Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Parental Alienation by Joel R. Brandes

NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, March 26, 2000


by Joel R. Brandes

Parental Alienation was recently described as a situation where one parent intentionally attempts to alienate his or her child from the other parent, by poisoning his mind, and usually succeeds.(1) Parental Alienation Syndrome ("PAS") is a disorder that usually arises in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's unjustified campaign of denigration against a parent. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the parent.

Where the child's animosity may be justified, such as in a case where there is true parental abuse or neglect, the Parental Alienation Syndrome explanation for the child's hostility is not applicable. The term is applicable only when the target parent has not exhibited anything close to the degree of alienating behavior that might warrant the campaign of vilification exhibited by the child. In typical cases, the victimized parent would be considered by most examiners to have provided normal, loving parenting or, at worst, exhibited minimal impairments in parental capacity. The hallmark of PAS is the exaggeration of minor weaknesses and deficiencies.(2) The parent who programs the child brings about the destruction of the bond between the other parent and the child which, unfortunately, is likely to be lifelong in duration.(3)

We believe that inducing parental alienation in a child is a form of child abuse, which should be punishable as abuse under the Family Court Act. Moreover, a parent who alienates a child against the other parent should be denied visitation with all of his or her children until the child is no longer alienated against the target parent.

Parental alienation has been recognized in New York custody cases since the 1980s, when it was held that a custodial parent's interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent is "an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent."(4)

In Matter of Karen B. v. Clyde M.,(5) the parties originally had a joint and split custodial arrangement and a comprehensive visitation arrangement. In September 1990, the mother filed a petition to modify, requesting that she "retain all custody and visitation to be supervised, if at all." She alleged a change of circumstances, in that "Mandi had disclosed sexual advances and behavior problems because of concerns. Also it is not good for her physical, emotional and social well being to go back and forth between parents. Social Services is currently investigating." As a result of her allegations, the court entered a temporary order requiring the father's visitations with Mandi to be supervised.

According to the mother, in September 1990 Mandi disclosed to her certain sexual abuse perpetrated on Mandi by her father. He allegedly put his finger in her "peer." When she said that it hurt, he told her that he could do what he wanted. She also claimed that her Daddy's "dinkie" got bigger and "stuff came out." The mother reported this to a friend of hers, employed by Community Maternity Services, who went to her home and investigated. The child and mother were interviewed by a child sexual abuse therapist specializing in victims of ages 2-1/2 to 18 years. The mother repeated all of the allegations to the therapist, and additionally stated that on Sept. 9, Mandi had told her that the respondent has put his "peer" on her "peer" and that he had put his hand under the covers of the bed and touched her buns stating, "You know, like you take your temperature." The expert observed no outward signs of emotion when the mother spoke to her and found that the mother seemed to be repeating the story by rote, and that she couldn't respond to questions without starting from the beginning and completing the entire story. The expert concluded that there was no information that would indicate that Mandi had been sexually abused by her father.

The court held that a parent who denigrates the other by casting the false aspersion of child sex abuse, and involving the child as an instrument to achieve his or her selfish purpose, is not fit to continue in the role of a parent. It found that it would be in Mandi's best interests that her custody be awarded to her father. It stated "As the court has no assurance that the mother will not continue to 'brainwash' or 'program' Mandi, petitioner shall have no visitation nor contact with her daughter."

The Third Department affirmed.(6) It noted that the Family Court found that petitioner had programmed Mandi to make the sexual abuse allegations in order to obtain sole custody and deny access to respondent. It held that the fact that Family Court made reference to a book regarding parental alienation syndrome, which was neither entered into evidence nor referred to by any witness, was not a ground for reversal, especially in light of all the testimony elicited at the hearing.

In RB v. SB,(7) the trial court found that prior to their separation in October 1994, the father (R.B.) and son (A.B.) had an extremely close relationship. They spent time together playing basketball and working on A.B.'s homework. R.B. walked A.B. to school in the mornings and regularly attended school functions. In August 1994, R.B.'s relationship with A.B. deteriorated substantially. The record was replete with numerous examples of the mother's (S.B.) campaign to poison A.B.'s relationship with his father. R.B. repeatedly asked S.B. to refrain from speaking to A.B. about these issues until after A.B.'s bar mitzvah the following Sunday. In response, S.B. reiterated her threats involving A.B. The court concluded that A.B.'s four-year estrangement from R.B. was the result of S.B.'s vindictive and relentless decision to alienate A.B. from his father. The court found that beginning in August 1994, S.B. engaged in a campaign to poison the relationship between A.B. and R.B. and effectively alienated A.B. from R.B. for approximately four years. During the four years when A.B. would neither see nor speak to his father, S.B. repeatedly referred to R.B. in front of A.B. as "evil," a "thief," an "embezzler" and a "liar." She told R.B. he would never see his son without her supervision, and attempted to condition visitation upon increased support. She told R.B. she wanted A.B. to "hate his f--guts."

The court held that S.B.'s intentional interference in R.B.'s relationship with his son, to the point where A.B. refused to see or speak to R.B. for nearly four years, was an appropriate factor for the court to consider pursuant to D.R.L. 236(B)(6)(11) in setting maintenance. It found that S.B. permanently damaged R.B.'s relationship with A.B. The court refused to order support to S.B. so that she could maintain her prior standard of living. Instead, it directed that R.B. pay to S.B. only those amounts S.B. reasonably needed to meet her daily living expenses so as not to diminish A.B.'s lifestyle. The award of maintenance and child support was contingent upon S.B. ensuring that the visitation schedule established by the court at the conclusion of the trial was adhered to. The court directed that it would entertain a motion by R.B. to terminate maintenance and decrease or terminate child support upon a showing that S.B. interfered with the visitation established by the court in any manner.

First New York Court

In Matter of JF v. LF, (8) 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.

Parenthetically, we note that the DSM-IV,(9) which was published in 1994, cautions that "DSM-IV reflects a consensus about the classification and diagnosis of mental disorders derived at the time of its initial publication. New knowledge will undoubtedly lead to the identification of new disorders."

The Family Court acknowledged that New York cases have not discussed PAS as a theory, but have discussed the issue in terms of whether the child has been programmed to disfavor the noncustodial parent, thus warranting a change in custody.

The court observed the children and found them to be both highly intelligent and articulate. Yet, when discussing their father and his family, they presented themselves "at times in a surreal way with a pseudo-maturity which is unnatural and, even, strange." They seemed like "little adults." The court found that the children's opinions about their father were unrealistic and cruel. They spoke about and to him in a way which seemed to be malicious. Both children used identical language in dismissing the happy times they spent with their father as evidenced in a videotape and picture album as "Kodak moments." They denied anything positive in their relationship with their father to an unnatural extreme. The court concluded that nothing in the father's behavior warranted that treatment.

Three expert witnesses testified that the children were aligned in an unhealthy manner with the mother and her family. One expert testified that the "...[M]other has clearly won the war over the children's minds and hearts and the father is generally helpless to offset that. Children, likewise, are deeply attached in a symbiotic fashion with their mother ... Father is painted in a highly derogatory and negative fashion, way out of proportion to any possible deficiencies that he may have. This is clearly a borderline mental device within the mother's psychology which has been clearly duplicated in the children. The overall prognosis for any major change in their attitude would appear to be quite limited at this time, even with expert psychiatric assistance."

The court-appointed psychologist concluded that the PAS was "clear" and "definite" with both children.

The father's expert submitted a report to the court in which he stated that the alienation from the father was probably the most severe case of alienation he had ever witnessed as a child psychiatrist.

The court accepted the testimony of the mental health professionals to the extent that they indicated that the mother alienated the children from the father. It found that the children would have no relationship with the father if left in the custody of their mother, and that they would continue to be psychologically damaged if they remained living with her. Their negative view of their father was out of all proportion to reality. The court found that the mother had succeeded in causing parental alienation of the children from their father, such that they not only wished to cease having frequent and regular visitation, but actually desired to have nothing to do with him. It awarded sole custody to him and suspended her right to visitation.

The court did not specifically base its decision on a finding of PAS. Instead, it relied on the case law, which requires the custodial parent to nurture the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent, and ensures access by the noncustodial parent,(10) pointing out that interfering with the child's "relationship with the noncustodial parent, has been said to be so inconsistent with the child's best interest as to per se raise a strong probability of unfitness."(11)

1. R.B. v. S.B., New York Law Journal, 3-31-99, page 29, col. 5, Sup. Ct., NY Co. (Silberman, J),

2. Gardner, R.A., The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition (1998)

3. See Gardner, R.A., The Parental Alienation Syndrome (2d Edition) Addendum I (1999)

4. Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-5.

5. Karen B. v. Clyde M., 151 Misc2d 794, aff'd, 197 A.D.2d 753 (3d Dept, 1999).

6. Id.

7. See note 1, supra

8. 694 NYS2d 592, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99408

9. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, 1994 at p. xxiii.

10. Daghir v. Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, aff'd 56 NY2d 938.


Joel R. Brandes has law offices in Garden City and New York City. He co-authored the nine-volume Law and the Family New York and Law and the Family New York Forms.

3/28/2000 NYLJ 3, (col. 1)

"Parental Alienation" - Joel R. Brandes.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Case Law on Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation Disorder

PAS Case Law

The purpose of this page is to provide the visitor with an overview of important PAS case law. The citations are in Blue Book format and are followed by a short explanation of the case.

Need for Proof in PAS Cases

Coursey v. Super. Ct., 194 Cal. App. 3d 147; 239 Cal. Rptr. 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).

Alienated fourteen-year-old daughter refused to visit her father pursuant to the terms of a stipulated order. The mother was found in contempt. On appeal, the court found that absent evidence of intent, it could not be inferred that failure of visitation was willful on mother's part.

Constitutional Rights and PAS

Schutz v. Schutz, 581 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1991).

Alientor mother appealed order to do everything in her power to create in the minds of her children a loving, caring feeling towards their father, claiming a violation of her First Amendment rights. Court found any burden on those rights to be merely incidental.

Best Interests of the Child and PAS

In re Violetta B., 210 Ill. App. 3d 521,524; 568 N.E.2d 1345 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991).

Court reversed decision to transfer custody of four-year-old from foster mother to paternal grandmother based on psychologist's expert testimony that a transfer of custody would cause irreparable trauma. Court concluded that best interest of the child should control the decision.

Spurious Allegations of Child Abuse

Karen B. v. Clyde M., 151 Misc. 2d 794; 574 N.Y.S.2d 267 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1991).

Mother's allegations of sex abuse of child by father found baseless after court considered trained validator's testimony as to no abuse and verbatim similarity between mother and daughter's statements. Court likened mother's behavior to that of Medea.

Abusing Visitation

Zigmont fka Toto v. Toto, No. 62149, 1992 WL 6034 at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 16, 1992).

After considering the appellant's erratic behavior in exercising his visitation, and the resulting psychological problems of the children, the court found it both just and reasonable for trial court to limit visitation to a specific schedule.

Court's Discretion re PAS and Custody

Wiederholt v. Fischer, 169 Wis. 2d 524; 485 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).

Despite psychologist's testimony that PAS was the worst he had seen, the court concluded that the evidence was not strong enough to be cured by placing children with father, noting that the cure was controversial and the success of the treatment was limited.

Using PAS as a Defense

Truax v. Truax, 110 Nev. 437; 874 P.2d 10 (Nev. 1994).

Father claimed that because of PAS, the testimony of the court-appointed special advocate (CASA) was skewed in favor of mother. CASA recommended that custody be changed to mother, citing abuse by step-sister. Bite mark on son tipped the scales for the court.

Attacking the Validity of PAS

In re Marriage of Rosenfeld, 524 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).

Father severely alienated children from mother. The court found the only way to correct the situation was to place children with mother. On appeal, father attacked validity of PAS and testimony of mother's expert. Court focused instead on parties' behavior.

Rebutting PAS through Child Testimony

White v. White, 655 N.E.2d 523, 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

Psychologist on whom mother had insisted testified that she was engaging in PAS and that she excessively hostile toward father. Mother attempted to rebut expert's testimony by putting 10-year-old son on stand. Trial court refused to subject son to the process. Affirmed on appeal.

Placing Children with an Alienated Parent

Tucker fka Greenberg v. Greenberg, 674 So. 2d 807 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

In a trial arising over a visitation dispute, court noted that former wife was obsessed with making shared parenting as difficult as possible for father. Both trial and appellate courts decided best decision was to place children with the alienated parent.

PAS not Gender-Specific

Williams v. Williams, 676 So. 2d 493 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).

In Williams, the court took custody from an alienating father and vested it with the alienated mother. Williams demonstrates the non-gender-specific nature of PAS.

PAS and Extreme Tactics

Hanson v. Spolnik, 685 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. 1997).

Father and mother were awarded joint custody. Mother then engaged in extreme tactics that included false allegations of sexual abuse and comments that father had AIDS and that he had hired a hit man. On appeal, court found modification of joint custody was necessary.

Contesting Concept of PAS in New York

In the Matter of J.F. v. L.F.,181 Misc. 2d 722; 694 N.Y.S.2d 592 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1999).

By order to show cause against mother, father applied for custody. Annexed to order was psychiatrist's affidavit recommending custody change. Mother bitterly contested concept of PAS. The court nonetheless found that mother had alienated children from father.

Court-Appointed Experts and Bias

Pathan v. Pathan, No. 17729, 2000 WL 43711 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2000).

Court-appointed psychologist showed significant bias against Pakistani father, who asked for an independent evaluation. The court noted that mother was the primary offender. Nonetheless, the court merely opined that if mother did not mend her ways, custody might change.

Mutual Alienation

Spencley v. Spencley, No. 219801, 2000 WL 33519710 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2000).

Parents engaged in mutual alienation made complaints against state for its determination of abuse and neglect. On appeal, mother challenged concept of PAS; however, the court found ample evidence of emotional injury, and that PAS was used in an explanatory manner.

Need to Show Change of Circumstances

Chambers v. Chambers, No. CA99-688, 2000 WL 795278 (Ark. Ct. App. June 21, 2000).

Trial court concluded that prolonged alienation was so successful that there was no hope of re-integration between father and children. On appeal, the court found that father had failed to show requisite change of circumstances to warrant the court's intervention.

Ignoring Expert Testimony

Kirk v. Kirk, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002).

In Kirk, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned an appellate decision, ignoring copious expert testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome and the spurious nature of mother's sexual abuse claims.

Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Victory—Crucial Bill from Opponents of Recognizing Parental Alienation Defeated!

July 26th, 2010 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director

Fathers and Families and its legislative allies have succeeded in killing one of the worst family law bills in modern history–California’s AB 612. The bill, put forward by the well-funded advocacy group Center for Judicial Excellence (and supported by the California National Organization for Women), would have banned Parental Alienation from being mentioned in any way, shape, or form in a California family court. Because of California’s tremendous influence in shaping the laws of other states, this loss would have led to a mushrooming of similarly damaging legislation in other states.

Fathers and Families’ legislative representative Michael Robinson helped cobble together a coalition of family law professional organizations and experts to oppose the bill. We were able to bottle the bill up in the Senate Judiciary Committee last year and keep it there until last week, when it died. To learn more about the bill, see our co-authored column Preventing courts from considering parental alienation will harm kids (Capitol Weekly, 2/25/10).

The defeat of AB 612 is a victory for the family court reform movement and for children everywhere. Victories cost money, as does our deep, professional involvement inside the political system—please support our successful work by making a tax-deductible contribution by clicking here.

This is the second time in two months that Fathers & Families has been instrumental in defeating a Center for Judicial Excellence bill—in June, we helped kill AB 2475, which was also related to Parental Alienation. To learn more, see F & F Helps Defeat Radical Bill from Opponents of Recognizing Parental Alienation.

Whereas Fathers & Families’ family court reform bills have been moving swiftly through the California legislature, the Center for Judicial Excellence is now 0-2 in the 2009-2010 legislative session.

The CJE claims that there’s a “crisis” in family courts, and that courts are handing over custody of children to physically and sexually abusive fathers. They promote reforms which will make it easier to deny parents shared custody or visitation rights based on unsubstantiated abuse claims. As we’ve noted before, there is no empirical basis supporting this claim. The vast majority of the cases that groups like the CJE put forward as alleged examples of this “crisis” of abusive fathers winning child custody are being badly misrepresented–to learn more, click here.

The events surrounding AB 2475 and AB 612 are further validation of Fathers and Families’ emphasis on the need for the family court reform movement to employ full-time legislative representatives and engage in the political process on a professional level. To support this work with your tax-deductible gift, please click here.

Together with you in the love of our children,

Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers and Families

Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Chair of the Board, Fathers and Families

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Poison Parents - a book on Parental Alienation

Parental Alienation is not an old topic no a new invention. Parents have been alienating children from the other parents for hundreds of years and perhaps even farther back.

'Poison Parents' is a powerful book, dealing with all aspects of the parental alienation syndrome which tears loving relationships between parents and children apart in the post-divorce and separation environment. It explores the devastating effect that malicious parenting can have on impressionable children, the target parent and extended family and friends. Drawing an interesting parallel between personality disorder and alienating behavior, 'Poison Parents' exposes the syndrome and offers insightful ways of coping with and combating the insidiously destructive campaign of hate. Written by Criminologist, Grace Humphreys, it is a must-read for anyone who knows a child or children involved in a post-divorce tug-o-war between parents.

"Parents wonder why the streams are bitter, when they themselves have poisoned the fountain," John Locke 1632-1704

The only way to combat Parental Alienation is by educating family and friends about the syndrome and creating more public awareness.

This book moves away from the clinical, academic approach to discuss the subject clearly and simply. It is enriched by real stories - both tragic and hopeful.

You don't need a Ph.D to realize that this a book from the heart, it is well intentioned and reader friendly. It has upset at least one "expert" yet has received praise from many including this from a Professor at Law:

"thank you for your excellent book..you have an ideal open-mindeness and worldview"

Monday, June 7, 2010

Nassau County judge jails mother who falsely accused ex of sex abuse and alienated him from kids

Parents that deliberately alienate children from the other parent deserve some jail time. After all, it is akin to Child Kidnapping and Parental Alienation is a hate crime against the child.

Nassau County judge jails mother who falsely accused ex of sex abuse and alienated him from kids

June 7, 7:38 AMAlbany CPS and Family Court ExaminerDaniel Weaver
2 comments Subscribe

In a decision that will surely generate controversy and fuel gender wars and the ongoing debate over parental alienation, Nassau County Supreme Court Judge, Robert Ross, has sentenced a woman to six weekends in jail for alienating her children from their father.

The court went into great detail describing the mother's behavior toward her ex-husband, the defendant in Lauren R. V Ted R. The mother's behavior reached a crescendo, according to Judge Ross, when she made a false report of sexual abuse against the father to Child Protective Services.

The factual findings concerning the mother's behavior as stated in the decision by Judge Ross are extensive but worth reading in their entirety as they form a basis for his decision.

Concerning the plaintiff's (mother's) behavior, Judge Ross stated:

"Plaintiff intentionally scheduled their child's (N.'s) birthday party on a Sunday afternoon during defendant's weekend visitation, and then refused to permit defendant to attend. She demanded that N. be returned home early, in order to "prepare" for her party, but D., the other child, was enjoying the time with her father and wished to remain with him until the party began. Plaintiff castigated N. for "daring" to invite her father to take a picture of her outside her party. According to the plaintiff, "this doesn't work for me!" Plaintiff threatened to cancel N.'s party, and warned her that her sister, too, would be punished "big time" for wanting to spend time with her father. Plaintiff's taped temper tantrum, offered into evidence, vividly detailed one instance of how D. and N. have been made to understand that enjoying time with their father will be met with their mother's wrath and threat of punishment."

Mother consistently lied about father's custody rights

"Plaintiff conceded that when she completed N.'s registration card for XXX., she wrote that defendant is "not authorized to take them. I have custody. Please call me." At trial, she claimed to fear that defendant would retrieve the girls directly from school. However, she later admitted that defendant had never even attempted to pick them up at school. Her testimony at trial sharply contradicted her sworn affidavit dated January 23, 2008, in which she stated that "the defendant consistently attempts to pick up the girls unannounced from their schools and activities, which disrupts not only the girls, but those in charge of the aforementioned." In her sworn affidavit, plaintiff claimed that she completed the registration card because defendant sought to attend the end of D.'s art class and then had the audacity to drive his daughter home. The art class "incident" occurred well after the registration card was completed by the plaintiff. Moreover, nothing in the parties' agreement prohibits the defendant from visiting the children at extra-curricular events or from driving them to or from such events. In point of fact, there was no dispute that D.'s Friday art class in Huntington ended as defendant's alternate weekend visitation commenced."

"Plaintiff wrote to Dr. L.1 (then the XXX. principal) and Ms. T. (N.'s fifth grade teacher), demanding that they restrict their conversations with the defendant to N.'s academics, as plaintiff is "solely responsible for her academic progress and emotional well being. Notwithstanding the nature of their joint legal custody plaintiff insisted before me that, "I have custody, he has visitation.""

"The plaintiff made/completed an application for admission to XXX on behalf of N. in October, 2007. On the application, she checked the box "Mother has custody," rather than the box directly below which says "Joint custody." She identified her new husband, R. L., as N.'s "parent/guardian," and she failed to mention the defendant. During cross examination, plaintiff insisted that she only omitted reference to the defendant for fear that his financial circumstances would adversely impact N.'s chances for acceptance. However, no financial information was requested anywhere on the application. Moreover, plaintiff acknowledged that none was required until after an applicant was invited to attend."

"By applying to XXX without defendant's knowledge - - but with N. completely involved in the process, plaintiff orchestrated the decision to be made, as well as alienating the child. Had the defendant not consented to N.'s attendance at XXX, after the fact, N. would be angry with him for purportedly interfering with the enrollment, even if defendant's objections to a private school placement were sound. In no event was he consulted as to this educational decision."

"When asked how she might handle things differently now, plaintiff did not indicate that she would first discuss the possibility of a private school with the defendant, as she is obligated to do pursuant to the Stipulation."

"In a similar pattern of being advised "after the fact," defendant testified that there were countless times when plaintiff deliberately scheduled theater tickets, family events and social activities for the girls during his visitation, and he was compelled to consent or risk disappointing the girls. These occurrences continued even during the time span of proceedings before me."

Mother claims children don't want to see father

"Plaintiff was forced to concede at trial that the defendant was prevented from enjoying his visitation rights after he returned with the girls from his niece's Bat Mitzvah until this Court granted defendant's emergency application to compel the plaintiff to allow the defendant to take D. and N. for the ski trip he had scheduled for his half of the Christmas recess. Plaintiff insisted that it was D. and N. who refused to see their father, because they were angry with the 'choices" he had made on their behalf, including his objection to N. attending XXX. Defendant was made aware of the children's position because they parroted their mother's demands on several occasions. D. even read from a script during the brief dinners he was permitted. As plaintiff wrote in one e-mail when she was describing her role with respect to the children: "I am in charge here, not them. What I [sic] say goes. They may bring their shoes. You are responsible for the rest. End of story.""

"In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007. I observed the plaintiff smirk in the courtroom as defendant emotionally related how he was deprived of spending Hanukkah with his children, and was relegated to lighting a menorah and watching his daughters open their grandparents' presents in the back of his truck at the base of plaintiff's driveway on a December evening."

"The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet "their" demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother's therapist, and that he pay for 75% of D.'s Bat Mitzvah but limit his invitations to a handful of guests and have no role in the planning of the event. Plaintiff's contention that she had no involvement in these children's "demands" was belied by the very fact that the children had intimate knowledge of their mother's position on all of these issues. The children, in effect, were evolved into plaintiff's sub-agents and negotiators, having specific details of the financial demands of the plaintiff, and information as to the marital agreement."

"The mother alluded to the ambivalence of the children in seeing the defendant. But such abrogation to the children's wishes, under these circumstances, was in violation of the agreement. It was wholly improper for the mother to adhere to the children's wishes to forego visitation with their father (see, Matter of Hughes v. Wiegman, 150 AD2d 449)."

"Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant's role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant - - notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance - - hesitating and defensive - - with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant's joint custodial arrangement into farce. The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible."

Mother calls father f-----g asshole & other names in front of children

"Plaintiff relegated the defendant to waiting endlessly at the bottom of her long driveway. When defendant drove up her driveway on October 26, 2007, so that the children would not have to walk down with their heavy bags in a torrential rain, plaintiff ran down the driveway where she had left her car, drove up the driveway and blocked defendant's vehicle. The children watched as the police listened to their mother angrily demand that their father be arrested and, when the police refused, heard their mother scream that she is a taxpayer and the police work for her. She frequently disparaged the defendant in the presence of the children, calling him a "deadbeat," "loser," "scumbag," and "f——-g asshole." On one particular occasion, while holding N. and D. in her arms, plaintiff said to the defendant, "We all hope you die from cancer." Just this past summer, when defendant insisted that D. retrieve her clothes from plaintiff's home in preparation for their visit to N. on her camp visiting day, plaintiff urged to defendant that "Judge Ross will not be around forever, d___." Before the beginning of each of defendant's vacations with the children, the plaintiff staged prolonged and tearful farewells at the base of the driveway, during which plaintiff assured the children that they will return to "their family soon," and if "things get too bad, they can always tell Daddy to bring them home.""

Mother accuses father of sexual abuse

"The crescendo of the plaintiff's conduct involved accusations of sexual abuse. Plaintiff falsely accused defendant of sexual misconduct in June, 2008, shortly after defendant moved to Huntington and the children's friends were enjoying play dates at defendant's home. Plaintiff testified that D. shared that she was uncomfortable when the defendant tickles her, and conceded that she knew there was nothing "sexual" involved. Undaunted by the lack of any genuine concern for D.'s safety, plaintiff pursued a campaign to report the defendant to Child Protective Services. To facilitate this, she spoke with W. M, the psychologist at the school D. attended. Plaintiff also "encouraged" D. to advise Dr. C. (the chidren's pediatrician) that defendant inappropriately touched her - - but he saw no signs of abuse. Plaintiff also advised Dr. A., Ms. M., Dr. R. (the children's prior psychologist) and family friends of the allegations and, ultimately, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services opened a file on June 3, 2008, and began an investigation."

"According to the Case Narrative contained in the New York State Case Registry, a complaint was made that "On a regular basis, father inappropriately fondles 13 year old D.'s breasts. This makes D. feel very uncomfortable. Last Sunday, Father hit D. on the breast for unknown reason… " When the caseworker and Suffolk County detectives interviewed D. on June 3, 2008, she reported only that her father tickles her on her neck and under her arms, and she categorically denied her father ever fondled her breasts. She admitted that her father was not attempting to make her uncomfortable, but that he still regards her to be a tomboy. The detectives closed their investigation."

"Thereafter, and significantly, when the CPS caseworker met with plaintiff on August 19, 2008, plaintiff was quick to state that her ex-husband "did it again." Plaintiff claimed that the defendant hugged D. too hard. According to the caseworker's notes, the caseworker repeatedly cautioned the plaintiff not to bring the children into her disputes with the defendant. This warning was contained in CPS records."

"Although unfounded child abuse reports are required to be sealed (see, Social Services Law §422[5]), such reports may be introduced into evidence,"by the subject of the report where such subject… is a plaintiff or petitioner in a civil action or proceeding alleging the false reporting of child abuse or maltreatment" (Social Services Law §422[5][b][1]). Allegations that defendant had injured the child were found to be baseless and, by making such allegations, plaintiff needlessly subjected the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services, placing her own interests above those of the child. This report was not made in "good faith" - - rather, the investigating agency warned the mother not to re-utilize the allegations and her children in her custodial litigation with the defendant."

Mother's behavior not affected by pending contempt proceeding

"The concern of a pending contempt proceeding did not affect the plaintiff's conduct. For example, knowing that defendant had parenting access with D. on July 3, 2009, plaintiff invited D.'s close friend, C. C., to a country club for a fireworks display and advised D. of this invitation. She then instructed D. to tell her father she was invited to a friend's party on that date. Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that "it was not her responsibility to make plans for T.""

"The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties' Stipulation of Settlement, incorporated but not merged into their Judgment of Divorce. The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to undermine the relationship between the children and their father and replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant's parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any semblance of "good faith," and her imposition upon the children to fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they want to have with their father. The unfortunate history here also reflects the plaintiff's hiring and firing of three different counsel, expressed disdain towards the children's attorney, and utter disregard for the authority of the Court."

Judge Ross discusses parental alienation

Aware of the controversy surrounding the subject of parental alienation, Judge Ross spent some time addressing the issue in his decision.

Ross said:

"Differing "alienation" theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent's relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a "parent's ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child," a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the "interference with the non-custodial parent and child's relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent." See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793."

"Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent's right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009]."

The sentence and justification for the sentence

Judge Ross found Lauren R. in civil contempt of court. She will spend every other weekend in the Nassau County Correctional Facility during June, July and August.

Judge Ross acknowleged that "An imposition of sentence upon a finding of contempt should contain a language permitting the contemnor an opportunity to purge." However, in this case, a jail sentence was the only option available because it is no longer within the power of the plaintiff (mother) to purge since the violation was of a past court order. Furthermore, remedial intervention through counseling and parental training during the course of the trial was unsuccesful and if re-utilized, the "Court cannot release from imprisonment upon future compliance."

The matter of approximately $165,000 in attorney fees will be the subject of another hearing.

Read article by Dan Weaver on parental alienation in Saratoga County

Read other articles by Dan Weaver on family court and similar topics in Nassau County

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Parental Alienation And False & Malicious Domestic Violence Allegations

This is another excellent article on the dynamics of how children are alienated from the parents (in most cases, the dad) by false allegations of abuse.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a generally recognized platform that may result in child abuse. This occurs when a custodial parent of a child from a separated family uses deception to deliberately alienate children from their non custodial parent.

Misplaced Domestic Violence Restraining and Protective Orders are an excellent tool to advance the Alienating Parent’s malice! Misguided Protective Orders of a Court based on such false representations may remove the Accused Abuser Parent from the home, bar the Accused Abuser from seeing his/her children and give the Alienating Parent total physical custody of the children. The Accused Abuser Parent is now effectively “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”.

Once the Alienator obtains a Restraining Order through false domestic violence allegations, the Accused Abuser Parent may find it difficult to defend himself or herself against the false allegations. This sends the implied message to the children that “Daddy/Mommy” is bad or dangerous, stamped by the court.

The Accused Abuser Parent may only see his/her children in a cold and uninviting supervised visitation setting. Supervised Visitation Centers are facilities where a child is taken to meet with the Accused Abuser Parent in a third party monitored location. A third party observes the Accused Abuser Parent during their visit with their children so that the child is “protected” at all times.

Often the supervised visit is demeaning for the visiting parent in the eyes of his/her child. The impression to the child that “Daddy or Mommy” is dangerous comes across loud and clear since most children only see lock up situations on TV and these people are seriously viewed as being bad.

Many Alienating Parents use this scary situation to encourage their child not to see the Accused Abuser Parent at all. The more time a child is out of contact with the Alienated Parent the deeper the scaring and recovery period for that child.

Dr. Richard A. Gardner coined the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) in 1985. Dr. Gardner found that a child subjected to continual negativity and manipulation by the Custodial Parent over an extended period of time against the other parent would eventually adapt the distorted view presented. At the end of the day, what the Alienating Parent fails to understand is that his/her selfishness makes his/her child the “victim” who pays a hefty price in lost self esteem.

Unfortunately, False Domestic Violence Allegations have become more common in Divorce / Child Custody Proceedings. Most Judges usually enter a restraining or protective order for the safety of the child and in too many cases an Accused Abuser Parent is guilty until proven innocent!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

I Lost My Children to Parental Alienation.... a website to share stories.

I found this website where parents can post how they lost their children to Parental Alienation on the part of the other parent. Post your story, too!

I Lost My Children to Parental Alienation

Read true personal stories, chat & get advice, support and help from a group of 8 people who all say 'I Lost My Children to Parental Alienation'


Sunday, May 16, 2010

Parental Alienation is Psychological Child Abuse

Date: 2010-05-08, 11:57PM CDT
Reply to: james.edwards@fathersforchange.org [Errors when replying to ads?]

Support the Child's Right to Both Parents by signing the petition at www.fathersforchange.org

Parental Alienation is Psychological Child Abuse

"In a recent survey, one in five parents stated that their primary objective during the divorce was to make the experience as unpleasant as possible for the former spouse; despite the effects such attitudes and behavior have on the children." If there is a child involved, the parent will use the child as a false weapons. When Parental Alienation tactics are successful, the child suffers the emotional loss of the parent and remains in a constant cycle of emotional pain associated with the loss of a parent. Parental Alienation is psychological child abuse.

Fathers for Change is a consolidation of information I have come across, while trying to 'find information' on the subject of Parental Alienation. I have been battling Parental Alienation tactics since my separation in March of 2004 when my (now) ex-wife told me “You will never see your daughter again.” Since, I have fought one tactic after another, and I have spent thousands in attorney fees. Because I've continued to fight, I have a very close relationship with my daughter, who is beautiful, happy and healthy... www.fathersforchange.org

Fathers for Change is looking for parents who have firsthand experience with Parental Alienation Tactics for a documentary it is comprising. If you have experienced PA, and wish to add your story, e-mail me at james.edwards@fathersforchange.org or go to http://www.fathersforchange.org/aboutmecontactme.html

  • it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
image 1731703600-0

PostingID: 1731703600

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Family Courts are Partners in Parental Alienation

Barbara Johnson When a court (1) issues a restraining order against one parent after an exparte hearing, the court has taken a step toward ordering parental alienation.
When a court (2) does not order "joint custody" or "shared parenting" without an evidentiary hearing and without using the standard of "clear and convincing evidence," the court has taken a step toward ordering parental alienation.
When a court (3) orders "supervised visitation" without an evidentiary hearing and without using the standard of "clear and convincing evidence," the court has taken a step toward ordering parental alienation.
When a court (4) allows the kidnapping of children from one or more parents without an evidentiary hearing and without proving that the parent(s) are unfit to parent the child(ren), the court has taken a step toward ordering parental alienation.
These are all instances from which parental alienation can and does arise.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Sunday Capitol Rally for 'Parental Alienation Awareness Day'

Sunday California Capitol Rally for 'Parental Alienation Awareness Day

Fathers 4 Justice, CA and Families 4 Justice is organizing a candlelight vigil to be held on the sidewalk in front of the west side of the California State Capitol, on Sunday, April 25, at 8 p.m. in recognition of the 4th Annual Parental Alienation Awareness Day.

Simultaneous vigils will be held throughout the United States in order to bring attention to this vile and hostile behavior most often practiced by one parent against another during and after many child custody battles and cases. Supporting organizations include: Live Be at Dads, A Parents Right, and the Justice Reform Coalition.

For the past few years, several U.S. governors have proclaimed or recognized April 25 as Parental Alienation Awareness Day, including Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska and West Virginia. In addition, there have been two Canadian Proclamations-one in Edmonton, Alberta, and Oakville, Ontario, and an international proclamation issued by the Bermuda Islands.

Parental alienation is a group of practiced behaviors that are damaging to children's mental and emotional well-being, and can interfere with a relationship of a child and either parent. These behaviors most often accompany high conflict marriages, separation or divorce. The children are frequently subjected to various alienating behaviors and bullied into being separated from one loving parent by another.

Parental alienation and hostile, aggressive parenting, deprive children of their right to be loved by, and show love for, both of their parents. These destructive actions by the alienating parent (the parent who is responsible for the manipulations and bullying) are considered a form of child abuse - as the alienating tactics used on the children are disturbing, confusing and often frightening, and rob children of their sense of security and safety.

"Parental Alienation behaviors, whether they are verbal or non-verbal, cause a child to be mentally manipulated or bullied into believing that a loving parent is the cause of all of their problems, and/or are the enemy; someone to be feared, hated, disrespected and/or avoided. It clearly is a form of child abuse," said Donald Tenn, a father of three, including a beloved 6 year old daughter from whom his wife has alienated him from.

All children have the universal right to love and be loved by both mother and father. Statistically speaking, there is much support for the statement "two parents are better than one."

"We encourage Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to join the governor's of 13 other states and issue a state proclamation recognizing April 25 as National Parental Alienation Awareness Day. We further encourage the Governor and the California State Legislature to work on behalf of all children in California to put an end to this assault on children. After all, children are our future and they see much of the world through our eyes," said the sponsors.

Friday, April 23, 2010

Parental Alienation Syndrome in DSM V

Parental Alienation Syndrome in DSM V

By djohnm

We know divorce can result in a child being alienated from a parent. It happens all the time. Often one parent actively promotes the alienation of the other parent. That isn’t news. No one doubts parental alienation exists, but is it a disorder or syndrome? That’s an ongoing debate. It doesn’t currently appear in DSM IV, the American Psychiatry Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Many people would like to see it appear in DSM V, which is currently under development.

One group which we very much admire–Fathers and Families–is doing great work encouraging people to contact the APA and report cases that might qualify as parental alienation cases. We applaud them for their efforts. But at the same we feel they may be embarking on a risky strategy. We wonder if it is important to meet the scientific threshold required for parental alienation to qualify as a mental disorder or syndrome.

Even if the DSM V does not include parental alienation syndrome (PAS) that does not make parental alienation any less tragic. By engaging in a full court press to recognize PAS, the impact of non-recognition might trivialize the parental alienation that does occur, even if it isn’t labelled a syndrome.

We prefer no-fault remedies that fix the problem, once identified, and punish parents who erect obstacles to overcoming parental alienation. If judges are empowered to recognize evidence pointing to parental alienation, they can enforce remedies.

Our fear is that if DSM V ignores PAS, too many people will believe PAS is without merit, and merely a politically motivated snow job. We ourselves don’t know if it qualifies as a syndrome, but we do know it occurs and we’d like to see it end. We’re just not sure pushing the DSM V angle is the right approach. Maybe we are just pessimistic about the chances of it appearing in DSM V. If you’d like to increase those chances, fill out the petitions offered on Fathers and Families.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness

Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness Tuesday, January 12, 2010
filed under: divorce logic

If you're tempted to put your kid in the middle of your conflicts with your ex, don't do it -- it could lead to serious mental illness.

parents arguing

Getty Images

Dr. Michelle Golland: Children who are caught in the severe emotional struggle of divorcing parents may not only be suffering emotionally, but may now fall under a new definition that is being proposed for the American Psychiatric Association reference tool, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The DSM may include a new mental illness classification: "Parental Alienation." Through his research, Dr. Bernet of Vanderbilt University has defined PA as a form of brainwashing that occurs in a small number of highly contentious divorces. Children experiencing PA develop this condition by subtle or explicit signals the alienating parent sends a child.

Parental Alienation involves mental manipulation or bullying of children, which results in the destruction of a loving or warm relationship with the other parent. Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting deprives children coping with divorce of the stable and loving relationships they need when dealing with the divorce of their parents, and in their life in general.

Children experiencing the emotional bullying by one parent against the other can develop a severe opposition to contact with one parent and/or overt hatred for one parent when there is little and often no logical reason to explain the child's behavior. During the crisis of a divorce, it is key to keep the peace between the parents so as to ensure the children do not feel put in between the conflict. Let's face it -- the couple is divorcing each other, but they should not be divorced from the children.

The healthy and reasonable parent wants to keep their children feeling emotionally safe with both parents. The desire should be to strengthen the bonds between both parents even through the divorce. A healthy parent encourages visits with the other parent, does not talk negatively about the other parent in the presence of the children, and honestly tries to set aside their own hostile feelings to help their child feel less distress. The healthy parent is sensitive to the child's feelings and needs and encourages positive feelings toward the other parent because they know it is paramount to their well being, now and in the future.

The Alienating Parent may seek emotional comfort from their child (and want validation for their pain and anger against their ex-spouse) by trying to get the child to align against the other parent. They speak negatively of their ex and subtly communicate their anger in front of the children. Alienating parents often learn how to manipulate and use their children to hurt the other parent on purpose -- and with a vengeance. The parents who are actively alienating their ex may do such things as telling the children the other parent doesn't love them or doesn't want to see them. They may destroy or hide communication from the other parent. They may give into the child's desire to avoid the parent and actually encourage such behavior rather than encourage them to have a healthy relationship with their ex.

Some Signs of Parental Alienation

• Children perceive one parent as causing financial problems for the other parent
• Children have knowledge of the divorce details or legal procedures
• Children show sudden change in attitude toward a parent, which is hostile and negative
• Child is not being delivered for court-ordered visitation and is being allowed to "choose" if they go to visit the target parent
• Child makes false allegations of abuse
• Parent asks the child to choose one parent over the other
• Parent reminds and reinforces anger and negativity toward target parent
• Parent gives the impression to the children that if they have a good time with the target parent on a visit, it will hurt them
• Parent asks the children about the other parent's personal life
• Parent "rescues" the children from the other parent when there is no danger

The APA will announce on January 20, 2010, what proposed changes will be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If they are considering including Parental Alienation, they will begin three years of field studies, which will enable them to decide the diagnostic relevance and accuracy of Parental Alienation.

I believe it is important to realize the damaging negative emotional consequences of PA on children in high-conflict divorce. It is why I advocate for divorce therapy for any of my divorcing clients who have children. My goal is to avoid this type of harmful behavior and educate my clients on ways to create a peaceful and less stressful experience for their mutual children.

Read more: http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php#ixzz0cRd5tMAr

Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness | momlogic.com.

Why the Courts are Failing Children from Divorced Homes

Parental Alienation Disorder should be included in the next DSM due out in 2011. From what the following author says about it, it seems that about 500,000 divorced children suffer from the problem, mostly because of the custodial parent's mental disorder.

Why the Courts Are Failing To Protect Children from Child Abuse

Why the Courts Are Failing To Protect Children from Child Abuse

What is Parental Alienation? Joseph Goldberg is the Founder of The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome (C.S.P.A.S.). He is also a consultant advising parents and Family Law lawyers in the matters that pertain to Parental Alienation child abuse.

You can hear Joseph Golberg's recent Radio Show on the Divorce Source Radio Network at the bottom of this article.

More than 500,000 children every year are being abused by a parent who gets away with it, largely because it is a form of emotional abuse that's difficult to detect. Part of the problem is that there are very few mental health professionals that specialize in this sub - speciality of psychology. The type of abuse that I'm referring to is called Parental Alienation (also identified as Parental Alienation Syndrome and if it's included in the next edition of the American Psychiatric Associations DSM V - the term will be referred to as Parental Alienation Disorder.) Although P.A. is measured on a scientific scale ranging from mild to moderate to severe, the effects are so serious a child can experience a lifetime of adult problems and never recognize that they were essentially brainwashed. In addition, P.A. also involves the innocent parent being accused of abuse by the child and the aligned parent.

What is Parental Alienation? According to the definition in Wikipedia. Parental alienation is a social dynamic, generally due to divorce or separation, when a child expresses 'unjustified hatred or an unreasonably' strong dislike of one parent, making access / visitation by the rejected parent difficult or impossible. These feelings may be influenced by neg - ative comments by the other parent and by the characteristics, such as lack of empathy and warmth, of the rejected parent. The term does not apply in actual cases of real abuse when the child rejects the parent to protect themselves.

The only way to stop parental alienation is to validate that it is going on. This requires a Court Appointed Psychological Evaluation, which may cost anywhere from $5,000 - $10,000 to conduct and when someone is able to afford to pay for this evaluation it is still up to a Judge to follow a list of recommendations made by the psychologist. Parents that have alienated children recognize the changes in their child's behaviour, but they do not identify the changes as P.A. simply because there isn't any public education about this childhood condition, in fact, most parents end up learning about P.A. by reading the psychological literature online.

What should a parent do if they believe that Parental Alienation is going on? How can the litigation expenses be afforded to protect the child? Who are the doctors that specialize in this field of psychology, and how do I select one of these doctors to do an evaluation? Is there a way for a doctor to reverse the effects of parental alienation and help the child to rebond their relationship with the targeted parent? How does a parent in this situation find a lawyer that is experienced enough to represent them in a case of parental alienation? What can a parent do if they have zero funds to litigate, is there still a way to fix these problems? These are a few of the most commonly asked questions of parental alienation expert Joseph Goldberg a consultant who helps parents and family law lawyers to effectively litigate or settle these problems through court intervention.

The website for his consulting practice is www.ParentalAlienation.ca. In addition to his work as a consultant, Joseph Goldberg is also the Founder of the Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome - C.S.P.A.S. The CSPAS is an international organization helping Mental Health Professionals, Family Law Lawyers, Family Mediators, Child Abuse Investigators and numerous other professional's in better under - standing and assisting parents and children who are affected by parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome / disorder.

The website for this organization is www.CSPAS.ca

The CSPAS provides scientific data and updated educational information on the most effective clinical treatment solutions and procedures to obtain judicial intervention to assist children afflicted with PA and PAS / PAD. The CSPAS also provides a Free, Online Referral Service to anyone that needs a Mental Health Proffessional, Family Law Lawyer or Family Media- tor affiliated with its organization. All professionals affiliated with CSPAS have recevied a Certificate of Merit for updating their education and expert- ise in this field of study (along with Continuing Educational Credits).

Joseph Goldberg is also a public speaker and an educator. He has appear- ed on numerous radio shows. His organization held it's most recent confer- ence at the University of Toronto this last October 17th and 18th, 2010. In the spring of 2009 Mr. Goldberg organized the 1st International Conference on Parental Alienation Syndrome at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. This conference, was widely covered by the media and became the feature story on the front page of Canada's most widely circulated newspaper, the National Post (March 28, 2009).

Mr. Goldberg has been sought after for interviews with the CBC and many other news and media networks. He has published articles on the topic of Parental Alienation and his biography, which includes his first hand exper- ience with his own children afflicted with PA can be viewed on his website. We are pleased to post Mr. Goldberg's most recent radio show interview with Divorce Source Radio online for all of our divorced parents to learn a little more about what to do if they are experiencing these problems, or if they know of someone that could benefit from listening to this program.

We would welcome your comments on this article, email Wikizine at: postbag@wikivorce.com