposed to tactics like this over time then it is more likely a form of "Stockholm Syndrome" or traumatic attachment to the abuser, rather than the alignment with one parent and negative reaction to the other that Gardner described as "alienation".

A recent and comprehensive article on PAS and its use in the court system, by Jennifer Hoult can be downloaded here.

# # #

MARSDEN MUM on Issue of Remaking Virginia Law Affecting Family Dissolution, Children to Curb Litigation, Protect Rights of Caring and Involved Parents

.....
Hello Mr. Albo.... I am writing you because I have had no reply from Mr. Marsden. Legislators must get a lot of emails. Never easy to read and then answer every bit of it. I know because I get a lot of emails too. Most of the people who write me are parents, most are mothers, a few fathers. The message, however, is always the same. I hear over and over again that *BIOC* isn't working. But I think Virginia legislators know this. I think if Virginia legislators were more diligent about reading and responding to mail from their constituents who are innocent, and honest, parents in difficult legal situations because *BIOC* isn't working, my own mailbox would see less of it. People find me because I blog on the issue...I am hoping you might be open to considering, and pushing for, a new approach. This new approach is discussed below in my email for Delegate David Marsden. It's called THE APPROXIMATION RULE.
-Veronique Wyvell wrote Dave Albo on Dec. 7, 2008


----- Original Message -----
From: Veronique WYVELL
To: DelDMarsden@house.state.va.us
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:57
Subject: THE APPROXIMATION RULE (1 of 2)

Re: THE APPROXIMATION RULE

Section 2.08. Allocation of Custodial Responsibility

(1) Unless otherwise resolved by agreement of the parents under Sec. 2.06, the court should allocate custodial responsibility so that the proportion of custodial time the child spends with each parent approximates the proportion of time each parent spent performing caretaking functions for the child prior to the parents’ separation or, if the parents never lived together, before the filing of the action, except to the extent required under Sec. 2.11 or necessary to achieve one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to permit the child to have a relationship with each parent which, in the case of a legal parent or a parent by estoppel who has performed a reasonable share of parenting functions, should not be less than a presumptive amount of custodial time set by a uniform rule of statewide application…

{Source: The American Law Institute, PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Soft Cover Edition 2003, Chapter 2, Page 178} [FN1]

Attn: Dave W. Marsden
Virginia House of Delegates 2008
41st District - Fairfax County (part)
9322 Jackson StreetBurke, VA 22015
Phone: 703.323.4733
Email: DelDMarsden@house.state.va.us

Dear Delegate Marsden,

Good morning.

We met last December outside House Room C in the General Assembly Building the day of Judicial Interviews. You asked me, “What do you want?” Before I could answer, however, you told me to put it on ONE piece of paper. I said to you that it was too late now to propose legislation (for the 2008 session). And you shrugged your shoulders. I had traveled to Richmond that day to join a small group of parents who share a concern about how child custody gets done in Virginia, and why it gets done that way. Some of us were standing in front of you that day in December, outside Room C. You might remember. I hope you remember.

At the very top of this email message for you, please see the legislation that I hope you still can and will consider, and deliver, to the 2009 session on behalf of the many, many parents in Virginia who know that *BIOC* isn’t working. Many, many reputable people in reputable places have been writing and speaking on “The Best Interest of the Child Standard”--specifically, on the need to replace it with “a better way” because it isn’t working.

The legislation I would like proposed is taken from page 178 of PRINCIPLES [FN1]. I read that The American Law Institute devoted 10 years to compiling the information contained in this study and this presentation of model codes and “restatements” [FN2].

Relevant Virginia officials, however, appear to be paying absolutely no attention to this wonderful work, and effort, by ALI. I had no answer from Delegate Teri Suit when last year I invited her to join me for “State of the Family 2007.” The University of Richmond / School of Law / National Center for Family Law was hosting in September, 2007, its first ever national family law symposium. Elizabeth Scott and Robert Emery presented. Both scholars spoke at sessions devoted to making the case for an “approximation” standard, devoted to making the case for doing away with the “best interest of the child” standard [FN3].

Although Professor Scott is no longer at the University of Virginia, Dr. Robert Emery is still there as professor of psychology and director of The Center for Children, Families, and the Law. You can find his personal, professional, and contact information on his UVA web pages [FN4].

I think the Virginia General Assembly would benefit from listening to Dr. Emery speak on the value of The Approximation Rule, especially if repealing *BIOC* is too scary for them [FN5]. My own calculations show that it is possible that at least 7000 Virginia children each year join the thousands upon thousands of children already caught in never-ending “abuse & custody” cases (high-conflict separations and divorces almost always contain histories of family abuse). NOT repealing *BIOC* is too scary for me. The number of Virginia children in foster care is fixed at about 7000, I believe. Good attention, after all, is given to the foster care “crisis” afflicting so many, and so why should we not think about giving some “good attention” to the custody “crisis” afflicting so many more?

The presumptive amount of custody time mentioned in 1(a) in the above proposed legislation can be easily satisfied with Utah’s Minimum Schedules for Parent-Time [FN 6]. My own research has confirmed that the Utah Minimum Schedules follow the recommendations of our most respected experts on age-appropriate and developmentally-appropriate residence and parent-time arrangements for children with parents who live apart. Mr. David Levy of CRC told me way back that the Utah schedules were actually designed by a female administrator with CRC. The schedules are not new in Utah.

Section 2.06, which is also mentioned in the above proposed legislation, is referring to parental agreements. PRINCIPLES, the complete volume, can be viewed on Westlaw and in most law libraries. I have found it convenient to own my own softbound copy, however. You may look at it, if you wish.

I think it might take up to 3 years to pass The Approximation Rule in Virginia, that is, if we begin to introduce the concept during the GA session coming up, in 2009.

There has simply been far too little organized activity and far too little organized focus on the very real Racket that *BIOC* has now become. The hidden victims? Children [FN7].

Thousands upon thousands of Virginia’s children.

Can you and will you still help?

Thank you.

Veronique Wyvell
VWyvell@patriot.net
Private citizen
McLean, Virginia

[FN1] “ALI Publications Catalog: Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations” found at,
http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publications.fpage&product_code=1FAMDISOTS

[FN2] “Press Release: AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION” sent by VW as separate email message

[FN3] “State of the Family 2007 brochure” found at, http://law.richmond.edu/news/NCFLBrochure.pdf

[FN4] “Robert E. Emery biographical information” found at,
www.virginia.edu/ccfl/emery.php

[FN5] “Custody Disputed: The guidelines judges and psychologists use to decide child custody cases have little basis in science. The system must be rebuilt on better research by Robert E. Emery, Randy K. Otto, and William O'Donohue” found at,
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=custody-disputed

[FN6] “Utah Code Section 30-3-35.5. Minimum schedule for parent-time for children under five years of age” found at,
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_03_003505.htm
and,
“Utah Code Section 30-3-35. Minimum schedule for parent-time for children 5 to 18 years of age” found at,
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_03_003500.htm

[FN7] “A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System by Robert E. Emery, Randy K. Otto, and William T. O'Donohue (Editorial by Eleanor E. Maccoby)” found at,
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/index.cfm?journal=pspi&content=pspi/6_1


----- Original Message -----
From: Veronique WYVELL
To: DelDMarsden@house.state.va.us
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:57
Subject: THE APPROXIMATION RULE (2 of 2)

[FN2] “Press Release: AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION” sent by VW as separate email message

PRESS RELEASE

IMMEDIATE

Michael Greenwald
800-CLE NEWS, ext.1626

AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE PUBLISHES PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF FAMILY DISSOLUTION

(Philadelphia) – The American Law Institute (ALI) has published its first comprehensive work in the field of family law: Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations. With this innovative and groundbreaking new volume, the Institute completes more than a decade of work on the legal consequences of family dissolution, including those involving domestic partners. These Principles cover such vital issues as the allocation of custodial and decisionmaking responsibilities for children, child support, distribution of marital property, compensatory payments to former spouses, and the legal effect of agreements between the parties.

.....

Responsive to the enormous changes in society that have taken place over a half century during which divorce rates climbed and the traditional roles of men and women were challenged, this innovative volume moves beyond the traditional formulations that were often framed in such general terms as to give nearly unbounded discretion to the decisionmakers charged with implementing them. The Principles provide family law with the conceptual clarification and improved adaptation to social needs that has long been the ALI’s hallmark. It makes a major contribution to the better administration of justice in an area too often marked by inequity.

The work is described as "Principles" rather than "Restatement" because "Principles" is the better designation for a project that carefully explores and clarifies the fundamental assumptions—about the best interests of children, fairness to divorcing wives and husbands, and the legitimate economic claims of unmarried partners—upon which the legal rules must rest. Many of these Principles, nevertheless, restate and clarify present law, while others recommend directions for implementation by courts, legislatures, and other appropriate decisionmakers. The result is a coherent legal framework, sensitive to both the traditional value systems within which most families are formed and the nontraditional realities and expectations of other families, a framework the earlier drafts of which have already begun to influence both courts and legislatures...

continued...


----- Original Message -----
From: Veronique WYVELL
To: DelDMarsden@house.state.va.us
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 10:51
Subject: The Approximation Rule...

Hello Mr. Marsden,

On 11 November 2008, I sent you:
THE APPROXIMATION RULE (1 of 2),
and,
THE APPROXIMATION RULE (2 of 2).

If you did not receive those two email messages,
I can re-send them.

If you received my messages,
I would like to know that you received them.

If you received them,
and if you are not interested in supporting such legislation,
please let me know you are not interested.

If you do not answer this message,
I will re-send the original two.

I understand that you might be very busy,
the 2009 session will be here soon.

Thank you.

Veronique Wyvell, RN
Private citizen
Fairfax County, Virginia

Cartoon at top} by David Klein,
Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, 2009, Text added

. . .
ADDENDA

West Virginia passes the Approximation Rule:
§ 48-9-206. Allocation of custodial responsibility.

Iowa Supreme Court in Hansen v. Hansen (2007) acknowledges, validates the Approximation Rule:
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20070615/06-0191.pdf

[This post was first published on 31 December 2008]