How far she has fallen.
How far she has fallen.Ha, funny you say that, because she in fact did hang out with Karen in Paris!
View attachment 2242899
View attachment 2242900
AB talked a lot about intergenerational domestic violence. We have often wondered about Alice's upbringing. I'm hypothesising that she trauma bonded to her mother, Ella would be third generation.What AB wrote is worth repeating here.
"Domestic violence runs in families, and the reasons why are complex and multi-varied. I've seen my foster kid clients grow into becoming my adult criminal clients, and it's tragic to see how the games abusers play, victimize their own children and plant the seeds for normalizing abuse. In this case, the record shows Alice creating, over a period of several years, precisely the coercive and suggestive circumstances that are well understood to create a high risk of false reports, including false accusations, false confessions, and false memories. It's a complex situation when children make false accusations, but abusers use black-and-white thinking to cast any doubt, no matter how reasonable, as a victimization of the child.
What we're seeing unfold is classic trauma bonding - an abuser deliberately inflicts trauma on a child and then serves as the child's source of comfort for that trauma to increase the child's dependence on the abuser. It's Alice's own behavior and the coercive environment she created for the children that undermines the reliability of the child's report, while simultaneously broadcasting the accusations as broadly as possible with the assistance of her good friend at the Daily Mail, creates an opportunity to cast any reasonable doubt about the report as victimization of the child. The use of her child as both sword and shield is the end game of Alice's parental alienation campaign, and it comes as no surprise at all to those who are watching this case and are familiar with the dynamics at play."
Spot on. The Judge will have seen this all before.
It has always been my belief that there was something very wrong in her upbringing. You could be right. Of course this would have had an impact on her brothers too.AB talked a lot about intergenerational domestic violence. We have often wondered about Alice's upbringing. I'm hypothesising that she trauma bonded to her mother, Ella would be third generation.
I had a look at that law. A violent father murdered a son on a visitation he was granted even though he had a history of violence. The mother tried to get full custody based on her ex-husband’s abusive conduct. Ana also unsuccessfully requested a restraining order which was denied eight months before Piqui’s murder.my biggest worry is Piqui's Law
I don’t know about the Abuser, but these are socks that I need. I can put on some music and dance around the house wearing a pair of these, floors cleaned, job done
It just said a hearing is required under the circumstances. I have thoughts why... But those with more legal knowledge could probably explain the actual reason.btw I just checked and the deadlines are actually 5 days before the court date, not court days (was wondering because due to Juneeth being next monday this would have been already yesterday if it was about court days lol), so it would be on the weekend (probably friday)
@sweetnessfollows @ButterTart I have a question: on Form 109 arent they usually stating why the TRO was denied? was there something?
I think she was spoilt - like Ella is now. I am uncomfortable with assuming AE was abused as as far as I'm concerned her behaviour doesn't get a pass. She is a faux victim and an abuser. End of. MOOIt has always been my belief that there was something very wrong in her upbringing. You could be right. Of course this would have had an impact on her brothers too.
She really was very beautiful. Such a pity the ugly monster inside overwhelmed that outside shell. I'm not talking about inevitable aging either. You can age and gain weight and still be lovely.I agree with the cartoonish lip fillers she got later, but in my opinion she first got lip fillers in the early 2000s (edit - and possible even before).
From 1998:
View attachment 2242780
From 2001:
View attachment 2242718
From 2002 (the white area on her top lip, our left side, looks like an injection site. Her pupil size is also interesting...):
View attachment 2242704
Anyone is absolutely free to disagree with me of course, but I think this because I believe I have a good eye for facial features and adjustments that actors/models have had; I've also had fillers myself (but not lip fillers); and I have a good friend who is an aesthetic doctor (he does my botox and fillers sometimes), and we talk about things like this. I also believe B has had botox and fillers too. It's completely normalised now in Hollywood and in some professions/areas of London, and in fact if actresses didn't have it done they would probably be at a disadvantage now, sadly.
Looking back at photos it's clear to see she also had her teeth sorted out when she was with Olivier, and then I think she got veneers later after moving to LA. Remember, an accusation from a narc is an admission, so "Bianca's veneers/nose" needs to be replaced with "Alice's veneers/nose".
View attachment 2242723
For the record I think she looks absolutely stunning here, like an early 90s supermodel when that glamazon/strong-featured look was in, and when beauty standards were different. There was more natural beauty as mass plastic surgery and widespread fillers/botox didn't exist (although she had had a nose job by here for sure):
View attachment 2242725
Alice inspires me to be a calmer mother!Alice actually inspired me to clean my house the other week when I really didn't feel like it, but didn't want to be living in a mess like she does.
this is true, however this law is meant to enitrely ban the idea of removing kids from their prefered parent (no matter why that's the case) or ordering any sorts of reunification therapies. Of course the main idea is to educate judges better on how to correctly see dangers for children and protect their safety (which is good), but they are trying to snuck these aspects in there tooI had a look at that law. A violent father murdered a son on a visitation he was granted even though he had a history of violence. The mother tried to get full custody based on her ex-husband’s abusive conduct. Ana also unsuccessfully requested a restraining order which was denied eight months before Piqui’s murder.
This has nothing to do with this case though. The one with the DVRO is Alice not IG. I don't think the Judge will frankly believe Alice if she tries to pretend IG was violent. She needs evidence - what is she going to produce in court? Her socks calling IG abusive??
I'm right to assume that Ioan's states the same?It just said a hearing is required under the circumstances. I have thoughts why... But those with more legal knowledge could probably explain the actual reason.
Really? I think it will be helpful in cases like Ioan’s because it will recognize coercive control as a part of domestic violence cases, not just physical violence.my biggest worry is Piqui's Law (which is a even more extreme version of Kayden's Law and so far only a thing in Cali). It has not yet fully passed in I believe, but if it will be "mothers" like Alice will be a lot more untouchable. Obviously Alice is one of those cases where you need to be mentally damaged to not see through this (if she wouldnt have left so much proof she would have gotten away with this even in the public opinion very easily), but these organizations that fight for these laws (like onemomsbattle, they recently actually referenced Alice's case) have gone full binary on this matter and decided to just assume that mothers are always right, and unfortunately the court system is starting to get infected by this.
I’d guess that they didn’t want to grant it, but also didn’t want to just dismiss it either, so everyone goes to court where the Judge can see how the land lies.this is true, however this law is meant to enitrely ban the idea of removing kids from their prefered parent (no matter why that's the case) or ordering any sorts of reunification therapies. Of course the main idea is to educate judges better on how to correctly see dangers for children and protect their safety, but they are trying to snuck these aspects in there too
I'm right to assume that Ioan's states the same?
It's an interesting reasoning, because technically speaking a hearing is always required. I guess either it's really about the aspect of preventing gamesmanships in custody fights (though makes little sense for Bianca, but who knows, the case was re-assigned to family law after all) or the judge was not very sold on what was presented there.
There is a reluctance to grant a TRO in a case like this where custody is contentious, especially if a child asks for it.btw I just checked and the deadlines are actually 5 days before the court date, not court days (was wondering because due to Juneeth being next monday this would have been already yesterday if it was about court days lol), so it would be on the weekend (probably friday)
@sweetnessfollows @ButterTart I have a question: on Form 109 arent they usually stating why the TRO was denied? was there something?
The teddy bear blanket was set up for the camera and to tell Ioan that she isn’t comfortable with him and she needs it as support when she is with him.Ella is regressing. She was holding the teddy blanket on that video too. It could be a sign of the mental strain caused by her mother.
That doesn't make sense. As people already noted here, a child can request to stay with a parent who abuses them. Is the law really going to put kids in charge? That's just stupid.this law is meant to enitrely ban the idea of removing kids from their prefered parent
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?