court orders for intensive reunification programs or reunification camps are typically accompanied by gag orders.
these gag orders ensure that no one can speak out - and victims of reunification programs are often silenced.
REUNIFICATION CAMPS EXPOSED
On October 20, 2022, the entire world had a front seat to the reality of the reunification industry as maya laing (age 15) publicly shared the her story. THROUGH HER INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT, maya invited community members to witness transport agents removing her (and her brother Sebastian) against their will from her grandmother’s home. This video has gone viral and has been viewed over 20 million times.
While shocking and triggering for many, this is not an isolated incident - those who advocate against the reunification industry have been working diligently for years to bring awareness to similar horrors taking place all across the country.
By all accounts, Maya and Sebastian were happy, healthy children who were thriving academically, socially and in their extra curricular activities. They had lodged allegations of abuse against their mother and voiced their desire to reside with their father. Judge Rebecca Connolly’s ruling on October 20, 2022 ordered them into an intensive 4-day program (reunification camp) owned by Dr. Lynn Steinberg and cut off all contact with their father, paternal family, community members, classmates and friends for a 90-day “black-out” period.
Many children who suffer the same fate as Maya and Sebastian are also subjected to a 90-day period of no contact however, it is rarely 90-days. There are some parents who have not seen their children for several years and this is by design.
The court orders are typically ambiguous and the reunification team is in full control - the preferred parent is at the mercy of these professionals and often unable to meet the requirements because the requirements are unclear and vague. The preferred parent is unable to jump through the necessary hoops to reunite with the children because the hoops are hidden, invisible or non-existent. The reunification professionals assert that the preferred parent remains a risk — they could potentially still “alienate” the children.
The preferred parent is set up to fail from the moment a case is placed into the alienation pipeline. While studying court rulings - it often appears that the decisions were made in advance - and the hearings were simply formalities.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
In this heartbreaking video (below), two children are removed right off the sidewalk in front of the Stanley Mosk courthouse in Los Angeles by transport agents. Orrin and Camille Homme were taken to Family Bridges Reunification Camp, owned by Randy Rand in an effort to “reunite them” with their father. At the time, Camille (age 16) had an active restraining order against her father, Josh Homme. Brody Dalle, mother to Orrin and Camille, also had an active restraining order against her ex-husband due to domestic violence.
Transport Agents (pictured) Craig Robert Craig and Jade Bailey of Right Direction Crisis Intervention, Julie Escat (pictured) of SCV Monitoring.
Other professionals on this case:
Judge: Dianna Gould-Saltman
Minors Counsel: Kendra Thomas & Sonia B Dujan
Coparenting: Dr. Stan Katz
Therapists: Karin Manger, Angela Bissada, Dr. Charles Sophy
Ilene Fletcher: Family Visitation Services
As of March 2022, it has been one-year since this mother has seen her children.
What happens at a four day reunification camp?
According to Lynn Steinberg, this is her process:
Day 1: Review of family history
The goal is to reconnect the child(ren) emotionally and remember the history between Alienated Parent and Child by reviewing photographs and mementos, etc. that depicted the positive relationship that existed between the parent and child(ren) preceding the Alienation. (This occurs remarkably quickly due to the child’s instinctive loving feelings for the parent).
Our Notes: it is important to remember that the majority of children forced into these unsound, unregulated reunification camps have allegations or finding of abuse against their rejected parent. We all know that parents are not abusing their children while photographs are being taken so forcing children to look at photographs of "happy times” sounds like clinical gaslighting of vulnerable children.
Day 2 and 3: Correcting the child’s revisionist history
Correcting misinformation and false allegations against the Alienated Parent through a frank and factual discussion is essential to the healing process, and vital to the mental health of the child(ren). The child will be supported in expressing his/her own genuine feelings for and beliefs about the alienated parent.
During this time the family will partake in meals and activities, organized and supervised by the parent. In addition, the Alienated Parent’s extended and nuclear family is most likely also alienated and will be invited to participate in Day 3.
Our Notes: Lynn has testified under oath that during this process, memory games are played with children to show them that their memory is not always accurate. From survivor testimony, children are not allowed to express their general feelings or beliefs about the rejected parent, and when they do, they are told that their memories are not real and that they are lying. There are typically threats made during this time that if children are not respectful or, if they are refusing to participate, the clock will be reset and there will be additional time added to the 90-days of no contact with their preferred parent or, they're safe parent. Through threat therapy, they are forced into compliance sometimes being told that they will be sent to an institutional facility or, wilderness camp.
Day 4: Family activity
The family is encouraged to take a trip together or have an activity planned. At the end of the activity, we will reconvene and process the experience and shore up any gaps in the reunification between the Parent and Child(ren).
Our Notes: Survivors of reunification camps have testified that they were forced to smile during photos which were then used in family court proceedings to paint a false narrative of the “success” of these programs. After this four-day reunification camp, children are sent home to live with their abuser or, rejected parent for a minimum of 90-days. If the owners of reunification camps claim a success rate of 97%, why are children not returned after the four days? If the success rate is so high, why are children not returned after 90 days?
###