Thursday, February 26, 2015

Its time to protect children from the theory called pas see petition legal to support and sign here thank you

The report that started this advocates journey to eradicate pas theory 

01 Nelson 02 Michael Jan 03 Ph.D. 04 Psychologist 05 420 ...

www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/nelson.txt
01 Nelson 02 Michael Jan 03 Ph.D. 04 Psychologist 05 420 1st Avenue South ... case transmogrified with therapization into a semi-parental alienation case, with  ...

I have spent over 4 years fighting this discredited theory from Wisconsin rapids to the top of Wisconsin
I wrote, emailed,filed complaints, sent the legal,  shared the legal, yet no one helped. 
No one followed the legal and most lawyers told me they did not have to follow the legal told me they were all in on it and there was nothing i could do about it. And so began my very large investigation into the State i live in and then to the surrounding States and beyond.
I saw hundreds of these sad cases all of parents losing custody to abusers and i saw sex ads, was stalked by pedophiles who used the theory, and hackers who supported the theory trying to wipe out anyone running the plethora of legal against this discredited pro-sex with children theory. 
I challenge anyone reading this to Google search it every ad you see is have you been falsely accused of sexual or physical abuse parental alienation will come to your assistance and the parent reporting abuse will lose custody( abuse excuse) sex ads of the incest kind and courts intentionally placing children  in sex offenders homes for kick backs in porn this theory and its use are so disturbing you can not even imagine
In the child sexual abuse they are going for full normalization of child sexual abuse in the domestic violence parents are being murdered there are so many being harmed right now from this and so many more willing to throw all ethics into the wind to cash in on the endless money helping criminal child abusers get custody of the victim.
I wonder how many sleep at night the children living in fear certainly do not but that is of no concern to the gal, the supervised ,the fathers, the women s shelters ,the social services, they are all polluted by this theory and the parents trying to protect screwed from the time they support the child reporting abuse.
I have seen so much carnage from the use of this discredited parental alienation theory that is not even supposed to be used it disgusts me. 
The abusers laugh smile and get away with running the courts and have every advantage the non-abusing parent no lawyer, no help, loss of custody ,jail ,no chance in hell of winning against this theory partly because it is corruption to begin with. 
And i too like so many before me will probably loss custody to 
But at the least i can say i fought like hell even if the deck was entirely stacked to  begin with.
If you have been screwed by this theory please sign 
Demand an immediate criminal Investigation into all parental alienation experts/groups advertising
see http://www.thepetitionsite.com/631/455/768/demand-an-immediate-criminal-investigation-into-all-parental-alienation-expertsgroups-advertising/?taf_id=13320585


The plethora of legal against the discredited parental alienation theory 
http://timetoprotectchildvictims.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-legal-on-discredited-parental.html

About this Petition

I hereby petition the Department of Justice for an immediate criminal investigation into all parental alienation theory experts, groups and individuals advertising the discredited parental alienation theory.
Parental alienation, The Business of Sex Trafficking
Posted by eassurvey in child sexual abuse, parental alienation syndrome. Tagged: Parental alienation, sex trafficking. Comments Off
Parental Alienation must be excluded from all custody hearings…Parental Alienation is a perilous accusation that should never be recognized in courts or viewed as particularly compelling in cases deciding the custody of a child, especially when resolving profoundly difficult questions concerning the scary scenario of placing that child back into the home of a domestic violence abuser.
Sex trafficking is a criminal business in which women and children are forced or coerced into providing sex services. An estimated 2.5 million people are victims of this modern-day form of slavery which has grown into an ugly and sophisticated $50 billion world wide business. Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal industry in the world. Parental alienation, The Business of Sex Trafficking

Is parental alienation simply a term used as a cover for a Global sex trafficking ring?
 WORLD WIDE PEDOPHILE RING CALLED AXJ EXPOSED

global problem? Globally networked?
"annual revenue of $5 to 10 million "
 pas theory and...
  Part 5
 Part 4
 Part 3
 Part 2
government grant funded ?
 Warning who owns website abuse excuse?
 Big corporation part 2
big corporation?part 1
 Pas theory big pay check?Big Global Pay Check ?

global pas theory study group global pas theory study group member list

Do Family Courts Allow Sexual Abuse for Profit and Child Pornography? 
Anne Grant at The Custody Scam - 5 days agoDo Family Courts Allow Sexual Abuse for Profit and Child Pornography?
Barbara Farris at The Ellis County Observer asks whether the widespread practice of courts giving children to fathers whom the children accused of sexually abusing them is part of a larger pay-off by child pornography producers. It's an important question to investigate. Click on the title above or paste this in your browser: http://www.elliscountyobserver.com/2011/12/04/barbara-farris-family-courts-allow-sexual-abuse-for-profit-in-porn-part-1/ 


http://parentalalienationpass.blogspot.com/2011/12/wwwwisconsinfathersorg-parental.html?q=parental+alienation+porn

CHILD CUSTODY FOR SEX OFFENDERS
Published: 04/20/1999 at 1:00 AM
CHILD CUSTODY FOR SEX OFFENDERS
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/04/2738/#HdKEqib9xdZu1GVC.99
EXCERPT: Inevitably, Gardner 's sole experimental authority for this PAS theory is Alfred C. Kinsey. In fact, Gardner largely plagiarizes Chapters 5 in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Female (1953) to show child molestation is normal. http://www.wnd.com/1999/04/2738/#HdKEqib9xdZu1GVC.99 

CHILD CUSTODY FOR SEX OFFENDERS CHILD CUSTODY FOR SEX OFFENDERS

Wisconsin Rapids
https://sites.google.com/site/parentalalienationinventor/home/national-chart/wisconsin-rapids-wi

 Attention Wisconsin pas theory
https://sites.google.com/site/parentalalienationinventor/home/attention-wisconsin-pas-theory
Wisconsin slide presentation
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1aB4nP7Ajt_NRqmD_xJFM_FY9Ld5TkgLl9VXME7MfQN4/edit?usp=sharing

 Illinois slide presentation
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Bugo1RX2he-0cRUIABVrZtBi8nCQ90axpWbjnSe86H8/edit?usp=sharing

 Minnesota slide presentation
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kxRuyacKHJUj24Fqe0EpdhKHqNUeo_iMgBFB1hAmeBs/edit?usp=sharing

  • Conclusion
    PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Prosecutors should educate themselves about PAS and be prepared to argue against its admission in court. In cases where PAS testimony is admitted, it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to educate the judge and jury about the shortfalls of this theory. As more criminal courts refuse to admit PAS evidence, more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system.
  • Conclusion
    At best, PAS is a nondiagnostic “syndrome” that only explains the behavior of the child and the mother when there is a known false allegation.20 It is a courtroom diagnosis befitting adversaries involved in legal sparring. It is not capable of lending itself to hard data or inclusion in the forthcoming DSM-V.
    In short, PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law.
    Prosecutors and other child abuse professionals should educate themselves, their colleagues and clients when confronting PAS in the legal realm. Part 2 of this newsletter will address the case law on this subject. For more in-depth and comprehensive treatment of these issues, contact the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.

  • CONCLUSION

    Ever since Indiana University zoologist Kinsey began to weaken child protection efforts by classifying children as the "partners" of their adult abusers, the leveling of abusers and victims via language has continued both formally and informally. Although new statutes are often framed in the assertion "Children are not the property of their parents," there appear to be no official data collections underway by any institution to ascertain the status of such pedophile-friendly laws.
    An overwhelming body of research confirms the testimonies of hundreds of thousands of adult, child, homosexual and heterosexual victims of junk sex science and pornography. Like Big Tobacco, Big Pornography has used the mass media for decades to lie to the polity about the harm of their toxic products. This review raises several key questions:
    1. What well-funded American pedophile/pederast lobby, using its credentialed members, works behind the scenes to lower and end the age of consent and protective parents' rights?
    2. Why is the media silent about the role of pornography and fraudulent sex science in the massive increases in sexual violence, including child sexual abuse?
    3. What is the U.S. Department of Justice doing to protect children from junk sex science, pornography, sexual abuse and a judicial system that awards child victims to perpetrators?
    The "Kinseyan philosophy" has tainted researchers, the media, legislators and justice officials -- and we have all borne the consequences. The "Kinseyan philosophy" and its consequences have not been seriously evaluated -- until now.

  • Conclusion

    Dr. Richard A. Gardner is a prominent forensic expert whose work has served as a basis for courtroom decisions affecting the welfare of children across the nation. His theories regarding pedophilia and paraphila as well as his recommendations regarding therapeutic treatment for the sexually abused child, the child's mother, and the pedophiliac father are unique and do not appear to fall within the mainstream of generally accepted clinical practice.
  • Conclusions 

    For many years, protective mothers and professionals supporting them have been criticizing the practices used by custody courts in domestic violence cases. The courts have denied the complaints even as ever more evidence of avoidable tragedies has surfaced. The courts appeared to have no interest in reviewing the outcomes of cases to see how their decisions have worked out. Ever more research has supported the concerns of protective mothers, but the court systems have refused to consider the needed reforms. With the publication of the Saunders’ study there can be no further doubt that custody courts are routinely placing children in danger because of flawed practices in domestic violence cases. The Saunders’ study demonstrates the courts are getting a high percentage of their cases wrong and these mistakes are inevitable as long as they continue relying on evaluators and other professionals with inadequate domestic violence training, widespread belief in the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse, and political beliefs and biases that support abusers. 

    Domestic violence victims are often forced to live in a pretend world in which their abusers deny their abuse or blame the victims for his mistreatment of her. When courts fail to use experts who understand domestic violence, they inevitably force victims to return to the pretend world in which only they are to blame. The Saunders’ study should be required reading for any professionals who provide advice to the court. The courts must immediately adopt practices based on the kind of current scientific research contained in the Saunders’ study and make it safe for battered mothers to discuss the reality of their partner’s abuse. 

    With the release of the Saunders’ study and the availability of other important information such as The Batterer as Parent and Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody, judges can no longer reasonably pretend or remain oblivious to the frequency in which it places children at risk. It is now time to focus on the reforms needed to make our custody courts safe for children. 

    Unfortunately, it will take some time to retrain evaluators and other court professionals, adopt improved practices and make safety the first priority. The court system should work with domestic violence experts, who Saunders found to be the best trained and most knowledgeable group regarding domestic violence, to develop the needed reforms. Any attempt to limit this process to judges, lawyers and mental health professionals would be malpractice. 

    In the interim, tomorrow and every day thereafter more children will have their futures ruined until the reforms can be implemented. We can make every court professional immediately aware that the Saunders’ study has now established that the present practices are working poorly for children. The custody courts should immediately start requiring the participation of domestic violence advocates and experts in all domestic violence cases. If evaluators are appointed in a case they should consult with dv experts. Their prior belief and assumption that they had sufficient expertise in domestic violence has been shattered by the research in the Saunders’ study. From now on the most important factor must be that children be kept safe rather than that fathers always have access to their children. 
  • Excerpts see Challenging Evaluators
  •        If the evaluator issues a report based on PAS or even alienation, there is strong research in the Saunders’ study to challenge it.  We can start by asking the evaluator if he agrees that sex between adults and children is improper.  Then ask if there is any research not based on the belief that sex between adults and children can be appropriate (this is what PAS is based on), that “alienating” behavior creates a safety risk.  Are you aware the DOJ study found that PAS, including by any other name has no scientific basis?  Are you aware PAS was rejected for inclusion in the DSM-V because it has no scientific basis?  Are you aware that the Saunders’ study found that evaluators with inadequate training tended to believe the myth that women frequently make false allegations but alienation theories, particularly those used to separate children from their primary attachment figure are based on a belief that most dv and child abuse allegations by mothers are false?  Are you aware that evaluators are starting to lose their licenses for using PAS?  Do you know if that is because they are in affect creating a diagnosis that does not exist?  You can also ask questions comparing the harm of separating a child from their primary attachment figure with the harm of negative statements about the other parent.  Ask for any research findings because there is no scientific support for these standard biased practices.
  • See page 6-7"  The flawed and outdated practices used in the custody courts are causing tremendous harm to children and society. If the bad decisions in these courts did not result in any deaths of mothers and children they should still be reformed. We have significant anecdotal evidence and research on related issues that makes it likely some of the murders and murder-suicides could be prevented if the custody courts made better use of the up-to-date research now available. No one wants to be known as the judge who hurts children or receive publicity when an abuser the judge protected kills the mother and/or children. I would urge that Page 7 of 7 research be started to determine how often custody court mistakes result in the deaths of the children they are supposed to protect. In the meantime, I hope judges will stop sending children to live with abusers. Barry Goldstein is a domestic violence speaker, writer and advocate. He is coeditor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. at 12:01 AM 0 comments Links to this post "
  • Excerpts see conclusion
  • Call to Advocacy If you are not familiar with families who are involved in PAS cases, you may not believe that these types of egregious acts occur. While listening to the stories of women and children, I have felt overwhelmed and dumbfounded because the deck seems to be stacked against truth and justice. Ironically, the horrific abuses that occur in the marital relationship are comparable to the systematic oppression that is sanctioned by the state through the family courts after divorce. The legal system and its officers create kangaroo courts in which civil liberties and human rights are arbitrarily violated (Waller, Waller, & Shin, 2001). There is no oversight and accountability for judges, lawyers, and mental health professionals who collude with the batterers and abusers. The need for a nationwide policy that bans PAS from family courts is long overdue. In 2006, the National Organization of Women moved toward this goal by denouncing PAS and resolving that any professional whose mission involves the protection of the rights of women and children denounce its use as unethical, unconstitutional, and dangerous. Social workers and other social justice advocates who are compelled to take action should, therefore, educate themselves about the perils of PAS and validate the experiences of, and create safe spaces, for victims of this oppression to speak their truth. Furthermore, there must be a concerted effort to challenge the agents of the family courts and mental health professionals to stop perpetuating the abuse and violence against women and children. This is a call for advocacy and social change. Silence by social workers and other change agents maintains the status quo and emboldens the proponents of PAS. The abuse demonstrated in the Baldwin–Basinger case only scratches the surface of what happens in the lives of families of all ethnic and socioeconomic levels across the United States. Outcry, critique, and debate must be linked to accountability, empowerment, and action to achieve social justice. To be clear, PAS is not a legitimate diagnosis and should not be admitted into the courts. Overwhelmingly, it is used against mothers to raise suspicions of their psychosis and unfitness as parents. Users of this strategy do not seek custody for the safety and welfare of children. Instead, their sole mission is to create a legal shield of protection and silence and an unobstructed pathway to continue their abuses of power. When PAS is used as a legal strategy in divorce cases, families are negatively affected; the women are demonized, and the children are at a grave risk of further abuse.
  • page 7 5th paragraph left side "Made-up syndromes and other theories of conjecture such as PAS and estrangement are often used as though they were relevant to determining whether or not a child has been abused. These self-identifi ed experts fail to testify that the best way to determine abuse is through an interview with the child; neither do they testify that accepted practice does not require an interview with the accused parent. Despite the fact that there is no scientifi c evidence for PAS, these experts present alienation and/or estrangement as though they were alternative hypotheses to the actual occurrence of abuse. There is no science to show that either alienation of a child from a parent or estrangement between the two is even relevant to the issue of abuse. It is well settled that interview and examination of children themselves are the best determinants for whether or not abuse has occurred—indeed, it is not even necessary to evaluate the named offending parent. But psychologists who raise these alternatives often disparage the child’s own voice and the accuracy of a child’s report of abuse."
  • Excerpts page 4 first paragraph section Gardner’s pro-pedophilic and misogynistic beliefs "Despite his assertions that pedophilia is widespread and harmless, he asserted in a filmed interview that a child who tells his mother he has been sexually molested by his or her father should be told “I don’t believe you. I’m going to beat you for saying it. Don’t you ever talk that way again about your father” (Waller, 2001).3 This response – and his beliefs described above – suggest that the animating intention behind the PAS theory’s denial of the validity of child sexual abuse reports is not a genuine belief that child sexual abuse is often falsely reported, but rather a belief that such reports should be suppressed."
  • 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's admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny.

    This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS's evidentiary admissibility. As a novel scientific theory, PAS's 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's 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's scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards. The article also analyzes the writings of PAS's originator, child psychiatrist Richard Gardner - including twenty-three peer-reviewed articles and fifty legal decisions he cited in support of his claim that PAS is scientifically valid and legally admissible - finding that these materials support neither PAS's existence, nor its legal admissibility. Finally, the article examines the policy issues raised by PAS's admissibility through an analysis of PAS's roots in Gardner's theory of human sexuality, a theory that views adult-child sexual contact as benign and beneficial to the reproduction of the species.

    The article concludes that science, law, and policy all support PAS's present and future inadmissibility.
    Number of Pages in PDF File: 61
  • Claims of parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and parental alienation (PA) have come to dominate custody litigation, especially where abuse is alleged. Although much psychological and legal literature has critiqued PAS, and leading researchers as well as most professional institutions have renounced the syndrome concept, alienation as a parental behavior or child’s condition continues to be extensively investigated and credited in research and forensic contexts. This article reviews the history of PAS, both as posited by its inventor, Richard Gardner, and as used and applied in courts, suggesting that it not only lacks empirical basis or objective merit, but that it derives from its author’s troubling beliefs about adult and child sexual interaction. It then examines the more recent explorations of non-syndrome ‘‘alienation’’ as proffered by Janet Johnston and others, noting both its more balanced and grounded nature and its more modest remedial implications. However, the article concludes that PA is too closely tied to PAS to be an adequate improvement. It, too, is used crudely in courts to defeat abuse allegations, it continues to rely on speculations about mothers’ purported unconscious desires and their effects on children, and, more subtly than PAS, it minimizes abuse and its effects on mothers and children. At root, although even PA researchers have found it to be a real issue in only a small minority of contested custody cases, courts’ and evaluators’ extensive focus on it in response to mothers’ abuse allegations continues to privilege false or exaggerated alienation concerns over valid concerns about abuse.

  • Excerpts page 12  C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34 Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community. 35 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 case. 36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye 37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS 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 stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard. 38
  • Abstract "Using a social constructionist perspective, this thesis explores the development of the concepts of “parental alienation syndrome” and “false allegations” in the context of custody and access, as ‘social problems’. Following Joel Best’s framework for critically analysing social problems, it examines the life course of these concepts through an historical account of Canada’s divorce arena and recent changes to custody and access law. It analyzes the reasoning and motives of the major claimsmakers: the Fathers’ Right Movement, medical experts, the legal arena and the counter-claims of Feminist activists. It examines the role of the supervised access facilitator in the construction of the concepts as ‘social problems’. The theories of psychiatrist Richard Gardner are examined in particular, due to their pivotal role in the advancement of the claimsmakers’ goals. Finally, empirical studies are reviewed and analyzed, demonstrating how the concepts of “parental alienation syndrome” and “false allegations” have mutated and permeated the domain of divorce and access in Western society." 

  • The Leadership Council610-664-5007

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Child Abuse Experts Applaud Legal Community for Rejecting
    Parental Alienation Syndrome

    July 12, 2006   Bala Cynwyd, Pa.   People who care about abused children finally have something to celebrate. Two recent high profile legal publications have rejected "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS), a controversial label often used to discredit allegations of child abuse or domestic violence in family courts. According to PAS theory, children's disclosures of abuse by one parent are reinterpreted as evidence of "brainwashing" by the other parent. The solution proposed by PAS theory is to immediately award custody to the alleged child abuser. 
    The newly revised, 2006 edition of "Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge's Guide," published by The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, includes a strong statement condemning the use of PAS which it calls a "discredited" syndrome that favors child abusers in custody determinations. [see excerpt ]
    At the same time the Spring 2006 issue of the American Bar Association's Children's Legal Rights Journal provides a comprehensive analysis of all legal case involving allegations of PAS. This definitive review concludes that science, law, and policy all oppose the admissibility of PAS in the courtroom. [Download PDF of article].  
    "PAS is junk science at its worst," says Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association [see bio]. Dr. Fink explains, "Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent's own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors." 
    Judge Sol Gothard is glad to see that the legal community has joined other professionals in recognizing the harm that PAS can cause. Recently retired from Louisiana's 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, Judge Gothard has been involved in over 2000 cases of allegations of child sexual abuse. He states, "PAS has caused emotional harm, physical harm and in some cases, even death to children." [read about Nathan's death; see also Jana Bommersbach. Parental Alienation. Phoenix Magazine, May 2006]
    Joyanna Silberg, PhD, a Clinical Psychologist and Executive Vice President of the Council [see bio], has also seen first hand the long-term emotional damage this so-called syndrome has caused. "How do you explain to young children forced to live with abusers why the courts have considered them liars and ignored their cries for help?" Silberg has found that it can take years for these children to get past their feelings of betrayal by the system that was supposed to protect them. [see article about Tiffany; more children's stories]
    Dr. Silberg views PAS allegations as part of a larger strategy in which abusive parents try to fool the courts, attorneys, child custody evaluators, and mental health professionals into believing that their children and ex-spouses are crazy when they raise concerns about safety. She notes the recent case of Darren Mack, accused of shooting his custody judge and stabbing his wife to death.  Mack successfully convinced a custody evaluator that he was a loving parent with no violent tendencies, notes Silberg.
    Stephanie Dallam, MS, a researcher with the Leadership Council, has spent the last 10 years researching PAS [see bio]. She traces the syndrome to a controversial psychiatrist, Richard Gardner, who described sex between fathers and their offspring as normal and natural. In his voluminous self-published writings, Gardner blamed abused children's suffering on our society's "overreaction" to sexual abuse, notes Dallam. [more on Gardner's views on pedophilia]
    Dr. Paul Fink concludes, "Children suffer when law embraces a 'syndrome' just because a so-called 'expert' coined a snappy phrase.  Increasingly, courts are seeing through the PAS charade and refusing to allow the courtroom to be used as theater for the promotion of junk science."
    The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence is composed of national leaders in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, law, and public policy who are committed to the ethical application of psychological science and countering its misuse by special interest groups. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found at: www.leadershipcouncil.org
  • Excerpts "A few other cases making headlines include: Court Punishes Woman in Alienation Case; WI: Judge Jails Mother over Daughter's Refusal to Visit Father and Judge Dismisses Abuse Allegations.
    To sum it up, any behavior that does not promote access to children can be classified as parental alienation and punished with jail time or limits on/loss of custody. With this threat, parents are less likely to report abuse and more likely to share custody with an abuser.
    It should also be noted that when violent partners make good on their threats to take the kids away, it's referred to as domestic violence by proxy -a continuation of domestic violence - rather than PA or PAS. Some battered women who've lost custody use PA or PAS to describe their particular situation. This both minimizes the nature and scope of abuse women face and promotes the use of a dangerous weapon (PA/PAS) that can be used against them in court.
    I wouldn't hand an angry man a agun, nor would I readily hand over a legal strategy to potential pedophiles, abusers or killers. Yet that is exactly what PA/PAS is doing."

  • Myth 5:  Parental alienation syndrome is a common, well-documented phenomenon.

    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).

  • Abstract

    The proposal to include Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD) in the new proposed Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) creates a host of problems. The first major problem is the labeling of children with a mental disorder who may simply be reacting with anger to the changes in their lives from the separation and divorce of their parents by rejecting one parent and aligning with the other. Diagnosis may bring with it shame and have a chilling impact on parents report of domestic violence. Although proponents of PAD are aware that it is inappropriate to diagnose children who have been exposed to child abuse and/or domestic violence with PAD, they do not clarify how to make such differential diagnoses. It is suggested that there are insufficient empirical data to differentiate abused and traumatized children from those who are alienated or estranged from the rejected parent. Nor are there sufficient scientific data to account for other child vulnerabilities such as neurological immaturity, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), other anxiety and mood disorders, or oppositional defiant disorder. There are too few comparisons between the risks and benefits of adding a new diagnosis of childhood disorders to justify its inclusion in the DSM-V. Appropriate intervention strategies recommended for PAD children include contact with the rejected parent, which differ widely from trauma victim/survivors who need assurance of safety and healing before contact is re-established. Ethical standards that may be impacted by this new diagnosis and admissibility issues raised by its predecessor, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), are also discussed by the authors.
  • Excerpts second paragraph "Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. This unsophisticated, pseudoscientific theory explains a child's estrangement from one parent or allegations of abuse at the hands of one parent by blaming the other. The theory, developed by the late Richard A. Gardner, M.D., portrays the preferred 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 simplistic solution is to separate the child from the parent they prefer and place them with the parent they reject or report as having abused them. Despite the fact that many of the assumptions underlying PAS theory have repeatedly been disproven scientifically (see below), Gardner believes that judges should back up PAS-trained therapists' conclusions with the full force of the law and impose fines, permanent loss of custody, and jail terms to parents (mainly mothers) who do not comply. 
    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, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS is a valid syndrome or that the so called "alienator's" behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child's behavior towards the target parent (Walker et al, 2005). In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved."

  • Conclusions

    In spite of its many shortcomings, many 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. However, Daubert demands that scientists conduct competent science before becoming paid experts. Gardner 's PAS theory and his various scales to differentiate true and false claims of child sexual abuse are not informed by science and have been discredited by his peers. Rather than subjecting his theories to scientific review, most of Gardner 's writings are published through his own press or in nonscientific journals. Because Gardner 's theories are based on his clinical observations and not on scientific data, they must be understood in the context of his atypical views concerning pedophilia and child sexual abuse.
    Gardner 's theories are based on his assumption that sex between a child and an adult is not inherently harmful, and his belief that there is an epidemic of false sexual abuse allegations being made by vengeful wives during custody disputes. Gardner maintains these beliefs in spite of a wealth of clinical and experimental data which prove otherwise. This is not to imply that such allegations are always accurate, or that parents do not attempt to manipulate their children during adversarial custody litigation. However, Gardner 's theories are not sufficiently scientific to be able to make cause and effect determinations, are biased against women and children, and are flawed by their failure to take into account alternative explanations for the behavior of the parties involved.
    Frustration over bitter custody battles should not tempt the legal system to blindly accept unproven theories such as PAS. Reliance on such simplified approaches to the complex problem of alleged abuse in the context of child custody disputes is likely to result in misdiagnosis and a failure to protect children. High conflict divorces take an emotional toll on children, and this toll should not be exacerbated through the use of "junk science" which may wrongly deny children a relationship with the parent who has heretofore been their primary caretaker. In the end, all psychological evidence upon which a child's safety will turn should represent the best that science has to offer, not one man's unsupported opinions and assumptions.
  • 4th paragraph "Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children's witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.
    Some professionals assume that accusations of physical or sexual abuse of children that arise during divorce or custody disputes are likely to be false, but the empirical research to date shows no such increase in false reporting at that time. In many instances, children are frightened about being alone with a father they have seen use violence towards their mother or a father who has abused them. Sometimes children make it clear to the court that they wish to remain with the mother because they are afraid of the father, but their wishes are ignored.
    Research indicates that high levels of continued conflict between separated and divorced parents hinders children's normal development. Some practitioners now believe that it may be better for children's development to restrict the father's access to them and avoid continued danger to both mothers and the children."

  • Excerpts conclusion page 142 -143
  • Under parental alienation syndrome, mothers can be fined, jailed, and loose custody if she does not comply with the abusers’ wishes. On the other hand, abused children are coerced to obey their abusive fathers through the order of the court and risk further, and/or more intense exposure to child (sexual) abuse and/or intimate partner violence (when the father enters a new relationship). This brings the question of whether 143 | Page parental alienation syndrome adequately serves ‘the best interest of the child’ or is it simply another venue to serve ‘the best interest of the patriarch’
  • The construct of PAS is unscientific, composed of a group of general symptoms with no empirical basis....
    Major professional bodies, including the American Psychological Association, have discredited PAS on the grounds that it is misused in domestic violence cases and that there is no scientific evidence of such a "syndrome." The more recent APA Online document Issues and Dilemmas in Family Violence (http://www.apa.org/pi/essues.html(link is external)), particularly Issue 5, describes the tendency of family courts to miminize a context of violence, falsely accusing the mother of alienation and granting custody to the father in spite of his history of violence. The National Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judges' 2006 manual states that "parental alienation syndrome or PAS has been discredited by the scientific community" and "should therefore be ruled inadmissible" (p. 19). A number of prominent figures, including Dr. Paul J. Fink, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and president of theLeadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, and Professor Jon R. Conte of the University of Washington Social Welfare Doctoral Faculty have also discredited PAS and its lack of scientific basis (see Bruch, 2001).
    Because of the use of PAS as a tactic by many CSA perpetrators to influence decision makers and the court system, abused children have been placed in the hands of their abusers (Childress, 2006). It is estimated that "over 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States" (http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/1.html(link is external)) and that PAS was used in a large number of these cases. [2]
  • Excerpts Gardner's PAS theory described what he believed was one parent brainwashing the child, at the expense of the other, in contentious divorce proceedings. Gardner claimed the condition arose when a mother 'programmed' a child to hold delusions of sexual abuse by the father. Gardner peddled his theory far and wide, appearing as an expert witness in Family Courts across the country, universally supporting men seeking to discredit sex-abuse allegations. 

    PAS was never accepted into the psychiatrist's essential handbook of known conditions, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family denounced PAS as a ploy used to confuse and obscure legal cases involving allegations of child abuse. Prior to his suicide -- stabbing himself to death with a steak knife in 2003 -- Gardner trained psychologists and family court officials in California and other states. 

    "PAS's twenty-year run in American courts is an embarrassing chapter in the history of evidentiary law," wrote legal expert Jennifer Hoult ("The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy," Children's Legal Rights Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, Spring 2006). "It reflects the wholesale failure of legal professionals entrusted with evidentiary gate-keeping intended to guard legal processes from the taint of pseudo-science... As a legal matter, PAS's inadmissibility is appropriate given its lack of scientific validity and reliability. As a policy matter, its inadmissibility is appropriate given its structural roots in an unsubstantiated patriarchical [sic] theory that advocates for child sex offenders' access to their victims." 
  • Excerpts see section The Absence of Research Supporting PAS
              "  While Gardner and PAS have many adherents, particularly among forensic evaluators and litigants, few, if any, researchers have contributed to the literature endorsing PAS. This is presumably because PAS is really Gardner's invention and was not derived from empirical research that can be replicated.  
                PAS' empirical claims are false or unsupported. The claims upon which Gardner based his PAS theory are contradicted by the empirical research. Gardner (1991, 1992b) claimed that child sexual abuse allegations are widespread in custody cases and that the vast majority of such allegations are false. These claims have no empirical basis other than Gardner's interpretation of his own clinical practice. In contradiction, the largest study of child sexual abuse allegations in custody litigation ever conducted found that child sexual abuse allegations were extremely rare (less than 2% of cases) and that approximately 50% of the claims were deemed valid, even when assessed by normally conservative court and government-affiliated evaluators (Thoennes & Tjaden, 1990). Other studies have found such allegations to be validated approximately 70% of the time (Faller, 1998). Moreover, leading researchers have found that "high rates of unsubstantiated maltreatment" in "circumstances that indicat[e] that abuse or neglect may have occurred" are a more prevalent problem than false claims of child sexual abuse (Trocme & Bala, 2005, pp. 1342-44).
                Indeed, empirical research has found that the PAS theory is built upon an assumption which is the opposite of the truth: Where PAS presumes that mothers are vengeful and pathologically "program" their children, it is not women and children, but noncustodial fathers who are most likely to fabricate child maltreatment claims. In the largest study of its kind, leading researchers analyzed the 1998 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect. They found that only 12% of child abuse or neglect allegations made in the context of litigation over child access were intentionally false (Trocme & Bala, 2005). Notably, they found that the primary source of these intentionally false reports was noncustodial parents (43%), typically fathers; Relatives, neighbors, or acquaintances accounted for another 19% of false reports. Only 14% of knowingly false claims were made by custodial parents (typically mothers) and 2% by children (Trocme & Bala, 2005).  
                Gardner asserted that the reason women lie about child sexual abuse in custody litigation is because "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" (Gardner, 1992b, pp. 218-19), and/or because they are "gratifie[d] vicariously" (Gardner, 1991, p. 25; 1992a, p. 126) by imagining their child having sex with the father. Again, there is no empirical basis or support for these offensive assertions.
                Gardner's pro-pedophilic beliefs. Gardner's underlying beliefs regarding human sexuality, including adult-child sexual interaction, are so bizarre that it is hard to believe that courts would have adopted his theory if they were aware of what he had published. For instance, his writings express the view that all human sexual paraphilias (deviant behaviors) "serve the purposes of species survival" by "enhanc[ing] the general level of sexual excitation in society" (Gardner, 1992b, p. 20; see also Hoult, 2006). These sexual behaviors include pedophilia, sadism, rape, necrophilia, zoophilia (sex with animals), coprophilia (sex with feces), and other paraphilias (Gardner, 1992b; see also Dallam, 1998; Hoult, 2006).
                Further, Gardner claimed that women's physiology and conditioning makes them potentially masochistic rape victims who may "gain pleasure from being beaten, bound, and otherwise made to suffer," as "the price they are willing to pay for gaining the gratification of receiving the sperm" (Gardner, 1992b, p. 26).
                Regarding pedophilia, Gardner argued expressly that adult-child sex need not be intrinsically harmful to children. He claimed that adult-child sex is beneficial to the species, insofar as it increases a child's sexualization and increases the likelihood that his or her genes will be transmitted at an early age (Gardner, 1992b). Contrary to his own claim that most sexual abuse claims in the context of custody disputes are false, Gardner also claimed, with equal lack of basis, that "probably over 95%" of all sex abuse allegations are valid, because "sexual activities between an adult and a child are an ancient tradition" a "worldwide phenomenon" and "has been present in just about every society studied, both past and present" (Gardner, 1992b, pp. 47-48). Gardner viewed Western society as "excessively punitive" in its treatment of pedophilia as a "sickness and a crime" (Gardner, 1991, p. 115).   He attributed this Western "overreaction" to the influence of the Jews (Gardner, 1992b). Gardner opposed mandated reporting of child sexual abuse, and specifically described a case in which he successfully persuaded a mother not to report a bus driver who had molested her daughter. He contended that reporting the molestation would "interfere with the natural desensitization process, would be likely to enhance guilt, and would have other untoward psychological effects" (Gardner, 1992b, pp. 611-12; see also Dallam, 1998). Gardner's perspective on adult-child sexual interaction can be summed up in his reference to Shakespeare's famous quote: "'There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'" (Gardner, 1991, p. 115).
                Gardner's attitude toward paternal child sexual abuse was evident in an interview in which he stated that a child who tells his mother he has been sexually molested by his or her father should be told "I don't believe you. I'm going to beat you for saying it. Don't you ever talk that way again about your father" (Waller, 2001).4"
  • Excerpts " Dr. Richard Gardner, a child psychiatrist at Columbia University, believes that all forms of deviant sexual behavior should be acceptable, including adult-child sex, sex with the dead, sex with animals, and even sex with defecation. Of course, pedophiles make it a point to interview and quote from “experts” like Werthmeimer and Gardner.11"

  • See section "State Legislation"

  • Texas: A Case Study
  • Many women have testified under oath regarding the forced removal of their children based on the scientifically inept theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome promulgated by Kinseyan-adherent Richard Gardner and his disciples. This suggests that few judges have read the following excerpt from the report of the Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence.
    Judges should treat incest and molestation as serious criminal offenses.... Incarceration, whether in hospitals, treatment centers or prisons, is absolutely essential to the protection of the nation's children. The only true protection for children from a pedophile is incapacitation of the offender.25
  • Inevitably, Gardner’s sole experimental authority for this PAS theory
    is Alfred C. Kinsey. In fact, Gardner largely plagiarizes Chapters 5 in
    Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Female (1953) to show child
    molestation is normal.
    No reputable scientific organization has validated PAS. Even the
    American Psychiatric Association rejects the scientific reliability of
    Gardner’s PAS. O’Meara further quotes numerous professional critics of
    PAS, typified by of Jon Conte, University of Washington psychologist,
    “PAS is not research-based, and it has done a great injustice to the
    family and the justice system.”
    Legal scholars are also aware of PAS’ danger. To quote John E.B.
    Myers, a professor at McGeorge School of Law, University of Pacific,
    California, PAS “increases exponentially the skepticism of society
    generally about whether child abuse exists.”
    As a further indication that PAS is nothing but pseudo science we
    need only look at some of Gardner’s other “scientific findings.” Gardner
    uses recent “sonograms that showed baby boys holding their penises in
    utero” as an example of such boys’ sexual desire or activity.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/1999/04/2738/#GgovIcVkXt9y8Rla.99

  • How Many Children Are Court -Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With an Abusive Parent After Divorce?

    Contact: Joyanna Silberg, PhD, Executive Vice President
    tel: (410) 938-4974 or email Joyanna Silberg
    Bala Cynwyd, Pa.
    According to a conservative estimate by experts at the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (LC), more than 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States. This is over twice the yearly rate of new cases of childhood cancer. 
    Experts at the LC consider the crisis in our family courts to constitute a public health crisis. Once placed with an abusive parent or forced to visit, children will continue to be exposed to parental violence and abuse until they reach 18. Thus, we estimate that half a million children will be affected in the US at any point of time. Many of these children will suffer physical and psychological damage which may take a lifetime to heal. The Leadership Council urges citizens to work with legislators and agencies in their communities to examine this problem, review state agency policies and procedures, and develop legislative and policy solutions that help ensure safety from violence for children following divorce.
  • Excerpts see section 

(4) Over the past two decades, supervised visitation centers have been established by abuser lobbies and parental alienation proponents, psych and interdisplinary trade promotion groups, and money-grubbing mental health professionals who can't make a go of practice without glomming captive divorce court litigants -- and who for some goddamn reason are always more clever than victim advocate groups. Once they have opened up their visitation centers, they commence doing what entrepreneurs will do: market their services, concoct new services and programs, network, and promote themselves (which in the case of these ill-advised ideas, also frequently includes getting -- and justifying and maintaining -- some amount of charitable or government funding.)
  • THE LIZ LIBRARY: Stalking Through the Courts -

  • Excerpts see section Tragic Consequences
    "The results of its acceptance in family court have been tragic.  

    Parental Alienation fails to recognize that a parent or child may have legitimate reasons for having antipathy toward the other parent; it rejects out of hand the idea that allegations of abuse could be true.  Thus, instead of investigating allegations of abuse, PAS turns the focus of the court’s investigation onto the motives of accuser. Evidence of animosity toward the other parent is regarded as evidence of PAS. As a result of this "through-the-looking-glass" thinking, when courts award visitation or custody to the parent the child has an aversion to, in many instances, the courts are awarding custody to abusers.  

    Some children placed in the custody of their abusers have committed suicide; others have run away, and countless others have endured the abuse and are permanently traumatized..  "In recent years, children placed in custody of their abusers have been coming forward to tell their stories and to warn of the harms of PAS."  
  • Conclusion 

    There was never any valid justification to permit the use of PAS by any name in the custody courts. The fraudulent use of PAS has been responsible for destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. This never should have been permitted by the courts, but at the same time the courts are extremely defensive to criticism of their errors and are unlikely to acknowledge past mistakes. 

    Accordingly, the publication of the DSM-V should be treated as a great opportunity to ask courts to reconsider the misuse of alienation theories. The other side will not make judges aware that their favorite toy has been completely discredited. The attorneys for protective mothers must make the courts aware of this decision and start a discussion of what this means to standard court practices. Courts are not permitted to accept evidence about scientific theories that are not based on authoritative and accepted scientific research. The decision on the DSM is fundamentally incompatible with the continued use of alienation theories. This is particularly true when the theories are used to deny the primary attachment figure a normal relationship with the child or to prevent a full investigation of abuse complaints. We need to tell the courts about this and file complaints against any professionals who continue to support PAS by any name now that it has been officially discredited. 

  • Excerpts page 51 3rd paragraph" Parental Alienation Syndrome contains three features of a friendly parent analysis. First, the alleged disorder is caused by one parent’s “indoctrination” of the child against the other parent.70 As with a friendly parent analysis, one parent fails to support the child’s relationship with the other parent.71 Second, the outcomes can be the same. Where there is a problem with visitation, a solution is to transfer custody to the other parent.72 Third and perhaps most importantly, Parental Alienation Syndrome, like the friendly parent concept, presents a paradox. Richard Ducote states: “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.”73 
  • Excerpts page 52 "Parental Alienation Syndrome is a controversial theory that has been challenged on numerous grounds including that it is not recognized by the scientific community.74 It is regardless, a variation of the friendly parent concept: if a parent badmouths or criticizes the other parent, there is the possibility that custody will be transferred.75 IX. THE FRIENDLY PARENT CONCEPT IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN IN ALL CONTEXTS Occasionally, the results of a friendly parent analysis are tragic. An article published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette highlighted a case in which the children refused to visit the father “citing fear and anger.”76 The father responded by filing for a change in custody claiming the children suffered from Parental Alienation Syndrome.77 The court did not award the father custody, but did order that the children visit the father.78 One of the children, a sixteen year old boy, reacted to the order by committing suicide.79"
  • Excerpts section VIII. Conclusion: It's A Jungle Out There It now seems obvious that the law libraries are teeming with castigation of the GALs in private custody suits with little counterweight in their defense. Thus, the questions are loudly repeated: Why do they exist? Why do they thrive? Why are they left unbridled? Tedious exploration has finally revealed that the answer is not found in the law of the land, but in the law of the jungle. The truth lies in the symbiotic relationship between the tickbird and the rhinoceros. For those not conversant with life in the wild, the rhino roams about with an ever-present tickbird perched just behind his neck feasting upon the living smorgasbord found there. The rhino (family court judge) is relieved of the annoying and award task of disposing of the irritating insects (child custody cases) by delegating it to an eager member of another species (the GAL). [FN203] In return, the bird is well fed (fees, collected with the help of the court's contempt power) and enjoys a free ride (immunity from screw-ups). There is ample precedent for metaphor use in the discussion of GALs, often cited as the eyes, ears, and arms of the court. [FN204] This allegory, though, may be more precise. [FN205] *151 The family court system need not despair, even if GALs become an endangered species. The same goals articulated in the GAL's raison d'etre can be obtained through adding additional family court judges where there is a true shortage, or by requiring underutilized family court judges to actually conduct evidentiary trials, with all judges mandated to decide custody cases on facts and evidence. To ensure that all material facts are properly presented at trial, more attorneys to represent parents unable to afford private counsel can be provided utilizing the resources now consumed by GAL programs. Essential to all of these improvements, though, is extensive mandatory education for the bench and bar, with particular emphasis on domestic violence and child abuse. Perhaps, then, the illusion of protection of children's interests can morph into reality.
  • Excerpts page 1 "There is a theory behind this madness. Dubbed “parental alienation syndrome,” it supposedly occurs during custody disputes when an angry parent brainwashes the child into believing that the other parent is malevolent -- often by making false allegations of sexual abuse. The theory, which almost always is applied to mothers, was formulated by Dr. Richard Gardner, a highly controversial New Jersey child psychiatrist. Gardner has shocked many of his professional colleagues with the tolerant views of pedophilia and incest he expressed in his early writings. In the last few years he has grown more guarded, although as recently as last March he wrote that parental alienation “may be even more detrimental than physically and/or sexually abusing a child.” He has also been criticized for faulty logic and sloppy science. According to Dr. Paul Fink, past president of the American Psychiatric Association, “Parental alienation syndrome is a junk science term invented by Richard Gardner. His belief system is based on no evidence.” Despite all this, Gardner’s theory has been embraced by judges and lawyers across the country. “Parental alienation syndrome is being used more and more in custody and visitation cases,” says Nancy Frease, a marriage and family therapist who does evaluations for the Marin county juvenile court. “But the whole phenomenon of an angry mother coaching her children to make false statements against a father and the children going along with it I can say, in 13 years of clinical practice, I’ve seen a clear case of this maybe twice.” But PAS is in the eye of the beholder. Its proponents have broadened its definition, allowing it to be applied in more custody situations for example, where charges of violence or emotional abuse are raised. “PAS is no longer relegated only to sexual abuse cases,” says Joanne Schulman, legislative chair of California Women Lawyers and president of the San Francisco Women Lawyers Alliance. “Now it’s in almost every case! Any case where the mom doesn’t want to give the dad 50-50 custody, or whatever the dad wants, she’s [accused of] attempting to alienate the child.”
  • Excerpts section" RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION" 398-399" Children whose parents do not agree or cooperate concerning their care are placed in the middle of loyalty conflicts that can only stress and sometimes break them.95 We do not yet know enough about how children develop loyalties and antipathies or resolve them as they mature, whether in intact or divided households. Until we do, caution should guide therapists and courts. A growing body of research documents the harsh and sometimes violent world that a large percentage of children in high-conflict custody disputes seeks to escape.
  • PAS as developed and purveyed by Richard Gardner has neither a logical nor a scientific basis. It is rejected by responsible social scientists and lacks solid grounding in psychological theory or research. AC, although more refined in its understanding of child–parent difficulties, entails intrusive, coercive, unsubstantiated remedies of its own. Lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals who deal with child custody issues should think carefully and respond judiciously when claims based on either theory are advanced. More generally, far greater interdisciplinary training and competence in scientific methodology are needed. These should be brought to bear whenever a new assertion is made that, if accepted, will shape the interpretation or application of family law principles (for example, the concept of a child’s best interest). Although the use of expert testimony is often useful, decision-makers need to do their homework rather than rely uncritically on experts’ views. This is particularly true in fields such as psychology and psychiatry, where even experts have a wide range of differing views, and professionals, whether by accident or design, sometimes offer opinions beyond their expertise. Lawyers and judges are trained to ask the hard questions, and that skill should be employed here. The first question is whether scientific sufficiency has been indicated by respected professional vetting, for example, inclusion in the American Psychiatric Association’s DSMIV96 or the World Health Organisation’s ICD-10.97 Where no such imprimatur exists, one must ask whether approval has been sought and denied or whether submission would be premature. Insights that are too new, or for which no established gold standard exists, may nonetheless be valuable,98 but their probity and limitations should be clearly understood. This can be accomplished by inquiries into the sample (if any) on which the theory is based, the methodology and assumptions affecting the collection of data, how conclusions have been drawn from the data, the likelihood that fair extrapolations can be drawn, the degree to which assertions are internally consistent and compatible with established knowledge, and the balance of potential benefits and harms if the insight later proves unsound.99"
  • Excerpts "

    ABC Radio National – Parental Alienation Syndrome

    JANUARY 14, 2012 BY 
    Transcript:
    The anger and hurt of divorcing parents often spills over into custody and access to children. Accusations of child abuse are defended with claims of lies and alienation using Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) resulting in the accusing parent losing custody. PAS has been discredited in America but there’s concern that it’s still being used in the Family Courts of Australia. Reporter: Jane Shields"
  • Excerpts page 1 "Abusive fathers are convincing the courts that mothers are “coaching” their kids to fear their fathers. It’s called Parental Alienation Syndrome, and it’s a serious issue. You’re going to find this column hard to believe. I had trouble believing it at first, too – fearful that I was hearing hysterical claims that just couldn’t be true. But as I got deeper into the subject, the truth kept hitting me over the head, and what seemed impossible turned out to be real. Here’s the bottom line: Abusive fathers are convincing family courts to ignore children’s cries of abuse, claiming that mothers are really at fault – that they’re “coaching” their children to make false charges against their fathers. There’s no abuse, the fathers say, just an evil woman who should lose all rights to the child. They call it Parental Alienation Syndrome, and it’s so pronounced that family courts across the country – and certainly here in Arizona – are falling for the ruse. Not only are fathers’ attorneys offering up alienation as though it were a valid theory – and wait until you see how invalid it really is – but mental health advisers are telling judges it’s real, and Arizona advocates have seen judges bring it up on their own. What I’m wondering is how many of those lawyers or advisers or judges realize that Parental Alienation Syndrome has been completely discredited as a bogus theory. I’m also wondering if they know it was created by a man who wrote that adults having sex with children isn’t a bad thing."








Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)