Those who buy into the myth that mothers frequently raise false allegations of abuse may attempt to explain this phenomenon by relying on a legal theory called Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Some suggest that the theory is based on science, and that PAS is a well-documented phenomenon .
Although estrangement from one or both parents can occur in children during an acrimonious divorce, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) lacks a scientific foundation and has never been shown to be a valid explanation of this process. In fact, Dr. Richard Gardner, the theory's creator, developed his theory while working as a paid consultant to men charged with sexually abusing their children. Thus, the syndrome was created as a defense theory to counter a child's allegation of sexual abuse (Dallam, 1999).
Gardner defines PAS as follows:
The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent . . .
Gardner defines PAS as a psychiatric disorder that arises in the course of child-custody disputes adjudicated in the context of adversarial proceedings. Gardner's theory portrays the child's preferred or protective parent (usually the mother under PAS) as an evil "alienator" who is virtually solely responsible for turning a vulnerable child against their estranged parent (usually the father under PAS). The child is thus viewed as mentally ill and the "alienating' protective parent (for example, a mother that raises concerns about abuse) is viewed as the sole cause of the disorder. When this parent is judged to be in the "severe" category, Dr. Gardner recommended sole custody to the other parent - the parent that the child claims is abusing them. Thus, the main cure for this alleged mental illness is for the child to be placed in greater contact with an alleged abuser while their contact with the protective parent is curtailed or halted altogether.
It should be pointed out that Gardner never submitted his theory to testing and it has never been shown to be a valid syndrome. Despite these shortcomings, PAS has gained traction in the courts as it fits well with court's friendly parent preference. Moreover, some courts have accepted PAS because it apparently appears to explain a well-recognized phenomenon within custody battles - the often acrimonious fight between parents for their child's affection.
Unfortunately, Parental Alienation Syndrome, like the friendly parent concept it is based upon, presents the court with a paradox that seems to undermine rational decision-making when considering the best interests of children. With PAS theory, the concerned custodial parent's steps to obtain professional assistance in diagnosing, treating, and protecting the child, constitute evidence of "alienation." Attorney Richard Ducote (2002) noted:
"One irony of . . . 'PAS' is that the increased existence of valid evidence of true sexual abuse leads Gardner and his devotees to more fervently diagnose 'PAS.' Thus, 'PAS' is the criminal defense attorney's dream, since the greater the proof of the crime, the greater the proof of the defense."
In professional journals, PAS has been cited an example of bad science that has been presented to the courts as credible forensic evidence. For instance, in an article published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , Rotgers and Barrett (1996) cite PAS theory as a prime example of a nonscientific theory that engages in "reverse logic." Moreover, PAS has been widely discredited in academic circles for being biased against women and children, and flawed in its failure to take into account alternative explanations for the behavior of the parties involved.
Further, critics have noted that Gardner 's methods for determining the veracity of an abuse allegation are seriously biased in favor of the alleged child molester. Lisa Amaya-Jackson, M.D., Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Medical Director of Child and Adolescent Trauma Treatment Services at Duke University, and Mark D. Everson, Ph.D., Clinical Associate Professor in Psychiatry and Director of the Program on Childhood Trauma & Maltreatment at University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, reviewed Gardner's book Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation and found Gardner's system for detecting sexual abuse in children to be "seriously flawed." They stated: "Bias can be noted in the author's attempts to discredit a child's allegations by resorting to narrow, often oversimplified notions of how sexually abused children are supposed to behave." They further note that while he discusses the importance of evaluators being neutral and objective, Gardner conveys "a strong bias that the overwhelming majority of allegations, especially in custody-related cases, are false and that the assessment procedures the author advocates are slanted to arrive at such a conclusion." Amaya-Jackson and Everson (1996) conclude: "This book can perhaps best be described as a recipe for finding allegations of sexual abuse false, under the guise of clinical and scientific objectivity. One suspects that it will be a bestseller among defense attorneys."
A recent study (cited by Johnston & Kelly, 2004) assessed the multiple factors that could contribute to the child's rejection of a parent. They concluded that just as important as alienating behaviors on the part of a parent were the child's actual experiences of child abuse or lack of parental warmth in their interaction with the rejected parent.
This is not to imply that abuse allegations are always accurate, or that parents do not attempt to manipulate their children during adversarial custody litigation. However, family courts need to be educated with a more scientific, sophisticated approach to the complexities of determining custody. The latest research on children embroiled in custody conflicts supports looking at the multiple, interacting, and often complex factors that affect a child's feelings about his or her parents. Conversely, simplistic theories such as PAS theory are not sufficiently scientific to be able to make cause and effect determinations and can place children in danger of being revictimized in family court.
For more information see:
- Amaya-Jackson, L., & Everson, M.D. (1996). Book Reviews: Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation . Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(7), 966-967.
- Dallam, S. J. (1999). Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is it scientific? In E. St. Charles & L. Crook (Eds.), Expose: The failure of family courts to protect children from abuse in custody disputes. Los Gatos, CA: Our Children Our Children Charitable Foundation. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/3.html
- Dallam, S. J. (1998). Dr. Richard Gardner: A review of his theories and opinions on atypical sexuality, pedophilia, and treatment issues. Treating Abuse Today, 8(1), 15-23. http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/2.html
- Dallam, S. J. (n.d.). Are Allegations of Sexual Abuse That Arise During Child Custody Disputes Less Likely to Be Valid? An Annotated Review of the Research.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/ap.html
- Ducote, R. (2002). Guardians Ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case for Abolition. Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 3, 141.
- Gardner, R. A. (2003). The Judiciary's Role in the Etiology, Symptom Development, and Treatment of the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS),American Journal of Forensic Psychology . 21(1),http://www.rgardner.com/refs/ar11w.html
- Rotgers, F., & Barrett, D. (1996). Daubert v. Merrell Dow and expert testimony by clinical psychologists: Implications and recommendations for practice.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(5), 467-74.
- Johnston, J. R. & Kelly, J. B. (2004). Commentary on Walker, Brantley, and Rigsbee (2004) "A critical analysis of parental alienation syndrome and its admissibility in the family court." Journal of Child Custody, 1(4), 77-89.
No comments:
Post a Comment