APR
28
This theory is to dangerous to ever allow lets pass legislation against the theory and undo all programs created with it
we can end this for the children affected by it
please help us end this thank you
See leadership council and judges paper should we close the gate and so many more we can save children here if we act
http://juliafletcher.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/linda-marie-sacks-mothers-day-2011/
We Support Linda Marie Sacks as she Presents her Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
by Julia Fletcher
Just for a moment, pretend you’re the editor of the Washington Post.
You hear about a mother who’s asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear her case. Lots of people take their cases to the Supreme Court. But what would happen if you were the editor of the Washington Post and you hear about a mother who’s taking her case to the U.S. Supreme Court who has a million supporters on a Facebook Cause page?
One Grain of Rice
A mathematical folktale
by Demi
Long ago in India, there lived a raja who believed he was wise and fair, as a raja should be. The people in his province were rice farmers. The raja decreed that everyone must give nearly all of their rice to him. “I will store the rice safely,” the raja promised the people, “so that in time of famine, everyone will have rice to eat, and no one will go hungry.” Each year, the raja’s rice collectors gathered nearly all of the people’s rice and carried it away to the royal storehouses.
For many years, the rice grew well. The people gave nearly all of their rice to the raja, and the storehouses were always full. But the people were left with only enough rice to get by. Then one year the rice grew badly and there was famine and hunger. The people had no rice to give to the raja, and they had no rice to eat. The raja’s ministers implored him, “Your highness, let us open the royal storehouses and give the rice to the people, as you promised.” “No!” cried the raja. How do I know how long the famine will last? I must have the rice for myself. Promis or no promise, a raja must not go hungry!”
APR
28
It will take just a few clicks on our computers, or Blackberrys, or Tweets on Twitter or whatever you’ve got to join the cause
It will take just a few clicks on our computers, or Blackberrys, or Tweets on Twitter or whatever you’ve got to join the cause and then to recruit at least two more supporters to do the same.
How many supporters of this cause will there be if we all recruit at least two supporters as soon as each of us receives the invitation?
http://parentingabusedkids.wordpress.com/
Failures in Social Services and Family Court fail to assess perpetrators of domestic violence and fail to respond to allegations of abuse, putting the lives of vulnerable children at risk (this article does not specify if the victims are even believed when they speak out).
A recent report by the Family Rights Group (FRG) and the Parenting Fund found that: “..88% of the men surveyed continued to have contact with their children despite often long histories of domestic violence..” Further, men who have found to have a history of abuse not getting needed help or intervention services.
As a result, Cathy Ashley of FRG reports that “Really scary, violent fathers are routinely falling through the gaps in children’s services, putting children who have already been raised in homes where domestic violence was present, at risk of further physical and emotional harm.” Similarly, divorced fathers who report concerns with the new spouse or boyfriend of the ex have faced challenges with the system failing to protect their children from abuse by the new partner when allegations or warning signs arise.
What is happening? The report concludes the following:
* Social services often ignores or minimizes allegations of abuse. As a result, alleged perpetrators often are not assessed so their parenting ability remains unknown, and children’s lives are put at serious risk of harm.
* Assessments often fail to include important details, or information is missing-suggesting the method of assessment is faulty or the person conducting the assessment is not properly trained. Which also means the results can’t be trusted.This report suggests that female assessors may be intimidated by the abusers. Alternately, I have heard stories of family court staff flirting with abusers or using their sexuality to yield power in the court.
* Programs to help perpetrators of domestic violence are few, and identified perpetrators rarely get help. To be fair, treatment for abusers is highly controversial as so many abusers go to divorce classes, anger management, parenting classes or similar supports and often return to violent or threatening behavior. Very few abusers are actually “cured”.
This is an excellent article that provides valuable information about the failures in the system to protect children but also compels us to look at why this is happening, and what we can do about it.
Source: The Guardian, Thursday 3, February 2011http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/03/domestic-violence-children-danger-fathers
Title: Children in danger from violent fathers ‘due to social services failures’
Author: Amelia Hill
Failures in Social Services and Family Court fail to assess perpetrators of domestic violence and fail to respond to allegations of abuse, putting the lives of vulnerable children at risk (this article does not specify if the victims are even believed when they speak out).
A recent report by the Family Rights Group (FRG) and the Parenting Fund found that: “..88% of the men surveyed continued to have contact with their children despite often long histories of domestic violence..” Further, men who have found to have a history of abuse not getting needed help or intervention services.
As a result, Cathy Ashley of FRG reports that “Really scary, violent fathers are routinely falling through the gaps in children’s services, putting children who have already been raised in homes where domestic violence was present, at risk of further physical and emotional harm.” Similarly, divorced fathers who report concerns with the new spouse or boyfriend of the ex have faced challenges with the system failing to protect their children from abuse by the new partner when allegations or warning signs arise.
What is happening? The report concludes the following:
* Social services often ignores or minimizes allegations of abuse. As a result, alleged perpetrators often are not assessed so their parenting ability remains unknown, and children’s lives are put at serious risk of harm.
* Assessments often fail to include important details, or information is missing-suggesting the method of assessment is faulty or the person conducting the assessment is not properly trained. Which also means the results can’t be trusted.This report suggests that female assessors may be intimidated by the abusers. Alternately, I have heard stories of family court staff flirting with abusers or using their sexuality to yield power in the court.
* Programs to help perpetrators of domestic violence are few, and identified perpetrators rarely get help. To be fair, treatment for abusers is highly controversial as so many abusers go to divorce classes, anger management, parenting classes or similar supports and often return to violent or threatening behavior. Very few abusers are actually “cured”.
This is an excellent article that provides valuable information about the failures in the system to protect children but also compels us to look at why this is happening, and what we can do about it.
Source: The Guardian, Thursday 3, February 2011http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/03/domestic-violence-children-danger-fathers
Title: Children in danger from violent fathers ‘due to social services failures’
Author: Amelia Hill
There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.
February 24, 2009 — batteredmomslosecustody February 24, 2009 — batteredmomslosecustodyFebruary 24, 2009 — batteredmomslosecustody
There have been numerous studies regarding Maternal Deprivation, with a large source of information coming from Bowlby, based on Spitz and Goldfarb, and also from unethical animal experimentation. Overwhelmingly, research shows that severing this natural bond between a mother and child causes severe emotional and behavioral problems, such as depression and psychosis. The phrase maternal deprivation is the terminology used in the early work of psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, John Bowlby on the effects of separating infants and young children from their mother. Some of the research was previously used to discourage mothers from working or using childcare, but it seems important to revive these studies as children are being deprived of their mothers intentionally by abusive men who claim to be “parentally alienated” in an ongoing scandal that rivals that of the Catholic Priest sexual abuse cover up.
Maternal Deprivation Abuse (MDA), has been identified as occurring with great frequency in legal proceedings, with specific unethical lawyers, psychologists, and judges perpetrating the the same scam on mother after mother with similar horrific results for the children. There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.
Based on Bolwby’s theories, Maternally Deprivation affects children as follows:
Maternal Deprivation Abuse (MDA), has been identified as occurring with great frequency in legal proceedings, with specific unethical lawyers, psychologists, and judges perpetrating the the same scam on mother after mother with similar horrific results for the children. There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.
Based on Bolwby’s theories, Maternally Deprivation affects children as follows:
- Complete or almost complete deprivation could “entirely cripple the capacity to make relationships.”
- Partial deprivation could result in acute anxiety, depression, neediness and powerful emotions which the child could not regulate.
- The end product of such psychic disturbance could be neurosis and instability of character.(Bowlby J. (1951) pps. 11–12)
“Mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.” (Bowlby, 1953.) Child psychoanalyst John Bowlby (1907–1990).
There have been numerous studies regarding Maternal Deprivation, with a large source of information coming from Bowlby, based on Spitz and Goldfarb, and also from unethical animal experimentation. Overwhelmingly, research shows that severing this natural bond between a mother and child causes severe emotional and behavioral problems, such as depression and psychosis. The phrase maternal deprivation is the terminology used in the early work of psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, John Bowlby on the effects of separating infants and young children from their mother. Some of the research was previously used to discourage mothers from working or using childcare, but it seems important to revive these studies as children are being deprived of their mothers intentionally by abusive men who claim to be “parentally alienated” in an ongoing scandal that rivals that of the Catholic Priest sexual abuse cover up.
Maternal Deprivation Abuse (MDA), has been identified as occurring with great frequency in legal proceedings, with specific unethical lawyers, psychologists, and judges perpetrating the the same scam on mother after mother with similar horrific results for the children. There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.
Based on Bolwby’s theories, Maternally Deprivation affects children as follows:
Maternal Deprivation Abuse (MDA), has been identified as occurring with great frequency in legal proceedings, with specific unethical lawyers, psychologists, and judges perpetrating the the same scam on mother after mother with similar horrific results for the children. There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.
Based on Bolwby’s theories, Maternally Deprivation affects children as follows:
- Complete or almost complete deprivation could “entirely cripple the capacity to make relationships.”
- Partial deprivation could result in acute anxiety, depression, neediness and powerful emotions which the child could not regulate.
- The end product of such psychic disturbance could be neurosis and instability of character.(Bowlby J. (1951) pps. 11–12)
“Mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.” (Bowlby, 1953.) Child psychoanalyst John Bowlby (1907–1990).
There have been numerous studies regarding Maternal Deprivation, with a large source of information coming from Bowlby, based on Spitz and Goldfarb, and also from unethical animal experimentation. Overwhelmingly, research shows that severing this natural bond between a mother and child causes severe emotional and behavioral problems, such as depression and psychosis. The phrase maternal deprivation is the terminology used in the early work of psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, John Bowlby on the effects of separating infants and young children from their mother. Some of the research was previously used to discourage mothers from working or using childcare, but it seems important to revive these studies as children are being deprived of their mothers intentionally by abusive men who claim to be “parentally alienated” in an ongoing scandal that rivals that of the Catholic Priest sexual abuse cover up.
Maternal Deprivation Abuse (MDA), has been identified as occurring with great frequency in legal proceedings, with specific unethical lawyers, psychologists, and judges perpetrating the the same scam on mother after mother with similar horrific results for the children. There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.
Based on Bolwby’s theories, Maternally Deprivation affects children as follows:
The County Court of Nassau County, New York conducted a Frye hearing as to the admissibility of PAS. Gardner, testified at the hearing. After hearing the all the evidence, the judge held that the defendant in that case had not established general acceptance of Parental Alienation Syndrome within the professional community which would provide a foundation for its admission at trial. The opinion discusses Gardners failure to have PAS subject to legitimate peer review, and also noted frequent inconsistent statements in Gardner 's writings.
In T.M.W. , a birth father opposed the adoption of his daughter by her stepfather. He attempted to justify his conceded lack of contact or communication with the child for several years by contending the presence of PAS. The court granted an order requiring a psychological evaluation of the child with a view to determining whether PAS was present. The Florida District Court of Appeals overturned the order requiring the examination because it failed to meet Florida 's technical requirements. The court specifically declined to make a finding regarding the general acceptance of PAS, however, it permitted a new order to be issued provided the new order met the requirements of the statute. In a footnote, the reviewing court noted that no determination was made as to the general professional acceptance of PAS as a diagnostic tool and went on further to recite the cautionary words of other commentators:
"When considering the theory of expert testimony discussed in this subsection, it is vitally important to avoid confusion engendered by reference to syndromes.... [A]t the present time experts have not achieved consensus on the existence of a psychological syndrome that can detect a child's sexual abuse. Use of the word syndrome leads only to confusion and to unwarranted and unworkable comparisons to battered child syndrome. The best course is to avoid any mention of syndromes." citing Myers, Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation , 68 Neb. L. Rev. 69 (1989).
Wiederholt v. Fischer, 169 Wis.2d 524, 485 N.W.2d 442 (Ct.App.1992 ).
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed PAS in the context of reviewing a lower courts refusal to transfer custody to the father in order to cure his children of PAS. The court did not address the admissibility of PAS, however, they upheld the lower court ruling noting that this "treatment" is "controversial, there is limited research data, and there are uncertain risks."
People v. Loomis, 172 Misc.2d 265, 658 N.Y.S.2d 787 (Cty. Ct. Suff. Cty. 1997)
"Children are not chargeable with the misconduct of their parents and should not be uprooted from their home in order to discipline a recalcitrant parent." See also Webb v. Knudson, 133 NH 665, 673 (1990)
In the Matter of JF v. LF, [694 NYS2d 592, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99408]
The Family Court became the first New York court to discuss PAS at length in a custody decision. It pointed out that the theory is controversial, and noted that according to one of the expert witnesses who testified, the syndrome is not approved as a term by the American Psychiatric Society, and it is not in DSM-IV as a psychiatric diagnosis.
C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 2003 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 100 ( Ala. Civ. App., February 28, 2003)
After the trial court modified custody, awarding the father sole physical custody of the parties' three children. The mother appealed arguing that the trial court erred by admitting and relying on the testimony of Dr. Kirkland who based his recommendation on his diagnosis of parental alienation syndrome ("PAS"). Although the Alabama Court of Appeals ended up affirming the lower court's ruling, they stated: "Although we might, if faced squarely with the question whether evidence concerning an actual diagnosis of PAS was admissible under Frye's "general acceptance" test, be inclined to agree with the mother and find that PAS had not been generally accepted in the scientific community, we do not need to make that decision in this case."
The Kentucky Supreme Court rejected Gardner 's testimony in which he planned to testify that a man could not be a pedophile because he did not fit Gardner 's 24 indicators for pedophilia. The court noted numerous discrepancies and illogic in Gardners proposed testimony, and found Gardners indicators to be complex, sometimes contradictory." They ruled that the proffered testimony and conclusions lacked sufficient scientific basis for the opinions offered."
Page v. Zordan, 564 So.2d 500, 502 (Dist. Ct. of App. Fla. 1990).
The "Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale" (SALS) was rejected because there was no "reasonable degree of recognition and acceptability among the spectrum of scientific or medical experts." (It should be noted that Gardner developed the SALs in conjection with PAS, an a large portion of his first book on PAS was devoted to the SALs. In addition, the scale included criteria on PAS suggesting that if signs of alienation were present than a sex abuse allegation was less likely to be true. At the same time if the allegation was found not to be true via the SALs than PAS was considered likely to be present. Gardner ultimately withdrew the scale after it was disallowed by the courts and severely criticized in several peer-reviewed articles.
According to Bruch, the deficiencies in PAS theory are multiple. In addition to its lack of scientific support, Bruch notes the following problems:
First, Gardner confounds a child's developmentally related reaction to divorce and high parental conflict (including violence) with psychosis. In doing so, he fails to recognize parents' and children's angry, often inappropriate, and totally predictable behavior following separation.
Second, possibly as a consequence of these errors and his tail-of-the-elephant view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship.
Third, in this fashion, PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behavior of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child. Indeed, for Gardner , the concerned custodial parent's steps to obtain professional assistance in diagnosing, treating, and protecting the child constitute evidence of false allegations.
Fourth, Gardner believes that, particularly in serious cases, the relationship of an alienated child with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged, probably ending for all time,
Fifth, as these sources suggest, Gardner 's proposed remedy for extreme cases is unsupported and endangers children
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.
This article examines the scientific support for PAS along with its underlying assumptions and logic. This theory's relevance to child abuse allegations that arise during child custody disputes is also explored.
Faller, K. C. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: What is it and what data support it?Child Maltreatment, 3(2), 100-115.
This article describes proposed characteristics and dynamics of PAS, and the methods used to document its presence. Research data related to various tenets of the syndrome are then reviewed. Dr. Faller notes that
"No data are provided by Gardner to support the existence of the syndrome and its proposed dynamics. In fact, the research and clinical writing of other professionals leads to a conclusion that some of its tenets are wrong and that other tenets represent a minority view" (p. 112).
Jennifer Hoult. (Spring 2006). The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy, Children's Legal Rights Journal, 26(1) pp. 1-61. (download PDF)
Abstract: Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome ("PAS"). Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS' admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny.
This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS' evidentiary admissibility. As a novel scientific theory, PAS' admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science. This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively. The article further analyzes PAS' admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS' scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards.
Justice for Children, Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Attorneys or Pro Se Litigants, available at the Justice for Children website at www.justiceforchildren.org
This manual was created to educate attorneys and litigants about the lack of scientific validity or reliability of PAS
Justice for Children. (2001). Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice For Children in Linville v. Linville (PDF) .
Brief filed by Justice for Children in a custody case heard by Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The brief provides a Frye-analysis asking whether evidence of PAS is reliable and relevant in child custody cases. discusses the lack of scientific support for PAS rendering it inadmissible under Frye.
Justice for Children. (2004). Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice For Children in Shockome v. Shockome (PDF) (Supreme Court of the State of New York)
Justice for Children urges rejection of PAS and reverse lower courts ruling
McDonald, M. (1998). The myth of epidemic false allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases. Court Review, 12-19.
http//www.omsys.com/mmcd/courtrev.htm
It is commonly believed that false allegations of sexual abuse in the context of divorce are epidemic, that most allegations made in the context of divorce are made by vindictive mothers and that these allegations are almost always false. These beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence.
Myers, John E. B. (1997). A Mother's Nightmare - Incest: A Practical Legal Guide for Parents and Professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
http://www.gate.net/%7Eliz/liz/poliacoff.htm
This article explores the shortcomings of PAS under Frye and Daubert and reviews relevant case law pertaining to the admissibility of PAS in court. Ethical dilemmas that mental health professionals face when serving as experts in these cases are explored and alternative areas for inquiry into the source of impaired parent child relationships occurring in the context of child custody litigation are offered.
Ragland, E. R. & Fields, H. (2004). Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know. NCPCA Update, 16(6-7). Alexandria , VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Part one: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 6, 2003
Part two: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 7, 2003
The purpose of this article is to briefly discuss the major premises upon which PAS is based, and to identify key weaknesses. Part 2 of this Update considers case law and strategies for meeting PAS defenses.
Smith, R., & Coukos, P. (1997, Fall). Fairness and Accuracy in Evaluations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Custody Determinations. The Judges Journal, 1997, 38-56.
This article provides an overview of the results of a 2-year study completed by the Denver-based Research Unit of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts which explored the incidence and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody cases. Though nation-wide reports of sexual abuse made to child protective service agencies have increased dramatically, those in custody disputes have not. Contrary to the popular myth that sexual allegations in custody cases are relatively common, between 1985 and 1987 the study found that only 2 to 6% of custody cases in the 12 states participating in the study involved allegations of sexual abuse.
The categorization that these allegations are typically false was also challenged by the present study. Half of the allegations were believed by the investigators to be true, and in another 17% determination of the validity could not be made with any degree of certainty. The remaining third of the cases were not believed to involve abuse. However, in most of the cases which were not substantiated, the allegations were believed to have been made in good faith and based on genuine suspicions. This study refutes the notion that sexual abuse allegations in the context of custody and visitation cases are now epidemic, as well as the idea that these cases are commonly motivated by a reporting parent who is vindictive or seriously impaired. There is no evidence from the present research to suggest that a significant number of parents are using fabricated reports to win custody battles.
Walker, L. E., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Admissibility in the Family Court. Journal of Child Custody, 1(2), 47-74. [download from Haworth $]
ABSTRACT: Over the past three decades, a syndrome, titled Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), has been proposed to explain behaviors by a child who refuses to spend time with a parent and actually denigrates that parent within the context of a child custody dispute. The association of certain negative behaviors by one parent (called the 'alienator') towards the other parent (called the 'target parent') are said to be the cause of the child's (called 'alienated child') behavior. Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, especially in those that have cross-complaints alleging family violence, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS exists or that the alienator's behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent. It is argued here that the PAS construct itself is flawed and its use by custody evaluators to justify placement with the rejected parent may result in more serious damage to the child who is taken away from the parent to whom the child has bonded. These authors suggest that the PAS argument has been accepted by some courts that seem almost eager to punish the so-called alienating parent without regard for the immediate or long-term impact on the child. PAS has had difficulty meetingDaubert or Frye admissibility standards in criminal courts but few family courts have held hearings to determine its scientific integrity. This article attempts to help those working with custody issues understand how the PAS construct fails to meet scientific standards and should not be admissible in courts.
Williams, R.J. (2001). Should judges close the gate on PAS and PA? Family Court Review, 39(3), 267-282.
Wood, C. L. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome: A dangerous aura of reliability. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1367-1415.
http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/wood94.htm
Attorney Cheri Wood (1994) suggests that although Gardner 's self-published theories do not have any empirical grounding, they have been given a "dangerous and undeserved aura of reliability and trustworthiness" in the courtroom. Wood concludes that PAS should not be admissible in court for the following reasons: (1) because it has not gained acceptance among experts in the field, (2) because of difficulties in determining causation, and (3) because it endangers children.
Zirogiannis, L. (2001). Evidentiary issues with parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 334-343.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/leg.html#other_decisions
Described by one member of Congress as the emancipation proclamation of pedophiles, the paper by authors Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman and Phillip Tromovitch, published in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, launched a firestorm of public debate. Rinds paper has been cited by fringe groups like the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) as providing support for their efforts to decriminalize sex between adults and "consenting" children. Child molesters have also used the paper to argue that they shouldnt be held legally accountable for abusing children.
The newly published scientific critique shows that the study conducted by Rind contains fundamental flaws that are an embarrassment to science, according to a team of researchers from Stanford University, Texas A&M University, and the Leadership Council, a scientific organization comprised of leaders in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. Rind's paper was a stacked deck of poor population and study selection, misreported data, and misrepresented findings that inevitably led to the wrong conclusions," says Dr. David Spiegel , co-author of the new study. Spiegel is the Associate Chair of the Stanford University School of Medicines Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences.
Rind, Tromovitch and Bausermans 1998 paper, called A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse, examined 59 studies of college students. The authors concluded that the harmful effects from sexual abuse have been overstated. In fact, they argued that being molested can be positive for willing children -- especially boys. They also advocated less judgmental terminology. For example, a willing encounter with positive reactions involving a 9-year-old boy and an adult male, would no longer be considered sexual abuse; instead it would simply be called adult-child sex, a more value neutral term.
Concerned that it would be used to normalize pedophilia, Rinds paper became the first study to be formally denounced by Congress. In July 1999, Congress unanimously passed a resolution that condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article... that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and willing children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for willing children.
Many psychologists rushed to the defense of the controversial paper, charging Congress with launching a McCarthyesque assault on scientific freedom. Dr Spiegel and his team of researchers, on the other hand, examined Rind, Tromovitch and Bausermans data scientifically and found it wanting.
"We conducted an independent scientific review of Rinds work. says Stephanie Dallam, RN, MS, FNP, lead author of the scientific critique and researcher for the Leadership Council. Our review uncovered numerous of errors in reporting and analyzing data. Almost every error served to minimize the finding of harmful effects of sexual abuse."
"The most troublesome finding from a scientific point of view was the one most celebrated by pedophiles," says co-author Joyanna Silberg, PhD, a psychologist at Sheppard Pratt Hospital in Baltimore . In their 1998 article, Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman claimed that consenting boys arent harmed by sex with adults. But what Dr. Silberg finds astounding, is that this conclusion has absolutely no data to support it. "They never had a group of males who reported having consented to sex with adults during childhood. They simply grouped subjects under an arbitrary label that they called consent and then acted like these subjects actually had consented." According to Silberg, this so-called "consent" group was actually comprised of a wide variety of subjects including victims of forced assaults and intrafamilial incest -- none of whom were ever asked whether or not they participated "willingly" in their abuse.
"From a purely scientific standpoint, this is a very serious misrepresentation," says Dallam, RN, MS, FNP. "However, from a public health standpoint it is potentially very dangerous." She notes that Rind and Bauserman went on to present as scientific fact their controversial findings at a December 1998 conference in Rotterdam , Netherlands . The conference, titled "The Other Side of the Coin," was organized by a pedophile advocacy group expressly to "throw light on the more positive side" of "sexual experiences between young people and adults"; Rind and Bauserman were the keynote speakers.
Dallam also points to a 1999 Arizona case where a gym teacher convicted of molesting five young boys cited Rinds findings in a bid for leniency from the court. Although the boys' parents testified that their children were suffering, the molester argued for a lighter sentence claiming Rinds study shows children arent harmed by being molested.
Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman have stated they stand behind their findings and claim to be victims of political persecution.
The Leadership Council is a non-profit scientific organization headed by Paul Fink, MD, a past president of the American Psychiatric Association. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found on their website at: www.leadershipcouncil.org
Copyright 2001, all rights reserved by author
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/pr.html
Maternal Deprivation Abuse (MDA), has been identified as occurring with great frequency in legal proceedings, with specific unethical lawyers, psychologists, and judges perpetrating the the same scam on mother after mother with similar horrific results for the children. There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.
Based on Bolwby’s theories, Maternally Deprivation affects children as follows:
- Complete or almost complete deprivation could “entirely cripple the capacity to make relationships.”
- Partial deprivation could result in acute anxiety, depression, neediness and powerful emotions which the child could not regulate.
- The end product of such psychic disturbance could be neurosis and instability of character.(Bowlby J. (1951) pps. 11–12)
“Mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.” (Bowlby, 1953.) Child psychoanalyst John Bowlby (1907–1990).
Child Sexual Abuse & Parental Alienation Syndrome Allegations
From Parenting Abused Children: Hope, Healing, and Insight
The following is a group of excellent links to papers and articles about Parental Alienation Syndrome and how the use of this fictitious syndrome by the Family Courts is harming our nation's children. Does parental alienation exist? Yes, it does. But true Parental Alienation is a far cry from the so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).
http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/forensics_talk/child-sexual-abuse-parent.html
The following is a group of excellent links to papers and articles about Parental Alienation Syndrome and how the use of this fictitious syndrome by the Family Courts is harming our nation's children. Does parental alienation exist? Yes, it does. But true Parental Alienation is a far cry from the so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).
http://harfordmedlegal.typepad.com/forensics_talk/child-sexual-abuse-parent.html
Update on Parental Alienation Syndrome By Paul L. Feinstein, Esq Professionals Forum -- Illinois Divorce
Expert Opinions Are Not Necessarily Valid
In addition to having allegedly discovered PAS, Dr. Gardner also claims to be an expert regarding pedophilia and to have isolated certain factors with which he can determine whether an accused is, or is not, a pedophile. In Tungate v. Kentucky, 901 S.W.2d 41 Ky. 1995), Dr. Gardner claimed to have identified 24 indicators for pedophilia. His testimony in that case was being offered to show that the defendant was "unlikely to have engaged in the alleged acts of child sexual abuse based upon [Dr. Gardner's] 'indicators for pedophilia'". Id. at 42. The Kentucky Supreme Court noted numerous discrepancies in Dr. Gardner's proposed testimony, such as the following:
Dr. Gardner testified that there is no reliable profile of a pedophile, even though he had determined indicators which he believed identified pedophilic tendencies.
Dr. Gardner's indicators are "complex, sometimes contradictory, and can only be properly evaluated by a competent psychiatrist"; and:
Dr. Gardner was willing to testify that it was unlikely that the defendant was inclined to commit pedophilic acts, even though he admitted "that whether a person may have these indications or not, no one can conclusively determine whether or not someone has committed a particular pedophilic act, based solely on psychiatric evaluation."
Id. at 42-43. The court upheld the trial court's ruling that Dr. Gardner's testimony was inadmissible, citing with approval the trial court's finding that "the proffered testimony and conclusions lacked sufficient scientific basis for the opinions offered." Id. at 43.
An expert's opinion is only as valid as the reasons for the opinion. Hiscott v. Peters, 754 N.Ed.2d 839 (Ill.App.Ct. 2001). The trial court must analyze the adequacy of the foundation. Modelski v. Navistar International Transportation Corp, 707 N.E.2d 239, 244 (Ill.App.Ct. 1999) (expert's opinions based on guess, speculation or conjecture, inadmissible).
In NK v. MK, 851 N.Y.S.2d 71 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2007), it was stated, "This court does not believe that there is a generally accepted diagnostic determination or syndrome known as 'parental alienation syndrome'. Terminology such as inappropriate parental influence would be far more appropriate." (citing Hault article, supra).
On the other hand, in New York, parental alienation, defined as "extreme denigration by one parent of the other parent, or the indoctrination and brainwashing of the child to turn him against the parent", can be used as an affirmative defense to the custodial parent's attempt to establish a support order. F.S.-P v. A.H.R., 17 Misc.3d 390, 392 (N.Y. 2007)."
Tort Liability
Another issue is whether or not PAS, or parental alienation, should lead to tort liability. One court that allowed such a claim is Raftery v. Scott, 756 F.2d 335 (4th Cir. 1985). Virginia law applied in an emotional distress suit when the wife hid the child and alienated him from the father. Wisconsin law is to the contrary. Gleiss v. Newman, 415 N.W.2d 845 (Wis. Ct. App. 1987) (cause of action not allowed; to do so could encourage claims for petty infractions). See also Larson v. Dunn, 460 N.W.2d 39 (Minnesota 1990) (intentional interference with custody rights tort not recognized; to do so would create new weapon in custody cases).
"The widespread acceptance of a specific cause of action for parental alienation seems unlikely to occur in the near future." Kathleen Niggemyer: "Parental Alienation Is Open Heart Surgery: It Needs More Than a Band-Aid to Fix It". California Western Law Review, Spring 1998. 34 Cal. W.L.Rev. 567, 576.
Jennifer Hault concludes, "As a legal matter, PAS's inadmissibility is appropriate given its lack of scientific validity and reliability... PAS's 20-year run in American courts is an embarrassing chapter in the history of evidentiary law. It reflects the wholesale failure of legal professionals entrusted with evidentiary gate-keeping intended to guard legal processes from the taint of pseudo-science." Hault, supra, page 22.
Although Dr. Gardner's 2003 death should help put an end to PAS testimony, matrimonial practitioners will continue to be compelled to address accusations of parental alienation.
Paul L. Feinstein, a Chicago sole practitioner, concentrates his practice in family law with emphasis on divorce litigation, custody and visitation, and appeals. He can be reached at (312) 346-6392. View his Divorce Magazine profile.
Best on-line resources for combating social and professional denial.
The following are some of the many news stories and official reports, which expose and discredited the PAS custody switching tactics by judges and court professionals from states coast-to-coast. (Many of these articles are included in the First Step Section above)
N.O.W. President Kim Gandy says Richard Gardner's PAS is a "Sick Reality" against women in her May 2007 article
The Leadership Council, founded by Baltimore, Maryland based psychologist, Joy Silberg, has issued several reports discrediting the PAS custody tactics which are frequently used in courts against mothers who make good-faith abuse complaints against her child's father.
The most compelling Leadership report was done by Stephanie Dallam, who uses Richard Gardner's own published words to expose him as a pervert trying to justify deviant sex with children.
Another Leadership Council, professional, Robert A. Geffner, who conducts annual conferences in San Diego, CA, has written extensively against the widespread court practices harmful to family abuse victims.
Phoenix, Arizona journalist, Jana Bommersbach's May 2006 article does a great job explaining how use of PAS is destroying women and children
Albany, New York Professor, Dr. Maureen Therese Hannah, sponsors a Battered Mothers Custody Conference each January which includes many of the prominent professionals who are very critical of the widespread practice of many courts and social services in discrediting abuse complaints made by mother complaining about domestic violence and child abuse by fathers.
Garland Waller, a Boston communications professor, has made documentaries exposing the injustices by the court against victimized mothers and their children.
New York State advocacy group Stop Family Violence also works to expose these court injustices
Judith Reisman, long-time obscenity researcher, and NAFCJ supporter since 1996, has written several articles for WorldNet Daily exposing Richard Gardner & PAS as being pro-pedophilia. This April 1999 article refers to NAFCJ leaders Liz Richards and Jan Barstow
Read Liz Richards published articles in the Washington Times
April 2008 Washington Times
April 2006 Washington Times
http://www.nafcj.net/
The following are some of the many news stories and official reports, which expose and discredited the PAS custody switching tactics by judges and court professionals from states coast-to-coast. (Many of these articles are included in the First Step Section above)
N.O.W. President Kim Gandy says Richard Gardner's PAS is a "Sick Reality" against women in her May 2007 article
The Leadership Council, founded by Baltimore, Maryland based psychologist, Joy Silberg, has issued several reports discrediting the PAS custody tactics which are frequently used in courts against mothers who make good-faith abuse complaints against her child's father.
The most compelling Leadership report was done by Stephanie Dallam, who uses Richard Gardner's own published words to expose him as a pervert trying to justify deviant sex with children.
Another Leadership Council, professional, Robert A. Geffner, who conducts annual conferences in San Diego, CA, has written extensively against the widespread court practices harmful to family abuse victims.
Phoenix, Arizona journalist, Jana Bommersbach's May 2006 article does a great job explaining how use of PAS is destroying women and children
Albany, New York Professor, Dr. Maureen Therese Hannah, sponsors a Battered Mothers Custody Conference each January which includes many of the prominent professionals who are very critical of the widespread practice of many courts and social services in discrediting abuse complaints made by mother complaining about domestic violence and child abuse by fathers.
Garland Waller, a Boston communications professor, has made documentaries exposing the injustices by the court against victimized mothers and their children.
New York State advocacy group Stop Family Violence also works to expose these court injustices
Judith Reisman, long-time obscenity researcher, and NAFCJ supporter since 1996, has written several articles for WorldNet Daily exposing Richard Gardner & PAS as being pro-pedophilia. This April 1999 article refers to NAFCJ leaders Liz Richards and Jan Barstow
Read Liz Richards published articles in the Washington Times
April 2008 Washington Times
April 2006 Washington Times
http://www.nafcj.net/
Legal Cases involving PAS Allegations & Related Issues http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/leg.html#other_decisions
Court cases examining the admissibility of PAS
People v. Fortin, 184 Misc.2d 10, 706 N.Y. S.2d 611 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 2000).The County Court of Nassau County, New York conducted a Frye hearing as to the admissibility of PAS. Gardner, testified at the hearing. After hearing the all the evidence, the judge held that the defendant in that case had not established general acceptance of Parental Alienation Syndrome within the professional community which would provide a foundation for its admission at trial. The opinion discusses Gardners failure to have PAS subject to legitimate peer review, and also noted frequent inconsistent statements in Gardner 's writings.
Cases discussing PAS admissibility in dicta
In the Interest of T.M.W., 553 So. 2d 260, 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).In T.M.W. , a birth father opposed the adoption of his daughter by her stepfather. He attempted to justify his conceded lack of contact or communication with the child for several years by contending the presence of PAS. The court granted an order requiring a psychological evaluation of the child with a view to determining whether PAS was present. The Florida District Court of Appeals overturned the order requiring the examination because it failed to meet Florida 's technical requirements. The court specifically declined to make a finding regarding the general acceptance of PAS, however, it permitted a new order to be issued provided the new order met the requirements of the statute. In a footnote, the reviewing court noted that no determination was made as to the general professional acceptance of PAS as a diagnostic tool and went on further to recite the cautionary words of other commentators:
"When considering the theory of expert testimony discussed in this subsection, it is vitally important to avoid confusion engendered by reference to syndromes.... [A]t the present time experts have not achieved consensus on the existence of a psychological syndrome that can detect a child's sexual abuse. Use of the word syndrome leads only to confusion and to unwarranted and unworkable comparisons to battered child syndrome. The best course is to avoid any mention of syndromes." citing Myers, Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation , 68 Neb. L. Rev. 69 (1989).
Wiederholt v. Fischer, 169 Wis.2d 524, 485 N.W.2d 442 (Ct.App.1992 ).
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed PAS in the context of reviewing a lower courts refusal to transfer custody to the father in order to cure his children of PAS. The court did not address the admissibility of PAS, however, they upheld the lower court ruling noting that this "treatment" is "controversial, there is limited research data, and there are uncertain risks."
People v. Loomis, 172 Misc.2d 265, 658 N.Y.S.2d 787 (Cty. Ct. Suff. Cty. 1997)
"Children are not chargeable with the misconduct of their parents and should not be uprooted from their home in order to discipline a recalcitrant parent." See also Webb v. Knudson, 133 NH 665, 673 (1990)
In the Matter of JF v. LF, [694 NYS2d 592, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99408]
The Family Court became the first New York court to discuss PAS at length in a custody decision. It pointed out that the theory is controversial, and noted that according to one of the expert witnesses who testified, the syndrome is not approved as a term by the American Psychiatric Society, and it is not in DSM-IV as a psychiatric diagnosis.
C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 2003 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 100 ( Ala. Civ. App., February 28, 2003)
After the trial court modified custody, awarding the father sole physical custody of the parties' three children. The mother appealed arguing that the trial court erred by admitting and relying on the testimony of Dr. Kirkland who based his recommendation on his diagnosis of parental alienation syndrome ("PAS"). Although the Alabama Court of Appeals ended up affirming the lower court's ruling, they stated: "Although we might, if faced squarely with the question whether evidence concerning an actual diagnosis of PAS was admissible under Frye's "general acceptance" test, be inclined to agree with the mother and find that PAS had not been generally accepted in the scientific community, we do not need to make that decision in this case."
Decisions involving Gardner 's other diagnostic theories and instruments
Tungate v. Kentucky, 901 S.W.2d 41 (Ky. 1995), at 42-43.The Kentucky Supreme Court rejected Gardner 's testimony in which he planned to testify that a man could not be a pedophile because he did not fit Gardner 's 24 indicators for pedophilia. The court noted numerous discrepancies and illogic in Gardners proposed testimony, and found Gardners indicators to be complex, sometimes contradictory." They ruled that the proffered testimony and conclusions lacked sufficient scientific basis for the opinions offered."
Page v. Zordan, 564 So.2d 500, 502 (Dist. Ct. of App. Fla. 1990).
The "Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale" (SALS) was rejected because there was no "reasonable degree of recognition and acceptability among the spectrum of scientific or medical experts." (It should be noted that Gardner developed the SALs in conjection with PAS, an a large portion of his first book on PAS was devoted to the SALs. In addition, the scale included criteria on PAS suggesting that if signs of alienation were present than a sex abuse allegation was less likely to be true. At the same time if the allegation was found not to be true via the SALs than PAS was considered likely to be present. Gardner ultimately withdrew the scale after it was disallowed by the courts and severely criticized in several peer-reviewed articles.
Legal Commentary and Analysis of PAS
Bruch, Carol S. Parental (2001).Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35, 527 Available on-line athttp://www.abanet.org/family/familylaw/fam353_06_bruch_527_552.pdfAccording to Bruch, the deficiencies in PAS theory are multiple. In addition to its lack of scientific support, Bruch notes the following problems:
First, Gardner confounds a child's developmentally related reaction to divorce and high parental conflict (including violence) with psychosis. In doing so, he fails to recognize parents' and children's angry, often inappropriate, and totally predictable behavior following separation.
Second, possibly as a consequence of these errors and his tail-of-the-elephant view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship.
Third, in this fashion, PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behavior of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child. Indeed, for Gardner , the concerned custodial parent's steps to obtain professional assistance in diagnosing, treating, and protecting the child constitute evidence of false allegations.
Fourth, Gardner believes that, particularly in serious cases, the relationship of an alienated child with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged, probably ending for all time,
Fifth, as these sources suggest, Gardner 's proposed remedy for extreme cases is unsupported and endangers children
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.
This article examines the scientific support for PAS along with its underlying assumptions and logic. This theory's relevance to child abuse allegations that arise during child custody disputes is also explored.
Faller, K. C. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: What is it and what data support it?Child Maltreatment, 3(2), 100-115.
This article describes proposed characteristics and dynamics of PAS, and the methods used to document its presence. Research data related to various tenets of the syndrome are then reviewed. Dr. Faller notes that
"The parental alienation syndrome is a nondiagnostic syndrome. It is only useful for mental health professionals in explaining the symptom presentation if they know from other information that an abuse allegation is a deliberately made, false accusation. The syndrome cannot be used to decide whether the child has been sexually abused. As a consequence, it is of little probative value to courts in making decisions about the presence or absence of sexual abuse .... An additional problem with the parental alienation syndrome is that virtually every symptom described by Gardner as evidence of its presence, and consequent false charges against the accused parent, is open to opposing interpretations" (p. 111).After reviewing the relevant research Faller concludes:
"No data are provided by Gardner to support the existence of the syndrome and its proposed dynamics. In fact, the research and clinical writing of other professionals leads to a conclusion that some of its tenets are wrong and that other tenets represent a minority view" (p. 112).
Jennifer Hoult. (Spring 2006). The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy, Children's Legal Rights Journal, 26(1) pp. 1-61. (download PDF)
Abstract: Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome ("PAS"). Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS' admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny.
This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS' evidentiary admissibility. As a novel scientific theory, PAS' admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science. This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively. The article further analyzes PAS' admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS' scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards.
Justice for Children, Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Attorneys or Pro Se Litigants, available at the Justice for Children website at www.justiceforchildren.org
This manual was created to educate attorneys and litigants about the lack of scientific validity or reliability of PAS
Justice for Children. (2001). Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice For Children in Linville v. Linville (PDF) .
Brief filed by Justice for Children in a custody case heard by Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The brief provides a Frye-analysis asking whether evidence of PAS is reliable and relevant in child custody cases. discusses the lack of scientific support for PAS rendering it inadmissible under Frye.
Justice for Children. (2004). Amicus Curiae Brief of Justice For Children in Shockome v. Shockome (PDF) (Supreme Court of the State of New York)
Justice for Children urges rejection of PAS and reverse lower courts ruling
McDonald, M. (1998). The myth of epidemic false allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases. Court Review, 12-19.
http//www.omsys.com/mmcd/courtrev.htm
It is commonly believed that false allegations of sexual abuse in the context of divorce are epidemic, that most allegations made in the context of divorce are made by vindictive mothers and that these allegations are almost always false. These beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence.
Myers, John E. B. (1997). A Mother's Nightmare - Incest: A Practical Legal Guide for Parents and Professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
EXCERPT: "In my opinion, much of Gardner 's writing, including his discussion of his parental alienation syndrome, is biased against women. This gender bias infects the syndrome and makes it a powerful tool to undermine the credibility of women who allege child sexual abuse." (p. 137)National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006). Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2nd edition). Reno, NV: NCJFCJ.
EXCERPT from page 24: "The theory positing the existence of "PAS" has been discredited by the scientific community.[53] In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the "soft sciences" must meet the standard set in the Daubert [54] case. Daubert, in which the Court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye [55] case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. "Parental Alienation Syndrome" does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or "parental alienation" should therefore be ruled inadmissible and/or stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.[56]." Read whole excerpt and see footnotesPoliacoff, J. H., Greene, C. L., & Smith, L. (1999). Parental Alienation Syndrome: Frye v. Gardner in the family courts. Family Law Commentator (Florida Bar), 25(4), 19-20, 30-33.
http://www.gate.net/%7Eliz/liz/poliacoff.htm
This article explores the shortcomings of PAS under Frye and Daubert and reviews relevant case law pertaining to the admissibility of PAS in court. Ethical dilemmas that mental health professionals face when serving as experts in these cases are explored and alternative areas for inquiry into the source of impaired parent child relationships occurring in the context of child custody litigation are offered.
Ragland, E. R. & Fields, H. (2004). Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know. NCPCA Update, 16(6-7). Alexandria , VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Part one: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 6, 2003
Part two: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 7, 2003
The purpose of this article is to briefly discuss the major premises upon which PAS is based, and to identify key weaknesses. Part 2 of this Update considers case law and strategies for meeting PAS defenses.
Smith, R., & Coukos, P. (1997, Fall). Fairness and Accuracy in Evaluations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Custody Determinations. The Judges Journal, 1997, 38-56.
EXCERPT ". . .Although both common sense and the prevailing legal standard dictate careful consideration of evidence in domestic or family violence when determining custody, allegations of domestic violence and/or child sexual abuse made during a divorce or custody proceeding are not always taken seriously. These allegations often are wrongly perceived as false because they are asserted in a contentious environment and because of the widespread myth that parents fabricate domestic violence and child abuse allegations in order to gain an advantage in court. When combined with the misuse of psychological syndrome evidence, the perception that a parent has fabricated the allegations often results in unfair retribution against the reporting protective parent. (p. 39)Thoennes, N. (1988, Summer). Child Sexual Abuse: Whom Should a Judge Believe? What Should a Judge Believe? The Judges' Journal, 27, 14-.
This article provides an overview of the results of a 2-year study completed by the Denver-based Research Unit of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts which explored the incidence and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody cases. Though nation-wide reports of sexual abuse made to child protective service agencies have increased dramatically, those in custody disputes have not. Contrary to the popular myth that sexual allegations in custody cases are relatively common, between 1985 and 1987 the study found that only 2 to 6% of custody cases in the 12 states participating in the study involved allegations of sexual abuse.
The categorization that these allegations are typically false was also challenged by the present study. Half of the allegations were believed by the investigators to be true, and in another 17% determination of the validity could not be made with any degree of certainty. The remaining third of the cases were not believed to involve abuse. However, in most of the cases which were not substantiated, the allegations were believed to have been made in good faith and based on genuine suspicions. This study refutes the notion that sexual abuse allegations in the context of custody and visitation cases are now epidemic, as well as the idea that these cases are commonly motivated by a reporting parent who is vindictive or seriously impaired. There is no evidence from the present research to suggest that a significant number of parents are using fabricated reports to win custody battles.
Walker, L. E., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Admissibility in the Family Court. Journal of Child Custody, 1(2), 47-74. [download from Haworth $]
ABSTRACT: Over the past three decades, a syndrome, titled Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), has been proposed to explain behaviors by a child who refuses to spend time with a parent and actually denigrates that parent within the context of a child custody dispute. The association of certain negative behaviors by one parent (called the 'alienator') towards the other parent (called the 'target parent') are said to be the cause of the child's (called 'alienated child') behavior. Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, especially in those that have cross-complaints alleging family violence, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS exists or that the alienator's behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent. It is argued here that the PAS construct itself is flawed and its use by custody evaluators to justify placement with the rejected parent may result in more serious damage to the child who is taken away from the parent to whom the child has bonded. These authors suggest that the PAS argument has been accepted by some courts that seem almost eager to punish the so-called alienating parent without regard for the immediate or long-term impact on the child. PAS has had difficulty meetingDaubert or Frye admissibility standards in criminal courts but few family courts have held hearings to determine its scientific integrity. This article attempts to help those working with custody issues understand how the PAS construct fails to meet scientific standards and should not be admissible in courts.
Williams, R.J. (2001). Should judges close the gate on PAS and PA? Family Court Review, 39(3), 267-282.
Wood, C. L. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome: A dangerous aura of reliability. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1367-1415.
http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/wood94.htm
Attorney Cheri Wood (1994) suggests that although Gardner 's self-published theories do not have any empirical grounding, they have been given a "dangerous and undeserved aura of reliability and trustworthiness" in the courtroom. Wood concludes that PAS should not be admissible in court for the following reasons: (1) because it has not gained acceptance among experts in the field, (2) because of difficulties in determining causation, and (3) because it endangers children.
Zirogiannis, L. (2001). Evidentiary issues with parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 334-343.
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/leg.html#other_decisions
APR
25
Misuse* of the Rind study:Legal Cases where Rind's work has been cited in defense of alleged child molesters Watson v. Roman Catholic Church
Misuse* of the Rind study:
Legal Cases where Rind's work has been cited in defense of alleged child molesters
Watson v. Roman Catholic Church
Dr. Charles Brainerd, a defense expert representing Father Bredemann (a priest and confessed pedophile) cited Rind et al. (1998) as proof that CSA does not cause harm to children in his deposition. Referring to the Rind study, Brainerd stated: "in a cases like this, where a claim is being made that here are symptoms of maladjustment and they are due to child sexual abuse, what I have to say is that the current scientific literature does not support the existence of such a relationship in the population at large. And that's the interpretive framework that I bring to this particular case, that there isn't scientific evidence for that assumption." [read longer excerpt]Deposition of Charles Brainerd. Ph.D. Watson v. Roman Catholic Church, Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County. August 17, 1999.
State v. Steward ( Maricopa County Superior Court), October 20, 1999
Kevin Eugene Steward, an Arizona elementary school teacher, was convicted of molesting 5 boys ranging in age from 6 to 13. Despite testimony by the boys' parents who described how their children are suffering, Steward's attorney cited the Rind study as evidence that he didn't really harm his victims and that the judge should give Steward a more lenient sentence.Harker, V. (1999, October 21). Former gym teacher gets 88 years in molestation case.Arizona Republic , p. A15.
Wilson v. Phillips. 73 Cal. App. 4 th 250; 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 204 (Calif. Ct. App. 1999)
An Amicus Curiae brief written by the False Memory Syndrome Foundation cited Rind and Tromovitch's 1997 meta-analysis in defense of an alleged child molester. The 1997 meta-analysis of general population samples, like the 1998 meta-analysis of college samples, concluded that childhood sexual abuse is not associated with significant maladjustment. John R. Phillips was appealing a judgment following a jury finding that he sexually battered both his daughter and his step-daughter. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation, a nonprofit organization that advocates for parents accused of sexual abuse by their children, submitted the brief. [FMS Foundation. (1998). FMSF Amicus Curiae Brief - Crt. of Appeals. 4th Dist., California ].
*Note:Because Rind et al. carefully excluded all legal and clinical samples from their study, their results are not applicable to abuse survivors who seek psychological treatment or legal help. In addition, many of their conclusions are not supported by the larger body of scientific research in the area of child sexual abuse. See: Rind et al.'s main conclusions do not stand up to scientific scrutiny
Controversial Study Defending Child Molesters Is Debunked
Leading Mental Health Experts Charge that "Bad" Science is being used to Justify Exploiting Children
NOV. 29, 2001 -Shock waves reverberated through the public, political and scientific community two years ago, when a controversial study claimed that consenting children aren't harmed by sex with adults. Now this conclusion, along with the methods of its authors, has been debunked by a new scientific critique published this week in Psychological Bulletin.Described by one member of Congress as the emancipation proclamation of pedophiles, the paper by authors Bruce Rind, Robert Bauserman and Phillip Tromovitch, published in the July 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletin, launched a firestorm of public debate. Rinds paper has been cited by fringe groups like the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) as providing support for their efforts to decriminalize sex between adults and "consenting" children. Child molesters have also used the paper to argue that they shouldnt be held legally accountable for abusing children.
The newly published scientific critique shows that the study conducted by Rind contains fundamental flaws that are an embarrassment to science, according to a team of researchers from Stanford University, Texas A&M University, and the Leadership Council, a scientific organization comprised of leaders in the fields of psychology and psychiatry. Rind's paper was a stacked deck of poor population and study selection, misreported data, and misrepresented findings that inevitably led to the wrong conclusions," says Dr. David Spiegel , co-author of the new study. Spiegel is the Associate Chair of the Stanford University School of Medicines Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences.
Rind, Tromovitch and Bausermans 1998 paper, called A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse, examined 59 studies of college students. The authors concluded that the harmful effects from sexual abuse have been overstated. In fact, they argued that being molested can be positive for willing children -- especially boys. They also advocated less judgmental terminology. For example, a willing encounter with positive reactions involving a 9-year-old boy and an adult male, would no longer be considered sexual abuse; instead it would simply be called adult-child sex, a more value neutral term.
Concerned that it would be used to normalize pedophilia, Rinds paper became the first study to be formally denounced by Congress. In July 1999, Congress unanimously passed a resolution that condemns and denounces all suggestions in the article... that indicate that sexual relationships between adults and willing children are less harmful than believed and might be positive for willing children.
Many psychologists rushed to the defense of the controversial paper, charging Congress with launching a McCarthyesque assault on scientific freedom. Dr Spiegel and his team of researchers, on the other hand, examined Rind, Tromovitch and Bausermans data scientifically and found it wanting.
"We conducted an independent scientific review of Rinds work. says Stephanie Dallam, RN, MS, FNP, lead author of the scientific critique and researcher for the Leadership Council. Our review uncovered numerous of errors in reporting and analyzing data. Almost every error served to minimize the finding of harmful effects of sexual abuse."
"The most troublesome finding from a scientific point of view was the one most celebrated by pedophiles," says co-author Joyanna Silberg, PhD, a psychologist at Sheppard Pratt Hospital in Baltimore . In their 1998 article, Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman claimed that consenting boys arent harmed by sex with adults. But what Dr. Silberg finds astounding, is that this conclusion has absolutely no data to support it. "They never had a group of males who reported having consented to sex with adults during childhood. They simply grouped subjects under an arbitrary label that they called consent and then acted like these subjects actually had consented." According to Silberg, this so-called "consent" group was actually comprised of a wide variety of subjects including victims of forced assaults and intrafamilial incest -- none of whom were ever asked whether or not they participated "willingly" in their abuse.
"From a purely scientific standpoint, this is a very serious misrepresentation," says Dallam, RN, MS, FNP. "However, from a public health standpoint it is potentially very dangerous." She notes that Rind and Bauserman went on to present as scientific fact their controversial findings at a December 1998 conference in Rotterdam , Netherlands . The conference, titled "The Other Side of the Coin," was organized by a pedophile advocacy group expressly to "throw light on the more positive side" of "sexual experiences between young people and adults"; Rind and Bauserman were the keynote speakers.
Dallam also points to a 1999 Arizona case where a gym teacher convicted of molesting five young boys cited Rinds findings in a bid for leniency from the court. Although the boys' parents testified that their children were suffering, the molester argued for a lighter sentence claiming Rinds study shows children arent harmed by being molested.
Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman have stated they stand behind their findings and claim to be victims of political persecution.
The Leadership Council is a non-profit scientific organization headed by Paul Fink, MD, a past president of the American Psychiatric Association. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found on their website at: www.leadershipcouncil.org
Copyright 2001, all rights reserved by author
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/rind/pr.html
Supervised Visitation
News Article
Troubling Admission of Supervised Visitation Reports
Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, October 21, 2002Supervised visitation programs provide services to courts in visitation and custody disputes in which a parent alleges physical or sexual abuse, domestic violence, or other harmful behaviors against a spouse or partner. Hailed as a welcome tool in the judicial management of high-conflict family court cases, these programs are garnering increased attention from legislatures, judges, and lawyers nationwide. The flurry of activity focused on funding and developing these programs,however, has obscured evidentiary questions arising from the visitation reports created at each visit. The widespread misuse of visitation reports, this article argues, threatens to compromise both the interests of abused children and the safety of domestic violence victims, whom supervised visitation was developed to protect. More- http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/info/custody-abuse/supervised-visitation
Published May 1, 2003 by Paper presented at Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Response or Alternative Resolution Conference, Australian Inst. of Criminology
I. Introduction
This paper argues that the absence of a publicly funded investigative capacity in the Family Court of Australia when there are allegations of child abuse by a parent, creates the conditions for the de facto operating presumption of the Parental Alienation Syndrome paradigm in the courts. This paradigm, at its simplest, insists that claims of serious child abuse are invented and that children’s statements and manifestations of fear are the outcome of parental coaching. Without a publicly funded professional child protection investigative service available to inform the family court, the private adversarial system of family law commonly fails to substantiate allegations of child abuse, thereby systematically producing the outcome that child abuse allegations will be deemed to be false. Safety for children in family law proceedings who are subject to abuse depends on access to a professional investigative service to inform the court, and a redefinition of a child’s best interests in the Family Law Act to give safety the highest value.
The presumption that allegations of paternal child abuse in the context of family law proceedings are false products of a vindictive and vengeful mother is an approach which is common to followers of Parental Alienation Syndrome and fathers’ rights groups. The absence of a specialist public professional child abuse investigative service for the Family Court means that allegations are normally doomed to be defined as unsubstantiated. With no way to prove them true, allegations of abuse are routinely argued to be false. This in turn reinscribes the PAS paradigm in the lived experiences of family law officers and ancillary service providers such as legal aid officers, counsellors, mediators and lawyers. The popularity of the PAS paradigm survives extensive empirical research findings showing that false allegations of child abuse are very much the exception rather than the rule (Brown et al 2001a; Humphreys 1999; McDonald 1998; Parkinson 1990, 1990a, 1998).
I want to make a distinction in this paper between some practices of ‘parental alienation’ and the content of the Parental Alienation Syndrome paradigm. Generally the term ‘parental alienation’ in the context of parental separation has come to refer to practices by a separated parent of disrupting and denigrating a child’s relationship with their other parent to give expression to their own hostility towards the other parent. Such behaviours may include:
•denigrating the other parent in front of the child,
•condemning aspects of the child’s appearance or conduct as being just like the other parent,
•expressing anger if the child speaks positively about the other parent
•preventing communication between the child and the other parent
These behaviours express adult-centred emotions with harmful effects for the children who are prevented from enjoying a relationship with their other parent without pressure and interference (Lodge 1998). Despite the ‘alienating parent’s reactions, many children maintain positive feelings for their other parent and may even resent the hostility of the alienating parent, specifically when they have not been exposed to any violence or abuse. In contrast, expressions of fear, disclosures of abuse, emphatic rejection of the abusing parent and a strong connection with the protective parent are consistent with exposure to abuse. Yet these are the main symptoms given for the PAS paradigm.
Click here to read the full article.
This paper argues that the absence of a publicly funded investigative capacity in the Family Court of Australia when there are allegations of child abuse by a parent, creates the conditions for the de facto operating presumption of the Parental Alienation Syndrome paradigm in the courts. This paradigm, at its simplest, insists that claims of serious child abuse are invented and that children’s statements and manifestations of fear are the outcome of parental coaching. Without a publicly funded professional child protection investigative service available to inform the family court, the private adversarial system of family law commonly fails to substantiate allegations of child abuse, thereby systematically producing the outcome that child abuse allegations will be deemed to be false. Safety for children in family law proceedings who are subject to abuse depends on access to a professional investigative service to inform the court, and a redefinition of a child’s best interests in the Family Law Act to give safety the highest value.
The presumption that allegations of paternal child abuse in the context of family law proceedings are false products of a vindictive and vengeful mother is an approach which is common to followers of Parental Alienation Syndrome and fathers’ rights groups. The absence of a specialist public professional child abuse investigative service for the Family Court means that allegations are normally doomed to be defined as unsubstantiated. With no way to prove them true, allegations of abuse are routinely argued to be false. This in turn reinscribes the PAS paradigm in the lived experiences of family law officers and ancillary service providers such as legal aid officers, counsellors, mediators and lawyers. The popularity of the PAS paradigm survives extensive empirical research findings showing that false allegations of child abuse are very much the exception rather than the rule (Brown et al 2001a; Humphreys 1999; McDonald 1998; Parkinson 1990, 1990a, 1998).
I want to make a distinction in this paper between some practices of ‘parental alienation’ and the content of the Parental Alienation Syndrome paradigm. Generally the term ‘parental alienation’ in the context of parental separation has come to refer to practices by a separated parent of disrupting and denigrating a child’s relationship with their other parent to give expression to their own hostility towards the other parent. Such behaviours may include:
•denigrating the other parent in front of the child,
•condemning aspects of the child’s appearance or conduct as being just like the other parent,
•expressing anger if the child speaks positively about the other parent
•preventing communication between the child and the other parent
These behaviours express adult-centred emotions with harmful effects for the children who are prevented from enjoying a relationship with their other parent without pressure and interference (Lodge 1998). Despite the ‘alienating parent’s reactions, many children maintain positive feelings for their other parent and may even resent the hostility of the alienating parent, specifically when they have not been exposed to any violence or abuse. In contrast, expressions of fear, disclosures of abuse, emphatic rejection of the abusing parent and a strong connection with the protective parent are consistent with exposure to abuse. Yet these are the main symptoms given for the PAS paradigm.
Click here to read the full article.
Posted by Rachel Allen on July 15, 2009.
A rebuttal of PAS (parental alienation “syndrome”) a “syndrome” used in court against parents that allege the other parent has a
Dr. Richard Gardner: A Review of His Theories and Opinions on Atypical Sexuality, Pedophilia, and Treatment Issues by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP Please note: I do not agree with Gardner’s ideas. “Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is a prominent forensic expert with an extensive career of evaluating children, especially during custody disputes between parents.” “Gardner (1992, p. 588) does not believe in doing therapy with fathers who deny committing sexual molestation. If father desires treatment, the therapist should focus on enhancing his self-esteem. This is accomplished by helping him to appreciate that “there is a certain amount of pedophilia in all of us” and that “pedophilia has been considered the norm by the vast majority of individuals in the history of the world”(Gardner 1992, ppi.592-3).” “Gardner’s Views on Pedophilia – “The sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim,” though the child may initiate sexual encounters by ‘seducing’ the adult.” “Gardner (1991, p. 118) suggests that Western society’s is “excessively moralistic and punitive” toward pedophiles.” published in Jan/Feb 1998 issue of Treating Abuse Today; the second part was published in the Mar/Apr 1998 issue (Volume 8, issue 2). Back issues can be obtained from Treating Abuse Today, P.O. Box 3050, Lancaster, PA 17604-3030. (717) 291-1940 –http://www.geocities.com/nafcj/Dr.RichardGardnerAReviewof.html
Neil Brick’s Ritual Abuse/Mind Control Presentation
Male Survivor Conference – Minneapolis, MN – September 20, 2003
This page was put on the web by smartnews@aol.com
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/ritual-abusemind-control-presentation/
Neil Brick’s Ritual Abuse/Mind Control Presentation
Male Survivor Conference – Minneapolis, MN – September 20, 2003
This page was put on the web by smartnews@aol.com
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/ritual-abusemind-control-presentation/
No comments:
Post a Comment