tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10789228725316339942024-02-06T18:35:40.614-08:00Parental Alienation Is Child AbuseCAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-74207471300982052392011-02-07T18:00:00.000-08:002011-02-05T11:09:28.013-08:00Parental Alienation Syndrome: A 'Hidden' Facet of Custody Disputes<span style="font-size:large;"><strong>Parental Alienation Syndrome:<br />A 'Hidden' Facet of Custody Disputes</strong></span><br /><span style="font-size:medium;"><strong>by Lisa Cook</strong></span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...extending through the years of childhood and adolescence in his [or her] relations with both parents, [a child] builds up working models of how attachment figures are likely to behave towards him in any variety of situations; and on those models are based <strong>all his expectations, and therefore all his plans, for the rest of his life.</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">John Bowlby, <em>Separation, Anxiety, and Anger</em></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Introduction</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Custody determinations are not simple. In fact, there are often complications which are not readily discernible to judges, lawyers, counsellors, or even the parents and children. Such a "complication" occurs when a divorcing parent or parents attempt to brainwash or program their children during a custody dispute. This issue has not been given frank or frequent treatment in either law or psychiatry. However, it has the potential to be <strong>the</strong> most destructive aspect in custody disputes.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">It is apparent, from the limited studies that have been done, that mothers are usually the source of the brainwashing.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn01">1</a> Does this mean that there is a distinct gender differential at play? Two alternate and opposing explanations are available: women simply obtain custody with a greater prevalence this gives the mother the time and physical nexus necessary for successful brainwashing<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn02">2</a>; or out of a fear of losing sole custody due to the trends of joint custody and reverse discrimination in Family Law, mothers resort to brainwashing tactics.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn03">3</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Both explanations, however, stem from a common basis: women are generally perceived as the "losers" in a divorce unless they get custody of the children.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Thus, the main catalyst for brainwashing is a combination of fear and loss - because a parent is alienated from the life they knew, they become alienating.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn04">4</a> Consequently, a father can brainwash his children just as easily as a mother provided he finds himself in a vulnerable position.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn05">5</a> The result is that the alienating parent becomes so self-oriented that he consciously or unconsciously detaches himself from the true dynamics of the situation. <em>Tables</em> 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6, in the appendix indicate that parents who brainwash tend to have the following characteristics: Upper-middle class with 2.5 children living in suburbia working in a professional occupation with a fairly high education level. From this one could conclude that brainwashing requires intelligence and skill. However, it may be that parents in a higher social class perceive their children as being another possession they could lose in the divorce. On a related note, they may be trying to keep up appearances as the "perfect" parent - having custody is an important part of this "role." But one must not make generalizations.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Lower class, less educated parents do brainwash their children - though less frequently. Whether this is a product of social class or intelligence is uncertain. Perhaps the difference is in the brainwashing techniques - lower class parents may not brainwash with the same kind of formality and structure as the upper class, educated parents. Their techniques may not correspond with Clawar's techniques. This could skew the data. While there is no final explanation for the data, they indicate that brainwashing is not a rare phenomenon. It has also been found that spouses who have a history of physically, socially-psychologically abusing their partner employ brainwashing simply as a new tool of abuse.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn07">7</a> Spousal abuse does not seem to have any social class boundaries. Thus, it is virtually impossible to determine a "brainwasher" profile. The fact is that any divorcing parent involved in a custody dispute - if sufficiently alienated from their own world - could have the potential to become alienating. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Theories</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">There are multiple theories accounting for brainwashing during custody. However, whether any, all, or a combination of these theories apply to a particular family will depend, to a large extent, on: (1) the distinct personalities of the child and parent and (2) situational factors.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn08">8</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Parents may brainwash as a result of the typical animosity associated with any custody dispute - as a reaction to situational conflict. However, more sophisticated theories have been devised to explain the phenomenon. Alignment is one such theory.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn09">9</a> It is akin to the recently coined terms Parental Alienation Syndrome (P.A.S.) and the S.A.I.D. (He said, She said, Who said?) syndrome - both of which are similarly defined and had their origins in the United States.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn10">10</a> P.A.S. (or S.A.I.D.) is defined as</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...a series of conscious programming techniques such as brainwashing as well as subconscious and unconscious processes by the alienating parent combined with the child's own contribution denigrating the allegedly hated parent [often referred to as the lost, target, or alienated parent].<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn11">11</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">P.A.S. manifests itself in several ways.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn12">12</a> The child usually gives frivolous or absurd rationalizations for deprecating the target parent. There is a loss of the ambivalence found in normal human relationships - the target parent is objectified by the alienating parent as an evil entity. In <em>Humphries v. Humphries</em> (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 at 3, the child had to call her natural father "the man" and her stepfather "Mr. Daddy." Children will do what their parents tell them out of fear, to gain respite from their parent's relentless interrogations or as the primary way to please their parents. Consequently,</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">P.A.S. children 'express themselves like <strong>perfect little photocopies of the alienating parent</strong> and can see no good in the lost parent and no bad in the loved parent. The process resembles amnesia, wherein the child's good memories appear to be completely destroyed.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn13">13</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">As a counterpart to this, brainwashed children feel little guilt for their actions.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn14">14</a> There are, however, two more serious manifestations-of P.A.S.: refusal of visitation and sexual abuse allegations.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Refusal of visitation is often so multi-determined that it is difficult to link the refusal directly with P.A.S. Johnston indicates that estimating the</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...extent to which disengagement results from voluntary withdrawal of the parent or from being pushed out or excluded by the child [is onerous], because the dropping out is likely to be a subtle <strong>process</strong> of reaction and counteraction to the mutual disappointment <strong>inherent</strong> in a failed relationship.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn15">15</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">This emphasizes that P.A.S. is primarily a product of the pain associated with divorce. Parents and children become caught in a cycle. For instance, as the frequency of refusals to visit increase, parental disputes heighten, parents become more skeptical of the value of visitation, and the rejected parent engages in counter-rejection.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn16">16</a> It is this spiral effect which complicates the diagnosis of P.A.S. False sex abuse allegations against the target parent entail similar complexities.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Though the allegations may be false, they are usually "based upon a core of reality."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn17">17</a> Normal physical affection or bathing a child can be construed by the alienating parent as having sexual overtones. Nonetheless, unlike refusal of visitation, there appear to be criteria which can be applied in the case of sexual allegations.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn18">18</a> Gardner has a seventy point criteria test [22 criteria for the accused, 21 for the child, and 27 for the accuser].<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn19">19</a> As the number of positive indicators increase, the greater the likelihood that the allegation is valid.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn20">20</a> For instance,</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">The alleged perpetrator's having a large collection of child pornographic materials is a very strong indicator of a true accusation. But a child may say 'My daddy took a big knife and put it into my wee-wee hole and my poo-poo hole. There was a lot of bleeding. My mommy was there and she got very angry at my daddy and she gave him time out.' Such a statement argues strongly for a false accusation.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn21">21</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">This sounds like common sense. In fact, most, of the criteria seem to be based on fairly obvious observations and differences between true and false incest victims can be found in their disclosures. Fakers tend to reveal details of the incest almost spontaneously and there are no significant changes in mood or affect. In addition, fakers often use adult terminology and make few retractions or restatements. Most telling, however, is that a true victim</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...will rarely describe the sexual activity in the [abuser's] presence, out of fear and guilt, while the faker will do this if the [alienator] is also present...[the alienator] often control[s] the child by monitoring his or her responses through eye contact and subtle facial expressions.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn22">22</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Though criteria can be applied, this does not remove all complexity. <em>P. (G.L.) v. P. (J.M.)</em> (1990), 27 R.F.L. (3d) 64 recognized that</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">The person making the complaint, usually the mother, is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. If the complaint is made for the first time in the course of a custody case, there is a tendency to disbelieve the allegation. If the allegation cannot be proven, the mother is viewed as vicious and destructive. <strong>Some judges have suggested that an unwarranted allegation of sexual abuse may be grounds to deny custody.</strong> [However, this reasoning is not based on the allegations being viewed as a manifestation of P.A.S.]. On the other hand, if a mother suspects abuse, but does not report or raise the issue, she runs the risk of being branded a poor parent and being subject to C.A.S. supervision.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn23">23</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">An even more problematic issue is that divorcing parents might be using the fact that reporting child abuse is in vogue as an apparently easy means of attacking their ex-spouses. The irony is that though the sex abuse allegations may be false, the children are being abused by becoming the pawn in their parent's "games."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn24">24</a> What is even more frightening is that</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">The number of virtual allegations of abuse may be expected to increase in the future because of their more subtle nature, the greater difficulty in disproving them, and because judges and lawyers familiar with P.A.S. are becoming increasingly skilled at detecting [its more obvious manifestations such as those illustrated in <em>Table 8A</em> of the appendix].<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn25">25</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Parents also resort to various brainwashing techniques in attempts to "win" their child over so that they can win them at the custody hearing. Clawar lists several techniques which he refers to as syndromes - suggesting that these tactics have a strong psychological component. Parents often use a combination of these techniques.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn26">26</a> An analysis of <em>Table 8C</em> in the appendix suggests that these techniques are not so effective that the children being brainwashed cannot detect them. Why, then, does the brainwashing continue? The children are afraid to confront their parents - without their parents they might not have a home to live in, food to eat, or clothes to wear. The "Who Me", Middleman, and Circumstantial syndromes were most easily detected by children - perhaps because the child is more of a direct participant in these techniques. However, for the most part, the "no" awareness percentages were relatively high - some children may be able to detect the brainwashing but this may depend on age, maturity, and past life experiences.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Clawar also indicates some of the motivational factors connected with brainwashing: revenge, jealousy and self-righteousness; fear of losing the child, one's identity and a sense of history; attempts to maintain the marital relationship through conflict; a desire for emotional and proprietary control and dominance.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn27">27</a> Underlying each of these motivations is an emotional need. This is further supported by the fact that the brainwashing becomes more intense when "situational factors intervene such as changes in location, holidays, court work, or prosperity of the target parent."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn28">28</a> Also, the hostility of the alienating parent never seems to be proportional to the seriousness of the alienated parent's actions.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn29">29</a> Related to this idea of "emotional need" is the proposition that brainwashing could be the result of a mental disorder.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">The alienating parent may have a mental disorder which is caused by the emotional turmoil of divorce or the disorder could be inherent - distinguishing between the two is difficult. However, data from the Custody Project at the University of Toronto shows that in 72 percent of the families, at least one parent was psychiatrically disturbed.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn30">30</a> It has also been found that the presence of a mental disorder is connected to the propagation of a false sex abuse accusation.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn31">31</a> Nonetheless, there are no straightforward answers despite apparent linkages. This is evidenced in <em>Lapierre v. Lapierre</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129 at 145:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">I do not know if this action on her part was the act of a person filled with hatred, or if it was an act of gross bad judgment, or if this evidence was the evidence of-a mentally ill person...</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">There is also the added confusion of whether pre-divorce influences on children can be separated from the impact of brainwashing:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">There are now a number of studies which show that long before parents separate, there are differences in the behaviour of their children as compared with those in other marriages where a divorce does not take place.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn32">32</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">These studies are prospective - before it is known there will be a divorce - so they are not biased by hindsight. Children with a deceased parent do not seem to be as adversely affected as those with separated or divorced parents. But there is variation among individual children.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn33">33</a> Thus, no definitive conclusions can be drawn although the effects on children - of either the brainwashing or the divorce or separation itself - are definite. P.A.S. children exhibit the same kinds of symptoms as abused children - depression, acting-out behaviours, fear of social situations. Basically, they are maladjusted.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">There seems to be an overlap between several of these theories. For instance, minus a pre-existing mental disorder, can <strong>all</strong> of the "theories" be partially explained as being a reaction to the legal process?</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">There is ample reason to believe that much of the anger and disarray that accompany divorces are not so much a product of grief over the failed relationship as they are the result of what spouses <strong>perceive</strong> the other doing as part of the legal process.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn34">34</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Since the legal process is both adversarial and often procedurally convoluted, there are several detrimental reactions which parties to a divorce may experience. The justice system is often wrongly idealized:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">Children often invest hope in the judicial process; they fantasize that the judge can put a stop to the brainwashing.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn35">35</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Clients [parents] become ever more dependent on the judgments made by their lawyers and less able to take initiative on their own.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn36">36</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">This relates to the decision-oriented nature of the legal process - even in custody disputes there is an implicit attempt to distinguish guilt from innocence.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn37">37</a> As a result, the positions of the parties harden to the point where the truth becomes no more than a paradigm for courtroom success. But what about the fact that between 97 to 99 percent of all divorces are settled prior to trial.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn38">38</a> Does this not obviate some of the negativity associated with the adversarial process?</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">Part of the <strong>routine</strong> is the use of the impending trial to generate anxiety in the clients that <strong>causes</strong> them to make the concessions necessary to compromise and settle the case.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn39">39</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">This suggests that even if a case is settled, it is generally a forced settlement - out of fear that a trial would be "unsuccessful." But what is success? According to Margulies, a successful divorce is one in which "all farnily members are thriving five years <strong>after</strong> the divorce."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn40">40</a> However, this definition is not obvious to most lawyers or clients - they want immediate success. Due to this mind-set, it is not surprising that parents resort to brainwashing - it becomes just another "legal" tactic.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Legal Implications</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Gardner believes that the more recent judicial preference for joint custody has contributed to P.A.S.'s prevalence: the alienating parent fears either that shared parenting will be too difficult or that joint custody will keep past conflicts alive. The latter point is paradoxical since brainwashing - as a solution to parental fear - does not prevent conflicts, it merely produces new ones. Nevertheless, the answer is not to return to a sole custody system - children need both parents - but for the court to recognize P.A.S. Other than in Quebec, the Canadian legal system has not explicitly recognized an identifiable syndrome such as P.A.S. An article in the Montreal Gazette (November 30, 1992) entitled "Dirty Tricks penalized in Custody Battles: Courts frown on parents who turn kids against spouses" indicates how the legal system in Quebec is aware of the severe implications of P.A.S. for children. In R..M. v. B. R.. [Unreported, 1994] Quebec C.A., the court made three important pronouncements regarding P.A.S.: (1) P.A.S. is neither purely objective and scientific nor purely legal; (2) the court must examine the parent's conduct in the context of the child's interest; and (3) expert evidence on P.A.S. should be given extensive weight. It is also significant that most of the Quebec P.A.S. cases went to the Court of Appeal.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn41">41</a> This emphasizes the initial "doubt" surrounding the validity of P.A.S. Nonetheless, the penalty imposed upon alienating parents has been severe - loss of custody. It seems as though Quebec children's-rights advocates have been the main source of getting P.A.S. recognized in As well, in Sherbrooke, Quebec there is a group called <em>PAIN</em> - Parental Alienation Information Network. The <em>ACAB</em> group in St. John's, Newfoundland seems to be following this model, though on a lesser scale.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Nonetheless, there have been some advances in the Common Law provinces. In <em>Rutherford v. Rutherford</em> (1986), 4 R.F.L. (3d) at 459 the court did show insight into the rationale underlying P.A.S.:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">The process [of brainwashing] may be so subtle and so slow that it escapes notice until too late...I hope the parties will take a step back and examine their own actions and motives rather than simply the actions and motives they perceive in the other...</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Other courts have taken different attitudes. Some courts have simply labelled a parent's brainwashing behaviour as peculiar. "This foolish man did so much in such a diabolical fashion that it all becomes almost unbelievable."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn42">42</a> Other courts seem to be making excuses for a parent's behaviour: "...neither party is without imperfections."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn43">43</a> In <em>Humphries v. Humphries</em> (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 at 6 there was a sense of flitility:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">I cannot by order change Mrs. H.'s attitude nor has time. I cannot by order prevent her from communicating in many indirect ways the negative feeling she has about Mr. Humphries to her daughter. I conclude that <strong>I must sacrifice Rhiannon's long term gain from access to her father to her current emotional health.</strong></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Instead, the judge is sacrificing Rhiannon to the mental tortures imposed by Mrs. H.'s brainwashing. <em>Lapierre v. Lapierre</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129 at 156 similarly held: "I am not here to solve the problems of P., however caused. I am here to stand as <em>parens patriae</em> to the children." Though it is positive that the court emphasized the child's interests, the child's interests will not be adequately addressed as long as the court fails to address P.A.S.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">At times, the courts appear to be so innovative that the real issue -- the brainwashing -- is either ignored or treated as a secondary problem which will somehow resolve itself:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...there will be less reason for conflict between their parents [if decisions regarding visitations are left to the children]. A great deal of the <strong>trouble</strong> in the past has been caused <strong>by the rigid timetable</strong>...I have more confidence in them to behave reasonably than I have in their parents...<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn44">44</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Similarly, the courts turn away from P.A.S. for it does not seem to fit conveniently into a legal framework:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">While there is no denying that courts have a difficult job at best, on balance it would appear that the prevailing tendency has been toward delaying judgment in the hope that the problem will go away, solve itself, or at the very least prove that no judgment is preferable to a wrong judgment.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn45">45</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">But the role of the court in cases of P.A.S. must go beyond simply determining <strong>who</strong> gets custody and <strong>when</strong> P.A.S. must be given direct consideration. Judges must not only specifically refer to it in their decisions - P.A.S. should be the basis for a major portion of their <em>ratio</em>:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...the precedent of clear, forceful judgment may deter some parents from beginning the alienation of their children.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn46">46</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">If parents who engage in P.A.S. know that <strong>aware</strong> judges may give custody to the innocent parent, and perhaps even apply sanctions against parents who use a child to prevent the other parent's access to the child, the P.A.S., which is itself a form of child abuse, may suffer a fatal and well-deserved setback.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn47">47</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Currently, however, this is not the trend. In fact, the judge in <em>Humphries v. Humphries</em> (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 at 5 would not order access "merely to ensure that intransigent behaviour in other parents is discouraged." It is not surprising that deterrence is not a priority given that the seriousness of P.A.S. has not been judicially recognized.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">In the United States, the courts are taking more steps towards acknowledging P.A.S.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn48">48</a> In <em>Laurel Schutz v. Richard Schutz</em> (1985), Judge Feder used strong, though somewhat metaphorical, language regarding P.A.S.:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">The court has no doubt that the cause of the blind, brainwashed, bigoted, belligerence of the children toward the father <strong>grew from the soil nurtured, watered and tilled by the mother.</strong> The court is thoroughly convinced that the mother breached every duty she owed as the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent of instilling love, respect and feeling in the children for their father. Worse, she slowly dripped poison into the minds of these children, <strong>maybe even beyond the power of this court to find the antidote.</strong><a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn49">49</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Judge Feder's emphasis on a parent's "duty" is significant. From this perspective, P.A.S. is not just misbehaviour - it is the breach of a legal duty. By placing P.A.S. in a legal context, the American courts appear to have generated some sort of respect for P.A.S.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">This is only a first step, however - the legal system must interface with the field of psychiatry and related fields so that conflicting assumptions and practices can be reconciled. Otherwise, the ratio of the dissent in Schutz or the Canadian ambivalence will continue to prevail:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">Judge Hendry's opinion [dissent in Schutz] was that the trial court's order went beyond the mother's <strong>legal duty</strong> to encourage legal visitation by requiring her to express opinions she does not hold and thus infringing on her rights of free speech.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn50">50</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">It is paradoxical that the court speaks of a violation of the parent's rights when the child's rights are being equally affected. This kind of judgment makes P.A.S. seem like a figment of the imagination. The judge appears to be condoning brainwashing by framing it as a "right of free speech." Though this is an extreme example of judicial ignorance, it is not far from the more common judicial mistakes regarding P.A.S. In fact, reducing P.A.S. to pure legality - as in the majority in Schutz - is not ideal. The focus must not be on pure legality.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">In general, the legal system appears to de-emphasize the distinction between physical access and social-psychological access - permission to love and identify with the other parent. Even when the court does highlight this distinction, it does not place it directly in the context of P.A.S. For instance, in <em>Smith v. Smith</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 367 at 369 the court referred to the "psychological safety of the children" and that the parents "<strong>manipulated</strong> the children to the point where they constantly live on an <strong>emotional roller-coaster</strong>." Once again, the court uses metaphors instead of applying P.A.S.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Any argument that the law is normative should not dissuade proponents of P.A.S.:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...'normative' in law seems to mean very little other than a specific preference, often in turn based on individualistic value judgments.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn51">51</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Essentially, judicial interpretation of the law seems to be given priority over judicial interpretation of the facts in conjunction with informational authority on P.A.S. from the social sciences. Consequently, the court seems to be hiding from the evidentiary problems associated with P.A.S. cases.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Evidentiary Dilemmas</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Evidentiary issues relating to custody disputes become even more intricate when P.A.S. enters the scene. Interviews with children may reveal verbal compliance but it must be t'evaluated against a behavioral context and with a full understanding of the development of the child's assertions."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn52">52</a> Brainwashed children tend to mimic what the alienating parent has told them. Even if a parent is not detected as being responsible for the child's attitudes, parents often engage surrogate programrners as a means to avoid detection - usually members of the extended family, a new spouse or new in-laws.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn53">53</a> In addition, detection itself is not an elementary task. This can be illustrated by specific examples of statements made by brainwashed children accompanied by a detection commentary. It should be noted that there is a great deal of overlap between the various commentaries and that any differences are the product of subtle psychological analysis.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn54">54</a> <em>Table 7</em> in the appendix indicates that the methods most capable of detection involved either subtle linguistic or factual turns - contradictory statements, inappropriate or unnecessary information, use of indirect statements - or highly emotional, personalized tactics - character assault, restrictions on permission to be loved, good parent/bad parent, comparative martyr role, anxiety arousal. Thus, in this context, knowledge and love are no longer parental virtues - they are distorted into brainwashing mechanisms.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Thus, detection is not a matter that can be left solely to a judge or lawyer. In fact, sometimes lawyers act in a collusive nature - whether knowingly or unknowingly: (1) to unscrupulously extend the litigation and their profits rather than resolve the conflict and P.A.S. or (2) due to their ignorance of P.A.S., they misinterpret the evidence and their client's motivations. As well, children often act in a collusive nature as a consequence of being brainwashed:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">Children suffering with P.A.S. may present the judge with a convincing picture.. these children have a way of 'snow balling' <strong>even experienced</strong> psychologists and psychiatrists.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn55">55</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Parents who brainwash also tend to do quite well on the witness stand - they have learned how to manipulate others and colour their behaviours in socially acceptable ways. Another related evidentiary complication pertains to the child's experiences with previous interviewers:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">The greater the number of previous interviews, the greater the likelihood the child's description will become routinized and will resemble the litany typically provided in early interviews by the child...<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn56">56</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">[In <em>Thatcher v. Thatcher</em> (1980), 16 R.F.L. (2d) 263 at 273, there was evidence] that Regan, already having been seen by four psychiatrists, had become quite experienced and sophisticated in these interviews.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">In addition, suggestibility during the interviewing process must be accounted for. It may be difficult to distinguish this suggestibility from the alienating parent's suggestions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Another detection hurdle is that many alienating parents use a potpourri of techniques to brainwash which do not fall within any identifiable theory. Evidence of this comes from the interviews with <em>ACAB</em> members. One alienating parent used repetition of a single phrase "Daddy wouldn't let this happen to you [the brainwashing], if he loved you." Another parent would get the stepfather to beat up the child so that the alienated father would get mad and call the police. Once the police arrived, the alienated father was the one who was arrested for disturbing the peace - putting his character into jeopardy for any future assessments. Another alienating parent tried to get the alienated parent to sign a t'contract't - with no.lawyer involvement - wherein the alienating parent would ask for no child support or maintenance if the alienated parent would never have anything to do with the child. It is clear that these techniques would not be easily recognized unless the family was under surveillance almost twenty-four hours a day.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">There are possible methods to overcome these evidentiary twists. If kept on the witness stand for an extra long period of time, the alienating parent may eventually make inconsistent statements which will reveal their true actions and ultimate goals.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn57">57</a> Similarly, special cross-examination or interviewing techniques may be used. For instance, Gardner has provided a series of explicit questions for judges to use when dealing with children.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn58">58</a> Whether such direct questions will produce genuine answers may depend on the <strong>degree</strong> of brainwashing present. A more effective method may be the use of corroborating evidence:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">[If the parent is] aware that the evaluator would have other sources of information regarding the child - from the other parent, from clinical interviews with the children, and from outside agencies, such as schools, pediatricians, and protective services - [this may limit] an inclination to distort.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn59">59</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">However, the effectiveness of this method may depend on the strength of the alienating parent's conviction. But in <em>Radford v. Cassiano</em>, [Unreported, 1995] Ont.C.J. - Prov. Div., the presence of a psychological assessment resulted in the alienating parent withdrawing her claim to terminate access after the third day of trial.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Specific methods have been illustrated in various cases. In <em>W. (K.M.) v. W. (D.D.)</em>, [Unreported, 1993] Ont. C.J. - Prov. Div., the court included questions of an adverse nature and avoided asking leading questions.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn60">60</a> Lawyers must be careful not to use strong language without having any real foundation for it - without making any reference to P.A.S. This happened in <em>R.. v. R..W.</em> [Unreported, 1993] Ont. C.J. - Gen. Div., wherein the judge stated:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">The defence is inviting this court to believe that <strong>for four days</strong> Mrs. W. would have drilled these lies into the child's mind.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">If counsel had explained that P.A.S. involves brainwashing that extends beyond four days, perhaps the judge would not have misconstrued counsel's attempt at portraying the truth as an attempt to attack the other party's character or credibility. <em>Lacaille v. Manger</em>, [Unreported, 1994] Ont. C.J. - Prov. Div., stresses that the court must make allowances for the fact that children:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...do not necessarily see the world as adults do...a flaw, such as a contradiction, in a child's testimony should not be given the same effect as a similar flaw in the testimony of an adult.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">This makes detecting P.A.S. even less straightforward - is the flaw an indicator of P.A.S. or merely the "slip' of a child probably on the witness stand for the first time?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Two other "methods" are based on the personal interests of children and their parents, respectively. Eighty percent of brainwashed children want the process detected and terminated; 70 percent felt relief when it was discovered. Consequently, 90 percent of these children cooperate in investigations either covertly or overtly. Some children even use secret language to inform others: "Once she starts talking about my dad, she can't seem to stop."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn61">61</a> Some alienated parents have taken a more direct approach to counter P.A.S. <em>MERGE</em> [Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality] suggests codifying the amount of access to which a father is entitled.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn62">62</a> In this way, P.A.S. would not interfere with a father's natural right to have contact with his children. Feminist movements have volleyed for a similar right for alienated mothers.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Given the psychological elements of P.A.S., expert evidence is quite essential to its accurate detection. However, such evidence creates extensive controversy. While the court does encourage the admission of all relevant evidence, expert evidence regarding custody dispute issues has not been held to be definitive:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...psychologists should be clear that their job is to assist in gathering information, not to determine the result of the case...clarification of roles is important...experts should not offer social and moral judgments in the <strong>guise</strong> of scientific solutions.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn63">63</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">In <em>R.. v. R.. W.</em>, [Unreported, 1993] Ont. C.J. - Gen. Div., the trial judge simply rejected the defence's theory that the allegations of sexual abuse were contrived "without relating his findings to the evidence." To make matters worse, he placed the <strong>onus</strong> upon the alienated parent to satisfy the court that the other parent brainwashed the child to believe that the alienated parent was guilty of sexual abuse. However, <em>Lapierre v. Lapierre</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129 at 138 basically held that expert evidence has validity provided it does not overstep its function:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">[Expert evidence is] to be just that, assistance. It is for the court, and the court alone, to determine the matter. Yet, were it not for those <strong>professional glimpses through wispy veils</strong>, I would have, without hesitation whatsoever, labelled P. as an out and out liar.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Nevertheless, "blind adherence to diagnostic criteria could be as damaging as ignoring these criteria."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn64">64</a> For instance, psychological expertise sometimes becomes psycho-legal expertise wherein</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">. . .the psychologist [is] cast as the hired gun engaged to put forth to the court the negative opinion of the contesting parent under the <strong>guise</strong> of an expert.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn65">65</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">It is interesting that expert evidence is questioned because it might be a "guise" when, in fact, the evidence is being tendered to disclose the guise of the alienating parent. Nonetheless, there are situations where expert evidence would <strong>not</strong> advance a correct assessment of P.A.S. In <em>W. (K.M.) v. W. (D.D.)</em>, [Unreported, 1993] Ont. C.J. - Prov. Div., the judge severely criticized a psychologist's assessment and preferred a Children's Aid Society worker's opinion.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn66">66</a> The judge described it as a "'blitzkrieg assessment' conducted in 6 hours on one day." Dr. Albin even admitted that</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...he was selective in the information contained in his report.. He disavowed the evidence of other investigators and set himself up as the only viable assessor...</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">An additional consideration is that no expert is perfect - even the best trained experts will not always reach conclusions of absolute certainty.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn67">67</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">The problem is that the majority of judges do not take the less restrictive view found in <em>Lapierre v. Lapierre</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129. <em>Nanji v. Nanji</em> (1987), 8 R.F.L. (3d) 221 held the court is not to "rubber stamp expert opinion." In itself this is not detrimental but, in practice, judges go further than simply limiting the weight given to expert evidence. They equate their discretion with knowledge of the facts and equate knowledge of the facts with an intimate understanding of the family dynamics. But how can a judge <strong>know and understand</strong> all of the substantial incidents which have accumulated during critical stages of a child's life? In <em>Thatcher v. Thatcher</em> (1980), 16 R.F.L. (2d) 263 at 271 the judge perceived social status as being synonymous with good parenting:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...one expects from a member of the legislature a greater respect for the <strong>law</strong> than has been demonstrated by him throughout this conflict. One would expect a father, particularly one of such eminence, to show by example to his sons that the <strong>law</strong> is to be obeyed and the truth told.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Despite the fact that this reasoning did prevent Mr. Thatcher from getting access,</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">P.A.S. should have been applied instead. But P.A.S. is neither a legal term nor does it fall within legal precedent. This should not be a determining factor. In <em>Martiniuk v. Martiniuk</em> (1978), 2 R.F.L. (2d) 39 at 47 Hughes J. explained the process behind his reasoning:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">No book of knowledge contains clear-cut answers as to whether I have reached a correct 6r incorrect decision. Like so many decisions that have to be made in matrimonial matters, <strong>knowledge of the law</strong>, limited as it may be, is of a <strong>secondary nature</strong> and has played little part in the decision arrived at.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">I cling to no precedent nor authoritative text as supporting the result I have arrived at. In deciding this problem, it has been a matter, after weighing and considering all of the evidence, of drawing on such <strong>experience, reason, and common sense</strong> that I have at my command, <strong>admittedly limited</strong> in each instance.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">I am mindful that in light of the evidence of Dr. Shepel and his supporting brief that perhaps there is some risk involved in deciding as I have. On balance, I have concluded that <strong>cannot deter</strong> me from ordering as I feel I must do, and, of course, <strong>responsibility</strong> for the decision must rest with me.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Though Hughes J. takes responsibility for his decision and makes legal knowledge subservient to comrnon sense and experience, he does not mention P.A.S. Further, it is unlikely that his experiences - being "admittedly limited" - would include P.A.S.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">As long as this cycle continues, P.A.S. will remain an ominous term which seems to have no reality outside a social science textbook. This cycle has another negative implication for P.A.S. progress:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...losing parties in a custody or visitation question have a <strong>natural, vested interest</strong> in contesting the findings of a psychologist. Because trial courts are ordinarily given wide latitude in making custody determinations, complaints regarding the professional behaviour of practitioners may be one of the few avenues open for appeal to a litigant who has lost an opening legal round over custody.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn68">68</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">If P.A.S. has its foundations in psychology and psychological testimony is either ignored, devalued, or openly criticized, then it would seem that P.A.S. has little chance of survival - let alone initial recognition.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Solutions</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">"The key to the solution usually lies <strong>within the child</strong>."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn69">69</a> However, as illustrated by the evidentiary dilemmas, the child's true mental state is often inaccessible. As well, often the brainwashing does not have to continue - eventually, the child internalizes the alienating parent's thoughts and opinions. In the absence of the brainwashing, P.A.S. may appear to be eradicated when it has actually become a permanent state of mind. Thus, as stated above, the child must be the focus of any solution. Gardner's radical treatment - to be used in extreme cases of P.A.S. - seems to reflect this reality. The treatment involves:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...forcibly removing the child from the custody of the [alienating] parent and placing him or her with the 'hated' other parent...with supervised access reinstated gradually.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn70">70</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">But when P.A.S. is placed in a legal context - either in the courtroom or settlement proceedings - Gardner's intervention has resulted in</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...the major portion of the blame for the problem being placed upon the parent who is believed to fuel the child's alienation. That is, <strong>less attention is being paid to what the child brings to the situation</strong>, whereas the hated parent is viewed entirely as the victim.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn71">71</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Gardner's rationale is that the degree of alienation is directly proportional to the time spent alienating. Thus, removal of the child from the alienator should stop the alienation - but this does not mean that the alienating effects are automatically eliminated. For the most part, however, the courts seem to have moved in Gardner's direction. In <em>Martiniuk v. Martiniuk</em> (1978), 2 R.F.L. (2d) 39 at the court held that</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">To deny the father his access rights, given the conduct of the mother and her common law husband, would be tantamount to allowing the parties in error to 'beat the system.'</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">In <em>Herbeniuk v. Herbeniuk</em> (1985), 44 Sask. R. 52 at 60 a similar approach was taken:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">I am not, however, satisfied that the expressed concerns justify a complete denial of access. This, in my view, would merely serve to punish the children for their father's indiscretions.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Though these cases do not reflect a willingness to reverse custody - as Gardner suggests - the emphasis on not denying access to the alienated parent appears to be a less radical version of the "radical intervention." <em>Rutherford v. Rutherford</em> (1986), 4 R.R.L. (3d) at 458-459, however, reveals that the more likely -- and disturbing -- scenario is that</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...access will be terminated if it proves sufficiently unsettling to the child, even where the problem may be laid squarely at the feet of the custodial parent.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">This is an unfortunate product of being unaware of P.A.S.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">The Family Systems framework seems to be more preventative than Gardner's intervention solution. This framework is premised on the notion that the family is a dynamic system which requires cohesion and continuity even after a divorce or separation. Its supporters contend that</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">Through participating in the decision-making process, members of the family are more likely to be supportive of the child custody arrangement - [hence, less conflict and less brainwashing].<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn72">72</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Psychological interventions can also be preventative if instigated early enough. According to Roger Ulrich,</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Awareness</strong> of our own needs and attitudes is our most effective instrument for maintaining our own integrity and <strong>control</strong> over our own reactions.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn73">73</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Alienating parents lack such insight into their behaviour. Thus, eradicating the alienation must also involve environmental modifications and knowledge of the actual brainwashing techniques, the motives behind them and their effects. Consequently,</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">Talk therapy with no focus, no measurements, and no time line is often a waste of time in [brainwashing] cases...it may be counterproductive because nothing may be discovered when, in fact, there are real social causes of the problems. Also, surfacing issues without an awareness of the causal agents may lead to serious mistakes in diagnosis and recommendations to parents and/or the courts.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn74">74</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Attribution therapy has also been recommended for P.A.S. situations. If the alienating parent can learn how to make interactive attributions - not blaming a single party or incident -regarding the reasons for the divorce, then it is less likely that they would brainwash.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn75">75</a> However, even this forrn of therapy may not be completely effective:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">It is still unclear whether interactive explanations for divorce lead to better post-divorce adjustment <strong>or</strong> whether people who make interactive attributions in general are just happier, more confident, and more active people, or whether both are true. [Perhaps the outcomes are personality-oriented].<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn76">76</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">To further limit the effectiveness of psychological interventions, approximately 15 percent of children felt that mental health experts could not help their situation:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">So what can anybody do? This has been going on for years. We've seen more therapists than I can count. Nothing against you, but if you don't agree with my mom [or dad], she'll [or he'll] try to get you fired too!<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn77">77</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Thus, even court ordered changes in therapists may be futile for the alienating parent will simply seek out another therapist who supports his or her position. On rare occasions, the court acts as a kind of therapist. This was evident in <em>Metz v. Metz</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 255 at 260:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...the parents must earn their children's affections rather than depend upon the court to order the children to associate with them at certain times.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Nanji v. Nanji</em> (1987), 8 R.F.L. (3d) 221 at 224 corresponds with <em>Metz</em>:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">If I have misjudged Mr. Nanji or if there is a change of heart, the appropriate adjustment can be made. I am even hopeful that the parties might work something out between themselves.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Basically, court orders cannot be a substitute for the facilitation of an understanding between the parties - it is the latter process which will eventually break the P.A.S. impasse. However, this attitude does not frequent many <em>ratios</em> and even <em>Metz</em> and <em>Nanji</em> do not incorporate P.A.S. into their reasoning.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Nonetheless, the court is usually guided by the Best Interests Test. While this test is theoretically sound, it is not the best means to deal with P.A.S.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn78">78</a> Many courts have held that "if [the] attitude persists against the non-custodial parent, [then] the child should stay with the custodial [alienating] parent."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn79">79</a> However, this is a superficial application of the Best Interests Test for the child is being forced to stay with an abusive parent simply because brainwashing is not currently within the court's definition of abuse. For instance, assertions about parent-contact preferences must be proven via careful interviewing techniques since 65 percent of children change their assertions immediately when asked the right questions in the right sequence:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Interviewer:</strong> If mom said it was okay, would it help you to see dad more often?<br /><strong>Child:</strong> She'd never say it, no way.<br /><strong>Interviewer:</strong> But if she would?<br /><strong>Child:</strong> Yeah, I guess so.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn80">80</a> </span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Most alienating parents try to use the Best Interests Test to their own advantage. This is referred to as the Independent Thinker phenomenon - "I want him to see his father [or mother], but if he doesn't want to, I will fight to ensure that <strong>his decision</strong> is respected."<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn81">81</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Another discrepancy in the. application of the Best Interests Test is that there is no consistency regarding the age-preference connection. In <em>Lapierre v. Lapierre</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129 the wishes of children aged seven and ten were not considered determinative By contrast, a child of eleven in <em>Metz v. Metz</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 255 had his preferences respected even though it was apparent that a parent may have influenced his choice. <em>Smith v. Smith</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 367 at 370 takes a more realistic approach than <em>Metz</em>:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">Unfortunately, Michael is at an age (12) when he is able to make certain decisions for himself, but is not yet free from the influences of others...</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Radford v. Cassiano</em>, [Unreported, 1995] Ont. C.J. - Prov. Div. is perhaps the most extreme application of the Best Interests Test and its approach could be quite damaging where P.A.S. is an issue:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">...preferences of children of this age (6 and 7 years old) are generally not determinative of the issue, <strong>but</strong> when they are so <strong>strongly held</strong>, apparently arising from their own wishes and being <strong>reasonable</strong> under the circumstances, they should be taken into consideration...<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn82">82</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">However, a P.A.S. child will generally have strong views because of the intensity of the brainwashing and these views may appear reasonable because the alienating parent's aim is to convince others that the other parent is bad. Perhaps if the best interests of the child were considered in the home rather than being placed within the strictures of a legal test, then P.A.S. would not even be an issue.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">The Custody Project at the Department of Psychiatry (University of Toronto) has attempted to combine the psychiatric and legal approaches. Custody Project involves a direct link between court-initiated referrals and child psychiatrists. However, there must be consent between all family members to receive counselling. As well, court-initiated referrals usually take place after litigation has begun., It is in this regard that Custody Project is most innovative:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">[If initiated once the litigation has begun], it was hypothesized that this would be months at least after the emotional crisis of separation. On the basis that intervention might be more effective much earlier in the separation process, the members agreed to take referrals initiated by lawyers in the hope that these would be prior to litigation.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn83">83</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Perhaps this kind of referral system would help reduce the percentage of brainwashed children who reach the point of no return to less than its current 5 percent.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn84">84</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Given the Custody Project's positive outcomes one would assume that mediation would be effective in P.A.S. situations. However, most P.A.S. cases reactivated after an agreement was reached even if legal sanctions such as the guilty party pays legal and therapy fees were attached. Catherine Foster, a mediator at the Unified Family Court in St. John's, emphasized that mediation is not equal to treatment - it is front-end preventative and, in this sense, it is limited. There are three other reasons why mediation generally fails:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">(1) The 'day' in court serve[s] as an avenue for the programmers and brainwashers to carry on their crusade to demonstrate the 'truth'...<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn85">84</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">(2)...one of the feuding parties is insincere and has little wish to solve the problem. The reason is that insincerity, conscious or unconscious, is one of the hallmarks of the alienating parent.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn86">86</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">(3).. the lack of a swift, forceful court judgment is often perceived by the alienator as denoting approval of the alienating behaviour.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn87">87</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Mediation's only advantage regarding P.A.S. is that the brainwashing might be insinuated during the mediation process. This insight may assist therapists, lawyers, or judges in their subsequent assessments.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">But are any of these solutions feasible? Though each theory has its flaws, at least each theory is, by its very existence, acknowledging that custody disputes are not clear-cut. Even Gardner's theory - which explicitly deals with P.A.S. - is not so encompassing and definitive that it can stand on its own. If the virtues of each of the previously mentioned solutions could be unified into a single theory, perhaps P.A.S. could be controlled, if not countered. However, the direct experiences of alienated parents illustrate how few "solutions" are actually being implemented.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Interviews with some members of the <em>ACAB</em> group underline how the "authorities" appear to be oblivious to finding solutions. They felt that more accountability and less apathy on the part of the police, social services, and the courts is essential. But is this an emotional overreaction or a reaction to a real problem? Would these individuals feel invisible, like non-persons, if they were genuinely receiving help? For instance, Mr. A told of a social worker's naivete or deliberate blindness during a home assessment. His daughter was asleep when the social worker came for the visit. But after a brief discussion the mother brought the social worker to the daughter's room. The daughter immediately showed the worker a doll and how her father touched her. The social worker believed, without doubt, that this was unsolicited. In addition, home assessments are usually conducted over extremely short time periods [1-1/2 to 2 hours] and often the assessor has no real qualifications [in Mr. A.'s case, the assessor only had a Bachelor of Nursing and a Masters of Education - nothing relating to social work or psychology].</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">As a consequence of like scenarios, many of the <em>ACAB</em> members have resorted to representing themselves -- at least then they can expose the flaws in such "evidence" and raise P.A.S. without having to deal with their lawyer telling them that P.A.S. is fool's gold. Some members have even proposed solutions:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">(1) Consistent use of the polygraph on the alienating parent and on the brainwashed children.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">(2) Develop a Children's Law which is a distinct branch of Family Law.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">(3) Place stricter requirements on the content, timing, and enforcement of court orders. For instance,even when sexual abuse charges are dropped, supervised access is maintained for abnormally long periods of time.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">(4) The legal system and the mental health system should not fall into the trap of believing that the child is in a 'stage' and will probably change their mind about the alienated parent when they get older. The courts should be more informed about child development theories.</span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">These solutions, if implemented, could bring P.A.S. to the forefront. However, in the absence of legal authority, it is unlikely that the courts will be quick to adopt the recommendations of a support group - there is the risk of group self-interest. Nonetheless, with time, perhaps such groups as <em>ACAB</em> will gain more respect from the courts. Maybe then, P.A.S. will gain similar respect.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Conclusions</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Whether P.A.S. is a new phenomenon or one which has always been present, it deserves more attention. While there is the danger of placing too much authority in a "syndrome," there is the even greater risk of allowing innocent children to be victimized in their own homes by their "caregivers." Children do not choose that their parents divorce -they are victims of circumstance and if that circumstance results in P.A.S. their plight becomes that much worse. Cartwright expresses this idea eloquently:</span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">We often speak of <strong>preserving family values</strong>, but even disintegrated [divorced] nuclear families have values and rights which must be preserved and respected to prevent further disintegration and total collapse. To do less is to <strong>sacrifice entire generations of children</strong> on the altar of alienation, condemning them to <strong>familial maladjustment</strong> and inflicting on them <strong>lifelong parental loss</strong>.<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cookfoot.htm#fn88">88</a></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;">This parallels John Bowlby's words quoted from <em>Separation, Anxiety, and Anger</em> at the outset of the essay.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Underlying all of the theories are three fundamental ideas: (1) brainwashing is a complex product of pain, emotional need, and a desire to "win"; (2) the legal context of divorce intensifies the brainwashing; (3) brainwashing can easily be disguised because it is generally founded on a core of reality. P.A.S. will never become more than a theory, however, if its practical, legal implications are not resolved. P.A.S. must be recognized by the legal system yet, at the same time, it must not be transformed into a legal term. If P.A.S. is to make its way into the courtroom it must be shown the way by lawyers and judges. But, once inside, it has to speak for itself. Once P.A.S. has reached this point, evidentiary dilemmas will be less impenetrable - P.A.S. will be open to discussion which will heighten understanding.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Thus, to search for <strong>a</strong> solution to P.A.S. is illusory. P.A.S. is multi-faceted in terms of its onset, development, and outcomes. At this point, awareness of the <strong>existence</strong> of P.A.S. should be given optimum importance. Although this awareness may not encourage an immediate awareness in alienating parents, it may eventually create an atmosphere wherein parents will not feel the need to alienate. Perhaps this will happen when the legalities surrounding divorce become less alienating -- when the truth is not being sacrificed for 'justice" in custody battles. Only then can the parameters of P.A.S. be fully explored., Only then will custody <strong>battles</strong> have a chance of becoming custody <strong>evaluations</strong>.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>APPENDIX</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Sample Description:<br />Children with Programming/Brainwashing Parents</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Number (N) 700<br />Age Range of Children Infancy through twenty years of age</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Source: Clawar, Stanley S., et al. <em>Children Held Hostage. Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children.</em> Chicago: American Bar Association, 1991 at 174-180.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 1</em><br /><strong>Social-Class Breakdown Using Income, Education, and Occupation as Class Indicators</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="35%"><tbody><tr><td width="50%">Class</td><td align="CENTER" width="25%">%</td><td align="CENTER" width="25%">N</td></tr><tr><td>Upper-upper</td><td align="CENTER">10</td><td align="CENTER">70</td></tr><tr><td>Middle-upper</td><td align="CENTER">10</td><td align="CENTER">70</td></tr><tr><td>Lower-upper</td><td align="CENTER">20</td><td align="CENTER">140</td></tr><tr><td>Upper-middle</td><td align="CENTER">30</td><td align="CENTER">210</td></tr><tr><td>Middle-middle</td><td align="CENTER">20</td><td align="CENTER">140</td></tr><tr><td>Lower-middle</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">35</td></tr><tr><td>Upper-lower</td><td align="CENTER">2</td><td align="CENTER">14</td></tr><tr><td>Middle-lower</td><td align="CENTER">2</td><td align="CENTER">14</td></tr><tr><td>Lower-lower</td><td align="CENTER">1</td><td align="CENTER">7</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td align="CENTER">100</td><td align="CENTER">700</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 2</em><br /><strong>Occupations of Parents</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="35%"><tbody><tr><td>Occupation</td><td colspan="2" align="CENTER">Mothers</td><td colspan="2" align="CENTER">Fathers</td></tr><tr><td width="40%"><br /></td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">%</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">N</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">%</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">N</td></tr><tr><td>Professional</td><td align="CENTER">15</td><td align="CENTER">105</td><td align="CENTER">30</td><td align="CENTER">210</td></tr><tr><td>Business</td><td align="CENTER">25</td><td align="CENTER">175</td><td align="CENTER">40</td><td align="CENTER">280</td></tr><tr><td>Skilled</td><td align="CENTER">20</td><td align="CENTER">140</td><td align="CENTER">19</td><td align="CENTER">133</td></tr><tr><td>Semi-skilled</td><td align="CENTER">15</td><td align="CENTER">105</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">35</td></tr><tr><td>Unskilled</td><td align="CENTER">15</td><td align="CENTER">105</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">35</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed</td><td align="CENTER">10</td><td align="CENTER">70</td><td align="CENTER">1</td><td align="CENTER">7</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td align="CENTER">100</td><td align="CENTER">100</td><td align="CENTER">100</td><td align="CENTER">100</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 3</em><br /><strong>Family Size, by Number of Children</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="35%"><tbody><tr><td width="50%">Range</td><td align="CENTER">1-6</td></tr><tr><td>Median</td><td align="CENTER">2.5</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 4</em><br /><strong>Sex of Children</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="35%"><tbody><tr><td><br /></td><td align="CENTER" width="25%">%</td><td align="CENTER" width="25%">N</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td align="CENTER">51</td><td align="CENTER">357</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td align="CENTER">49</td><td align="CENTER">343</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td align="CENTER">100</td><td align="CENTER">100</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 5</em><br /><strong>Educational Levels of Parents</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="35%"><tbody><tr><td>LEVEL</td><td colspan="2" align="CENTER">Mothers</td><td colspan="2" align="CENTER">Fathers</td></tr><tr><td width="40%"><br /></td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">%</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">N</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">%</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">N</td></tr><tr><td>Middle School</td><td align="CENTER">1</td><td align="CENTER">4</td><td align="CENTER">1</td><td align="CENTER">7</td></tr><tr><td>High School</td><td align="CENTER">14</td><td align="CENTER">100</td><td align="CENTER">10</td><td align="CENTER">70</td></tr><tr><td>Some College</td><td align="CENTER">40</td><td align="CENTER">280</td><td align="CENTER">20</td><td align="CENTER">140</td></tr><tr><td>Four-year college (completed)</td><td align="CENTER">30</td><td align="CENTER">208</td><td align="CENTER">40</td><td align="CENTER">280</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced Study (beyond four years of college)</td><td align="CENTER">16</td><td align="CENTER">108</td><td align="CENTER">29</td><td align="CENTER">203</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td align="CENTER">101</td><td align="CENTER">700</td><td align="CENTER">100</td><td align="CENTER">700</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 6</em><br /><strong>Urban/Suburban Distribution</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><td><br /></td><td align="CENTER" width="25%">%</td><td align="CENTER" width="25%">N</td></tr><tr><td>Urban</td><td align="CENTER">15</td><td align="CENTER">105</td></tr><tr><td>Suburban</td><td align="CENTER">80</td><td align="CENTER">560</td></tr><tr><td>Rural</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">35</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td align="CENTER">100</td><td align="CENTER">700</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 7</em><br /><strong>Most Common Detection Factors Present, by Percentage of Cases</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table><tbody><tr><td>Detection Factors</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">% of Cases</td></tr><tr><td>Contradictory statements</td><td align="CENTER">70</td></tr><tr><td>Inappropriate and unnecessary information</td><td align="CENTER">85</td></tr><tr><td>Character assault</td><td align="CENTER">60</td></tr><tr><td>Collusion or one-sided alliance</td><td align="CENTER">50</td></tr><tr><td>Child as spy or conduit of information</td><td align="CENTER">30</td></tr><tr><td>Use of indirect statements</td><td align="CENTER">70</td></tr><tr><td>Restrictions on permission to be loved</td><td align="CENTER">90</td></tr><tr><td>Unchildlike statements</td><td align="CENTER">30</td></tr><tr><td>Good parent v. bad parent</td><td align="CENTER">55</td></tr><tr><td>Comparative -martyr role</td><td align="CENTER">80</td></tr><tr><td>Fear of contact with other parent</td><td align="CENTER">20</td></tr><tr><td>Anxiety arousal</td><td align="CENTER">60</td></tr><tr><td>Cohort in secret-keeping</td><td align="CENTER">30</td></tr><tr><td>Child as mirror image of programmer</td><td align="CENTER">20</td></tr><tr><td>Confusion of birth parent's importance</td><td align="CENTER">21</td></tr><tr><td>Manifestation of guilt</td><td align="CENTER">40</td></tr><tr><td>Scripted views</td><td align="CENTER">45</td></tr><tr><td>unmanageability for no apparent reason</td><td align="CENTER">15</td></tr><tr><td>Radical changes and dysfunctional behavior manifested in other spheres</td><td align="CENTER">44</td></tr><tr><td>Nonverbal messages</td><td align="CENTER">38</td></tr><tr><td>Coaching behavior</td><td align="CENTER">28</td></tr><tr><td>Brain twirling</td><td align="CENTER">15</td></tr><tr><td>Children threatens parent</td><td align="CENTER">8</td></tr><tr><td>Child as parent's best friend</td><td align="CENTER">12</td></tr><tr><td>Physical survival</td><td align="CENTER">10</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 8A</em><br /><strong>Brainwashing Techniques</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="90%"><tbody><tr><td valign="TOP">(1)</td><td>Denial-of-existence syndrome: Never talks about the other parent; desecrate photos of other parent; do not acknowledge child's positive experiences with other parent.</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(2)</td><td>The 'Who, Me?' syndrome: Parent tries to convince the child that she must be misinterpreting the brainwashing parent - a form of denial.</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(3)</td><td>Middle-Man syndrome: Speaking to the child about issues that should first have been discussed with the other parent - a form of exclusion.</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(4)</td><td>Circumstantial syndrome: By manipulating, rearranging, changing and commenting on time, the parent tries to gain dominance in the child's eyes.</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(5)</td><td>'I don't know what's wrong with him' syndrome: Create and exaggerate differences between themself and the other parent in front of the children.</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(6)</td><td>The Ally syndrome: Sympathy is the key.</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(7)</td><td>The Morality syndrome: Attack morality of other parent to elevate own inorality</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(8)</td><td>'Threat of withdrawal of love' syndrome & 'I'm the only one who really loves you' syndrome: self-explanatory.</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(9)</td><td>'You're an endangered species' syndrome & Physical Survival syndrome: Judgmental, opinionated, negative commentary about the target parent after the child returns from a visitation.</td></tr><tr><td valign="TOP">(10)</td><td>Rewriting-reality syndrome: This is basically the intent behind all of the above techniques.</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Source: Clawar, Stanley S. <em>Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children.</em> Chicago: American Bar Association, 1991 at 15-36.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 8B</em><br /><strong>Percentage of Parents, by Sex, Using Certain Brainwashing Techniques</strong></span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="50%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">Techniques</td><td align="CENTER">M</td><td align="CENTER">F</td></tr><tr><td width="5%">1.</td><td>Denial-of-existence syndrome</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">5</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">50</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>The 'Who me?' syndrome</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>a. Extended family</td><td align="CENTER">12</td><td align="CENTER">40</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>b. Career</td><td align="CENTER">2</td><td align="CENTER">30</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>c. Living arrangements and travel</td><td align="CENTER">22</td><td align="CENTER">60</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>d. Activities</td><td align="CENTER">15</td><td align="CENTER">43</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>e. Associates</td><td align="CENTER">25</td><td align="CENTER">52</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Middleman syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">20</td><td align="CENTER">60</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Circumstantial syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">12</td><td align="CENTER">40</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>'I don't know what's wrong with him/her' syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">11</td><td align="CENTER">40</td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Ally syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">16</td><td align="CENTER">85</td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Morality syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">10</td><td align="CENTER">60</td></tr><tr><td>8.</td><td>Threat-of-withdrawal-of-love syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">42</td></tr><tr><td>9.</td><td>'I'm the only one who really loves you' syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">10</td><td align="CENTER">60</td></tr><tr><td>10.</td><td>'You're an endangered species' syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">15</td><td align="CENTER">39</td></tr><tr><td>11.</td><td>Rewriting reality syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">20</td><td align="CENTER">60</td></tr><tr><td>12.</td><td>Physical survival syndrome</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">4</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;">* Higher for Females, except for Physical survival Syndrome (but only a narrow margin). </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 8C</em><br /><strong>Percentage of Children Aware of Brainwashing Techniques Employed by Parents</strong> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Aware: the children understand that the messages sent were inappropriate attempts to influence their views and behaviors.</span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="50%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">Techniques (as in Table 8B)</td><td colspan="2" align="CENTER">Awareness</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2"><br /></td><td align="CENTER">Yes</td><td align="CENTER">No</td></tr><tr><td width="5%">1.</td><td>Denial-of-existence</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">10</td><td align="CENTER" width="15%">90</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>"Who Me"</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>a. Extended Family</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">95</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>b. Career</td><td align="CENTER">4</td><td align="CENTER">96</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>c. Living arrangements and travel</td><td align="CENTER">60</td><td align="CENTER">40</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>d. Activities</td><td align="CENTER">70</td><td align="CENTER">30</td></tr><tr><td><br /></td><td>e. Associates</td><td align="CENTER">75</td><td align="CENTER">25</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Middleman</td><td align="CENTER">86</td><td align="CENTER">14</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Circumstantial</td><td align="CENTER">62</td><td align="CENTER">38</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>"I don't know what's wrong with him/her"</td><td align="CENTER">48</td><td align="CENTER">52</td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Ally</td><td align="CENTER">30</td><td align="CENTER">70</td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Morality</td><td align="CENTER">50</td><td align="CENTER">50</td></tr><tr><td>8.</td><td>Threat-of-withdrawal-of-love</td><td align="CENTER">9</td><td align="CENTER">91</td></tr><tr><td>9.</td><td>"I'm the only one who really loves you."</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">95</td></tr><tr><td>10.</td><td>"You're an endangered species"</td><td align="CENTER">4</td><td align="CENTER">96</td></tr><tr><td>11.</td><td>Rewriting reality</td><td align="CENTER">5</td><td align="CENTER">95</td></tr><tr><td>12.</td><td>Physical survival</td><td align="CENTER">10</td><td align="CENTER">90</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 9</em><br /><strong>Percentage of Parents Who Programme/Brainwash, by Intensity Level</strong> </span><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><table width="40%"><tbody><tr><td>Intensity Level (on average)</td><td align="CENTER" width="25%">%</td></tr><tr><td>More than once per day</td><td align="CENTER">20</td></tr><tr><td>About once per day</td><td align="CENTER">20</td></tr><tr><td>More than once per week</td><td align="CENTER">10</td></tr><tr><td>Once per week</td><td align="CENTER">10</td></tr><tr><td>Occasionally</td><td align="CENTER">20</td></tr><tr><td>No detection of programming/brainwashing</td><td align="CENTER">20</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 10</em><br /><strong>Detection Techniques & Commentaries</strong> </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Character assault (with moral overtones):</strong><br /><strong>Evaluator/Therapist/Judge:</strong> What do you like about being at Mom's? (open-ended and positive question)<br /><strong>Child:</strong> Mommy has lots of boyfriends who sleep over. Daddy says she's a whore because the Bible says so.<br /><strong>Commentary:</strong> Representative of externally imposed definition with negative moral judgments on the target parent. Note child did not answer the question - a frequent occurrence for programmed children.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Use of indirect statements:</strong><br /><strong>E/T/J:</strong> How did this weekend go? Does Mom/Dad have an opinion about the time you spend at Mom's/ Dad's?<br /><strong>Child:</strong> When I get home, Mom says things like, 'Too bad you had to go with your dad this weekend -you missed a great ski trip. I bet you only watched TV, as usual.' Mom's right, he's boring.<br /><strong>Commentary:</strong> Rather than encouraging a child to enjoy the time spent with a parent, the parent convinces the child that he will experience boredom. He will also be programmed to be thinking about what he's missing, thereby mentally remaining in the mother's home even though he is physically with his father.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Child appears as a mirror image of the programmer:</strong><br /><strong>E/T/J:</strong> Why do you think your father is trying so hard to make sure he has more time with you?<br /><strong>Child:</strong> Dad doesn't really love me or want me to live with him - he just wants custody to hurt mom.<br /><strong>Commentary:</strong> Most children who are aware of their parents' custody conflict do not interpret the legal battles as indicating;that they are not loved or that one parent wants to hurt the other, unless they have been so informed.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Brain Twirling:</strong><br /><strong>E/T/J:</strong> On the one hand, you say that the joint custody was good in a lot of ways. On the other hand, you say you don't want it anymore. How come?<br /><strong>Child:</strong> I always thought I wanted joint custody (equal time in this case), and it was working in the beginning. But then my dad started so much trouble with Mom, it just isn't worth it anymore.<br /><strong>Commentary:</strong> A programmer sends the child confused messages of both support and disdain for the relationship the child is having with the target parent. If both positive and negative messages are sent to the child about the target parent, the child will usually be most influenced by the negative ones. Also, the child needs civility and often creates an alliance with the programmer in an attempt to stop the intrapsychic and social conflict.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Coaching Behavior:</strong> E/T/J is at a home visit<br /><strong>Child:</strong> [Upon entering her father's home, a four-year-old exclaims this to the evaluators who are present for a home visit]:<br /><strong>E/T/J:</strong> How do you know that?<br /><strong>Child:</strong> My mommy told me to tell you he did.<br /><strong>Commentary:</strong> The repetition of an idea by the programmer is one of the more easily detectable clues. Evaluators often can elicit this programming by asking direct questions, as in this case. However, at other times it is necessary to lead up to the source indirectly. Protectionistic responses by the child include 'I just know, that's all,' or 'It's true.' Pursuing the base of the information - actual observation, parental brainwashing, conjecture, other adults, overhearing a conversation - takes discretion and knowing when to drop a topic and return later. Rapport is often a key element in obtaining full disclosure.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><strong>Child threatens parent (reverse situation):</strong><br /><strong>E/T/J:</strong> I heard you say that you wanted to tell the judge certain things about your mom. What's the story?<br /><strong>Child:</strong> Yeah, I told my Mom she better do what I want, because my dad told me I should tell him whenever Mom does something wrong, because the judge will punish her.<br /><strong>Commentary:</strong> Parents can become the powerless ones in custody conflicts. Children move in to fill the "power vacuum" with the help of a brainwashing parent. The target parent walks on eggshells with the child1 fearing that any disciplinary measures will be relayed and misinterpreted to the other parent and/or to the court.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>TABLE 11</em><br /><strong>Gardner's Questions for Judges in Interviewing Children</strong></span><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:small;">1. Describe your mother to me.<br />2. Describe your father to me.<br />3. What do you think about your father's family?<br />4. Does your mother interfere with your visiting your father?<br />5. Why then don't you want to visit with your father?<br />6. Does your mother harass you?<br />7. Does your father harass you?<br /></span></blockquote><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>BIBLIOGRAPHY</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>BOOKS</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Bala, Nicholas. ICPA Update Vol.5: <em>Child Abuse and the Law</em>.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Clawar, Stanley S., <em>et al. Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children.</em> Chicago: American Bar Association, 1991.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Gardner, Richard A. <em>Family Evaluation in Child Custody: Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation.</em> New Jersey: Creative Therapeutics, 1989.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Gardner, Richard A. <em>The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Proftssionals.</em> New Jersey: Creative Therapeutics, 1992.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Goldwater, A. <em>Developpements recents en droit familial.</em> "Le syndrome d'alienation parentale." Quebec: Les Editions Yvon Blais, 1991.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Johnston, Janet. <em>Non-Residential Parenting: New Vistas in Family Living.</em> California: Sage, 1993.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Langer, Ellen J. <em>The Psychology of Control.</em> California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1983.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Parry, Ruth S., <em>et al. Custody Disputes Evaluation and Intervention.</em> Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1986.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Ulrich, Roger, <em>et al. Control of Human Behavior: Expanding the Behavioral Laboratory.</em> Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1966.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>INTERVIEWS</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Foster, Catherine. Mediator at the Unified Family Court, St. John's, Newfoundland. Feb.22, 1995. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>ACAB</em> Group. Support Group for Accused and Abused Parents involved in Custody Disputes, St. John's, Newfoundland. Feb.25, 1995.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>JOURNAL ARTICLES</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Ash, Peter, et al. "Biased Reporting by Parents Undergoing Child Custody Evaluations." <em>Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry,</em> September 1991, Vol.30(5).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Bertoia, C., et al. "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Contradictions in Rhetoric and Practice." <em>Journal of Family Issues,</em> 1993, Vol.14.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Best, J. "Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody." <em>Social Science Quarterly,</em> 1994, Vol. 75 (1).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Cartwright, Glenn F. "Expanding the Parameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome." <em>The American Journal of Family Therapy,</em> Fall 1993, Vol. 21(3).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Cooke, Gerald, et al. "Dealing with Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Context of Custody Evaluations." <em>American Journal of Forensic Psychology,</em> 1991, Vol.9(3).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Dunne, John, et al. "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Analysis of Sixteen Selected Cases." <em>Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,</em> 1994, Vol.21(3/4).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Elliot, Jane, et al. "Parental Divorce and the Life Chances of Children." <em>Family Law,</em> November 1991.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Emery, R. E. "Interparental Conflict and the Children of Discord and Divorce." <em>Psychological Bulletin,</em> 1982, Vol.92.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Frost, Abbie K., et al. "The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic." <em>American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,</em> October 1990, Vol. 60. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Gardner, Richard A. "Differentiating Between True and False Sex-Abuse Accusations in Child-Custody Disputes." <em>Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,</em> 1994, Vol.21(314).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Gardner, Richard A. "Recent Trends in Divorce and Custody Litigation." <em>The Academy Forum,</em> 1985, Vol. 29(2).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Green, Arthur. '1True and False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Child Custody Disputes." <em>Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry,</em> 1986, Vol. 25(4).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Green, Arthur. "Factors Contributing to False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Disputes." <em>Child and Youth Services,</em> 1991, Vol.15(2).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Healy, Joseph, et al. "Children and their Fathers Afier Parental Separation." <em>American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,</em> October 1990, Vol.60(4).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Johnston, J. R. "High Conflict Divorce." <em>Future and the Child,</em> Spring 1994, Vol.4(1).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Laurence, Liam. "How Vindictive Mommies Break the Law." <em>Western Report,</em> December 30, 1991.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Levy, D. "Review of Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Professionals." <em>American Journal of Family Therapy,</em> 1992, Vol.20(3).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">MacDonald, Peter, et al. "Suffer the Children." <em>Western Report,</em> February 5, 1990.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Margulies, Sam, et al. "Litigation, Mediation and the Psychology of Divorce." <em>The Journal of Psychiatry & Law,</em> Winter 1992, Vol.20.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">McAnulty, Richard D. "Expert Psychological Testimony in Cases of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse." <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior,</em> 1993, Vol.22(4).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Muchnian, Madelyn S. "Professional Controversies in Child Sexual Abuse Assessment." <em>The Journal of Psychiatry & Law,</em> Spring 1992, Vol.20. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Miller, G. "The Psychological Best Interests of the Child." <em>Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,</em> 1993, Vol. 19(1/2).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Palmer, Nancy R. "Legal Recognition of the Parental Alienation Syndrome." <em>The American Journal of Family Therapy,</em> 1988, Vol.16(4).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Radovanovic, H., <em>et al.</em> "A Follow-Up of Families Disputing Child Custody Access: Assessment, Settlement, and Family Relationship Outcomes." <em>Behavioral Sciences & the Law,</em> 1994, Vol.12(4).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Rothberg, B. "Joint Custody: Parental Problems and Satisfactions." <em>Multidisciplinary Journal of Family Study Research and Treatment,</em> March 1983, Vol.22(1).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Saunders, Elisabeth B., et al. "Custodial Fathers, Custodial Mothers and their Former Spouses in Protracted Custody Disputes: Clinical Opinions and Data." <em>The Journal of Psychiatry & Law,</em> Winter 1987, Vol.15.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Saunders, Richard T. "Some Ethical and Legal Features of Child Custody Disputes: A Case Illustration and Applications." <em>Psychotherapy,</em> Spring 1993, Vol.30(1).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Schudson, Charles. "Antagonistic Parents in Family Courts: False Allegations or False Assumptions About True Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse?" <em>Journal of Child Sexual Abuse,</em> 1992, Vol.1(2).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Von Hauff, Donna. "Framing a Father Fails in Court." <em>Western Report,</em> March 4, 1991.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Wall, Jack C., et al. "An Integrated Approach to Child Custody Evaluation: Utilizing the "Best Interest" of the Child and Family Systems Frameworks." <em>Journal of Divorce & Remarriage,</em> 1994, Vol.21(3/4).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Warren, Amye, et al. "Inducing Resistance to Suggestibility in Children." <em>Law and Human Behavior,</em> 1991, Vol.15(3). </span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>NEWSPAPER ARTICLES</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">Cornacchia, Cheryl. "Dirty Tricks Penalized in Custody Battles." <em>Montreal Gazette,</em> November 30, 1992 at SA.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>CASE LAW</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Herbeniuk v. Herbeniuk</em> (1985), 44 Sask. R. 52.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Humphries v. Humphries</em> (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Lacaille v. Manger,</em> [1994] O.J. No.2880 North Bay Registry No. FC153/93, Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Division.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Lapierre v. Lapierre</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129. - 7</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Martiniuk v. Martiniuk</em> (1978), 2 R.F.L. (2d) 39.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Metz v. Metz</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 255.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Nanji v. Nanji</em> (1987), 8 R.F.L. (3d) 221.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Nickerson v. Nickerson</em> (1 991), 34 R.F.L. 341.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>P. (G.L.) v.P. (J.M.)</em> (1990), 27 R.F.L. (3d) 64.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Powley v. Wagner and Roy</em> (1987), 62 Sask. R. 222.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Ptashnik v. Ptashnik</em> (1988), 12 R.F.L. (3d) 377.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>R. v. R.W.,</em> [1993] O.J. No.855 DRS 94-02433, Action No. C7239, Ontario Court of Justice - General Division.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Radford v. Cassiano,</em> [1995] O.J. No.105 Kingston Registry No.460/90, Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Division.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Robinson v. Robinson</em> (1985), 48 R.F.L. (2d) 264.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Rutherford v. Rutherford</em> (1986), 4 R.F.L. (3d) 457.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Smith v. Smith</em> (1991), 34 R.F.L. 367.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Thatcher v. Thatcher</em> (1980), 16 R.F.L. (2d) 263. Voegelin v. Voegelin (1980), 15 R.F.L. (2d) 1.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>W.(K.M.) v. W.(D.D.),</em> [1993] O.J. No.1344 DRS 94-00129 Action No. D47/91, Ontario Coiirt of Justice - Provincial Division.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Zilka v. Zilka</em> (1978), 5 Alta. L.R. (2d) 358.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><em>Zivkovic v. Zivkovic,</em> [1994] O.J. No.2958 Toronto Registry No. D1559/90 A3, Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Division.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/cook95.htm">Parental Alienation Syndrome:A 'Hidden' Facet of Custody Disputes by L. Cook</a>.CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-74587386777494595462011-02-05T16:00:00.000-08:002011-02-05T16:00:02.283-08:00Dr. Amy J.L. Baker and Joy Behar Discuss Parental Alienation<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/19581167" frameborder="0" height="300" width="400"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/19581167">Joy Behar show Feb 2011</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user2497911">Amy Baker</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-14016858093143119332010-08-18T12:00:00.000-07:002010-08-18T12:00:04.394-07:00Alec Baldwin on Parental Alienation Syndrome<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4WPaE8s2Occ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4WPaE8s2Occ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-3873397199824642132010-08-17T17:00:00.000-07:002010-08-17T17:00:03.061-07:00Parental Alienation by Joel R. Brandes<strong>NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, March 26, 2000</strong><br /><br /><span style="font-size:large;"><strong>"PARENTAL ALIENATION"</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:medium;">by <strong>Joel R. Brandes</strong></span><br /><br /><span style="">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.(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN1">1</a>) 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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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.(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN2">2</a>) 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.(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN3">3</a>)</span><br /><br /><span style="">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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."(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN4">4</a>)</span><br /><br /><span style="">In Matter of Karen B. v. Clyde M.,(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN5">5</a>) 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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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."</span><br /><br /><span style="">The Third Department affirmed.(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN6">6</a>) 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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">In RB v. SB,(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN7">7</a>) 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."</span><br /><br /><span style="">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.</span><br /><h3><span style="">First New York Court</span></h3><br /><span style="">In Matter of JF v. LF, (<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN8">8</a>) 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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">Parenthetically, we note that the DSM-IV,(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN9">9</a>) 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."</span><br /><br /><span style="">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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."</span><br /><br /><span style="">The court-appointed psychologist concluded that the PAS was "clear" and "definite" with both children.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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.</span><br /><br /><span style="">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,(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN10">10</a>) 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."(<a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm#FN11">11</a>)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN1">1. R.B. v. S.B.</a>, <em>New York Law Journal</em>, 3-31-99, page 29, col. 5, Sup. Ct., NY Co. (Silberman, J),</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN2">2. Gardner, R.A.</a>, <em>The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition</em> (1998)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN3">3. See Gardner, R.A.</a>, <em>The Parental Alienation Syndrome (2d Edition) Addendum I</em> (1999)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN4">4. <em>Entwistle v. Entwistle</em></a>, 61 AD2d 380, 384-5.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN5">5. <em>Karen B. v. Clyde M.</em>, 151 Misc2d 794, aff'd, 197 A.D.2d 753 (3d Dept, 1999).</a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN6">6.</a> Id.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN7">7.</a> See note 1, supra</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN8">8. 694 NYS2d 592</a>, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99408</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN9">9. American Psychiatric Association</a>, <em>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition</em>, 1994 at p. xxiii.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN10">10. <em>Daghir v. Daghir</em></a>, 82 AD2d 191, aff'd 56 NY2d 938.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;"><a name="FN11">11. CITING, INTER ALIA, MALONEY V. MALONEY</a>, 208 AD2D 603, 603-604; YOUNG V. YOUNG, 212 AD2D 114, 115; ENTWISTLE V. ENTWISTLE, SUPRA.</span><br /><br /><hr /><span style="font-size:small;">Joel R. Brandes has law offices in Garden City and New York City. He co-authored the nine-volume <em>Law and the Family New York</em> and <em>Law and the Family New York Forms.</em></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:small;">3/28/2000 NYLJ 3, (col. 1)</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/brande00.htm">"Parental Alienation" - Joel R. Brandes</a>.CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-82237255679645301342010-08-16T23:00:00.000-07:002010-08-16T23:00:03.552-07:00Case Law on Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation Disorder<div id="left_column"><br /><div id="content"><br /><h1>PAS Case Law</h1><br />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.<br /><h4>Need for Proof in PAS Cases</h4><br /><em>Coursey v. Super. Ct.</em>, 194 Cal. App. 3d 147; 239 Cal. Rptr. 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Constitutional Rights and PAS</h4><br /><em>Schutz v. Schutz</em>, 581 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 1991).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Best Interests of the Child and PAS</h4><br /><em>In re Violetta B.</em>, 210 Ill. App. 3d 521,524; 568 N.E.2d 1345 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Spurious Allegations of Child Abuse</h4><br /><em>Karen B. v. Clyde M.</em>, 151 Misc. 2d 794; 574 N.Y.S.2d 267 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1991).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Abusing Visitation</h4><br /><em>Zigmont fka Toto v. Toto</em>, No. 62149, 1992 WL 6034 at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 16, 1992).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Court's Discretion re PAS and Custody</h4><br /><em>Wiederholt v. Fischer</em>, 169 Wis. 2d 524; 485 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Using PAS as a Defense</h4><br /><em>Truax v. Truax</em>, 110 Nev. 437; 874 P.2d 10 (Nev. 1994).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Attacking the Validity of PAS</h4><br /><em>In re Marriage of Rosenfeld</em>, 524 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Rebutting PAS through Child Testimony</h4><br /><em>White v. White</em>, 655 N.E.2d 523, 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Placing Children with an Alienated Parent</h4><br /><em>Tucker fka Greenberg v. Greenberg</em>, 674 So. 2d 807 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>PAS not Gender-Specific</h4><br /><em>Williams v. Williams</em>, 676 So. 2d 493 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>PAS and Extreme Tactics</h4><br /><em>Hanson v. Spolnik</em>, 685 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. 1997).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Contesting Concept of PAS in New York</h4><br /><em>In the Matter of J.F. v. L.F.</em>,181 Misc. 2d 722; 694 N.Y.S.2d 592 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1999).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Court-Appointed Experts and Bias</h4><br /><em>Pathan v. Pathan</em>, No. 17729, 2000 WL 43711 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2000).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Mutual Alienation</h4><br /><em>Spencley v. Spencley</em>, No. 219801, 2000 WL 33519710 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2000).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Need to Show Change of Circumstances</h4><br /><em>Chambers v. Chambers</em>, No. CA99-688, 2000 WL 795278 (Ark. Ct. App. June 21, 2000).<br /><br />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.<br /><h4>Ignoring Expert Testimony</h4><br /><em>Kirk v. Kirk</em>, 770 N.E.2d 304 (Ind. 2002).<br /><br />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.<br /><br /></div><br /></div><br /><a href="http://pasattorney.com/pas-case-law.htm">Parental Alienation Syndrome</a>.CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-26677239450882045002010-07-29T04:00:00.000-07:002010-07-29T04:00:02.038-07:00Victory—Crucial Bill from Opponents of Recognizing Parental Alienation Defeated!<div class="post hentry category-billsinitiatives-elections-politics-court-cases category-family-law category-fathers-families-advocacy-group category-parental-alienationpaspad" id="post-8632"> <small>July 26th, 2010 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director</small> <div class="entry"> <p>Fathers and Families and its legislative allies have succeeded in killing one of the worst family law bills in modern history–California’s <a href="http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=yn0preo6rdxdxf&xid=ynlb864byy5ll0&done=.ynnt8ueo2tpc0g">AB 612</a>. 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.</p> <p>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 <a href="http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=yn0preo6rdxdxf&xid=ynlb864byy5ll0&done=.ynnt8ueo2tpc0g">Preventing courts from considering parental alienation will harm kids</a> (<em>Capitol Weekly</em>, 2/25/10).</p> <p>The defeat of AB 612 is a victory for the family court reform movement and for children everywhere. <strong>Victories cost money</strong>, as does our deep, professional involvement inside the political system—please support our successful work by <strong>making a tax-deductible contribution by clicking </strong><a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=1330"><strong>here</strong></a><strong>. </strong></p> <p>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 <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=7773">AB 2475</a>, which was also related to Parental Alienation. To learn more, see <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=7773">F & F Helps Defeat Radical Bill from Opponents of Recognizing Parental Alienation</a>.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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 <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=6929">here</a>.</p> <p>The events surrounding <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=7773">AB 2475</a> and <a href="http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_c=yn0preo6rdxdxf&xid=ynlb864byy5ll0&done=.ynnt8ueo2tpc0g">AB 612</a> 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. <strong>To support this work with your tax-deductible gift, please click </strong><a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=1330"><strong>here</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p> <p>Together with you in the love of our children,</p> <p>Glenn Sacks, MA<br />Executive Director, Fathers and Families</p> <p>Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.<br />Chair of the Board, Fathers and Families</p> <!-- Social Bookmarks BEGIN --> <div class="social_bookmark"> <a><strong><em>Bookmark This Post:</em></strong></a><br /><div class="d"><br /><a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://buzz.yahoo.com/submit?submitUrl=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=8632&submitHeadline=Victory%26%238212%3BCrucial+Bill+from+Opponents+of+Recognizing+Parental+Alienation+Defeated%21&submitSummary=" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Buzz"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/buzz.png" title="Add to Buzz" alt="Add to Buzz" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=8632&title=Victory%26%238212%3BCrucial+Bill+from+Opponents+of+Recognizing+Parental+Alienation+Defeated%21" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Del.icio.us"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/delicious.png" title="Add to Del.icio.us" alt="Add to Del.icio.us" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=8632&title=Victory%26%238212%3BCrucial+Bill+from+Opponents+of+Recognizing+Parental+Alienation+Defeated%21" rel="nofollow" title="Add to digg"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/digg.png" title="Add to digg" alt="Add to digg" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=8632" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Facebook"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/facebook.png" title="Add to Facebook" alt="Add to Facebook" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=edit&output=popup&bkmk=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=8632&title=Victory%26%238212%3BCrucial+Bill+from+Opponents+of+Recognizing+Parental+Alienation+Defeated%21" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Google Bookmarks"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/google.png" title="Add to Google Bookmarks" alt="Add to Google Bookmarks" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=8632&title=Victory%26%238212%3BCrucial+Bill+from+Opponents+of+Recognizing+Parental+Alienation+Defeated%21" rel="nofollow" title="Add to reddit"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/reddit.png" title="Add to reddit" alt="Add to reddit" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=8632&title=Victory%26%238212%3BCrucial+Bill+from+Opponents+of+Recognizing+Parental+Alienation+Defeated%21" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Stumble Upon"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/stumbleupon.png" title="Add to Stumble Upon" alt="Add to Stumble Upon" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://www.technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=8632" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Technorati"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/technorati.png" title="Add to Technorati" alt="Add to Technorati" /></a><br /></div> </div> <!-- Social Bookmarks END --> <p class="postmetadata alt"> <small> This entry was posted on Monday, July 26th, 2010 at 9:37 am and is filed under <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=31" title="View all posts in Bills/Initiatives, Elections, Politics, Court Cases" rel="category">Bills/Initiatives, Elections, Politics, Court Cases</a>, <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=4" title="View all posts in Family Law/Divorce/Separation/Child Custody" rel="category">Family Law/Divorce/Separation/Child Custody</a>, <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=171" title="View all posts in Fathers & Families Advocacy Group" rel="category">Fathers & Families Advocacy Group</a>, <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=6" title="View all posts in Parental Alienation/PAS/PAD" rel="category">Parental Alienation/PAS/PAD</a>. You can follow any responses to this entry through the <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?feed=rss2&p=8632">RSS 2.0</a> feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-trackback.php?p=8632" rel="trackback">trackback</a> from your own site. </small> </p> </div> </div>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-47656813972842575052010-07-21T15:00:00.000-07:002010-07-21T15:00:02.680-07:00Poison Parents - a book on Parental Alienation<div><div><strong><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:180%;color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:100%;">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.<br /></span><br /></span></strong></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana,geneva;font-size:85%;">'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.<br /> <br /></span><!--"''"--></div> </div> <span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color:#990000;">"<em>Parents wonder why the streams are bitter, when they themselves have poisoned the fountain," </em>John Locke 1632-1704<br /><br /></span>The only way to combat Parental Alienation is by educating family and friends about the syndrome and creating more public awareness.<br /> <br />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.<br /><br />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: <span style="color:#ff33cc;"><br /><br />"thank you for your excellent book..you have an ideal open-mindeness and worldview"</span> </span>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-23506782367253433162010-06-07T15:30:00.000-07:002010-06-07T15:30:00.772-07:00Nassau County judge jails mother who falsely accused ex of sex abuse and alienated him from kids<span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span><br /><br /><h1>Nassau County judge jails mother who falsely accused ex of sex abuse and alienated him from kids </h1> <div class="new_timestamp">June 7, 7:38 AM<img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/greydot.gif" style="padding: 0pt;" align="absmiddle" border="0" /><a onclick="s_objectID='article-head_examiner-index';" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner" style="text-decoration: none;">Albany CPS and Family Court Examiner</a><img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/greydot.gif" style="padding: 0pt;" align="absmiddle" border="0" />Daniel Weaver</div> <div class="iconpanel" style="font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold;"> <div style="float: right;"> <a class="ovalbutton prevnext" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d7-Saratoga-dad-lost-custody-partly-due-to-court-ordered-evaluation-by-arrested-Dr-Steven-B-Feldman" onclick="s_objectID='article-head_previous';" style="margin: 0pt;"><span style="padding-left: 5px;"> Previous</span></a> </div><a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d7-Nassau-County-judge-jails-mother-who-falsely-accused-ex-of-sex-abuse-and-alienated-him-from-kids#" style="display: block; float: left; padding: 0pt 5px 0pt 0pt;" onclick="Ex.RT.reTweet('http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner~y2010m6d7-Nassau-County-judge-jails-mother-who-falsely-accused-ex-of-sex-abuse-and-alienated-him-from-kids');s_objectID='ReTweet';"><img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/icon/tinytweets.gif" style="padding: 0pt;" border="0" /></a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eexaminer%2Ecom%2Fx%2D14537%2DAlbany%2DCPS%2Dand%2DFamily%2DCourt%2DExaminer%7Ey2010m6d7%2DNassau%2DCounty%2Djudge%2Djails%2Dmother%2Dwho%2Dfalsely%2Daccused%2Dex%2Dof%2Dsex%2Dabuse%2Dand%2Dalienated%2Dhim%2Dfrom%2Dkids" style="display: block; float: left; padding: 0pt 5px 0pt 0pt;" target="_blank"> <img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/icon/tinyfb.gif" style="padding: 0pt;" border="0" /></a> <a class="ovalbutton" href="javascript:doNothing();" onclick="location.href = '#comments'; s_objectID='article-options_comment';" title="comments"> <span> 2 comments </span></a> <a href="javascript:donothing();" style="display: block; float: left; padding: 0pt 5px 0pt 0pt;" title="Print this page" onclick="printpopUp( '/blog/printexaminerarticles.cfm?section=examiners,examiners&blogtype=examiners&mode=alias&blogid=14537&blogURL=Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner&byYear=2010&byMonth=6&byDay=7&byAlias=Nassau-County-judge-jails-mother-who-falsely-accused-ex-of-sex-abuse-and-alienated-him-from-kids');return false;" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/icon/printer.gif" style="padding: 0pt;" border="0" /></a> <a href="javascript:donothing();" title="Email this page" style="display: block; float: left; padding: 0pt 5px 0pt 0pt;" id="emailshow"><img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/email.gif" style="padding: 0pt;" border="0" /></a> <a href="http://rss.examiner.com/RSS-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner.rss" style="display: block; float: left; padding: 0pt 5px 0pt 0pt;" onclick="s_objectID='article-options_RSS';" title="RSS Feed"><img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/icon/feed.gif" style="padding: 0pt;" border="0" /></a> <span><a id="subscribeshow" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d7-Nassau-County-judge-jails-mother-who-falsely-accused-ex-of-sex-abuse-and-alienated-him-from-kids#" class=" ovalbutton"><span><img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/icon/subscribe.gif" style="padding: 0pt 5px 0pt 0pt;" align="left" border="0" /> Subscribe</span></a> <div id="subscribecontent" class="hide" style="display: none; width: 590px; clear: both;"> <div style="float: right;"><a id="subscribeshowX" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d7-Nassau-County-judge-jails-mother-who-falsely-accused-ex-of-sex-abuse-and-alienated-him-from-kids#"><img src="http://image.examiner.com/img/Global-Template/locationclose.gif" border="0" /></a></div> <h2>Subscribe</h2> <br /> <span id="myformgoeshere"> <div class="exGreyBorder" style="padding-left: 2px; margin-bottom: 7px;"> <form id="this14537" class="linkform" style="padding: 0pt; margin: 0pt;" method="post" onsubmit="submitForm('this14537','subscriberbottom14537','examiners','TOPICEXAMINER_14537_Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner','14537','14537','Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner'); return false;"> <span style="font-weight: normal;">Get alerts when there is a new article from the Albany CPS and Family Court Examiner. Read Examiner.com's <a href="http://www.examiner.com/Terms_of_Use.html" target="_blank">terms of use.</a></span> <table style="border: 0pt none;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr><td style="border: 0pt none;" valign="top"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Email Address</span><br /><input gtbfieldid="2" id="subscriber_email" name="subscriber_email" class="linkformtest form formborder" size="50" value="" style="height: 29px; padding: 0pt; margin: 0pt;" type="text"><br /><span class="disclaimer"><br /><span class="disclaimer" style="position: relative;"> <input id="optIn" name="optIn" type="checkbox"></span><span class="disclaimer" style="position: relative;"> Include other special offers from Examiner.com</span><br /><a href="http://www.examiner.com/Terms_of_Use.html" style="font-size: 10px; position: relative;" target="_blank">Terms of Use</a></span></td> <td style="border: 0pt none;" valign="top"><br /><input name="submit" value="Subscribe" onclick="" src="http://image.examiner.com/img/tabs/subscribebutton.jpg" id="submit" style="margin-left: 20px;" height="29" type="image" width="88"></td></tr></tbody></table> <input name="userEdition" value="15" type="hidden"> </form> </div> <script language="javascript"> function submitForm(form,div,blogtype,subsname,id,blogID,blogURL) {debugger; //div = 'subscribeForm'; s.tl(true,'o','Examiner Email Subscription Consumer'); jQuery.post('/blog/includes/pods/headersubscribe.cfm', { blogtype: blogtype, subsname: subsname, id :id, blogID: blogID, blogURl:blogURL,subscriber_email: jQuery("#subscriber_email").val(), optIn: jQuery("#optIn").attr("checked") },function(data){document.getElementById('myformgoeshere').innerHTML = data ;}); } </script> </span> </div> </span></div> <div id="emailcontent" scrolling="no" style="width: 400px; position: absolute; margin-left: 25px; background-color: transparent; display: none;"> </div> <div style="margin-bottom: 15px;"> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://w.sharethis.com/widget/?tabs=web%2Cpost&charset=utf-8&services=reddit%2Cdigg%2Cfacebook%2Cmyspace%2Cdelicious%2Cstumbleupon%2Cgoogle_bmarks%2Cyahoo_bmarks%2Cyahoo_myweb%2Cwindows_live%2Cnewsvine%2Cmixx%2Ctechnorati&style=default&publisher=699b7647-a1fd-4456-86ff-e0363f5e1802"></script><span id="sharethis_0"><a st_page="home" href="javascript:void(0)" title="ShareThis via email, AIM, social bookmarking and networking sites, etc." class="stbutton stico_default"><span st_page="home" class="stbuttontext">ShareThis</span></a></span> </div> <!-- no ratings for this article --> <p>In a decision that will surely generate controversy and fuel gender wars and the ongoing debate over parental alienation, Nassau County Supreme Court Judge, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nycourtsystem.com/Applications/JudicialDirectory/Bio.php?ID=7029841">Robert Ross</a>, has sentenced a woman to six weekends in jail for alienating her children from their father.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Concerning the plaintiff's (mother's) behavior, Judge Ross stated:</p><p>"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."</p><p><strong>Mother consistently lied about father's custody rights</strong></p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"Plaintiff wrote to Dr. L.<sup>1</sup> (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.""</p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"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."</p><p><strong>Mother claims children don't want to see father</strong></p> <p>"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.""</p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"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)."</p> <p>"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."</p><p><strong>Mother calls father f-----g asshole & other names in front of children</strong></p> <p>"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.""</p><p><strong>Mother accuses father of sexual abuse</strong></p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"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."</p> <p>"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."</p><p><strong>Mother's behavior not affected by pending contempt proceeding</strong></p> <p>"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.""</p> <p>"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."</p><p><strong>Judge Ross discusses parental alienation</strong></p><p>Aware of the controversy surrounding the subject of parental alienation, Judge Ross spent some time addressing the issue in his decision.</p><p>Ross said:</p><p>"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."</p> <p>"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]."</p><p><strong>The sentence and justification for the sentence</strong></p><p>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.</p><p>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."</p><p>The matter of approximately $165,000 in attorney fees will be the subject of another hearing.</p><p>Read article by Dan Weaver on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d7-Saratoga-dad-lost-custody-partly-due-to-court-ordered-evaluation-by-arrested-Dr-Steven-B-Feldman">parental alienation in Saratoga County</a></p><p>Read other articles by Dan Weaver on <a target="_blank" href="http://www.examiner.com/x-14537-Albany-CPS-and-Family-Court-Examiner%7Ey2010m6d7-Saratoga-dad-lost-custody-partly-due-to-court-ordered-evaluation-by-arrested-Dr-Steven-B-Feldman">family court and similar topics in Nassau County</a></p><p><br /></p>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-17274318629208635662010-06-02T05:00:00.000-07:002010-06-02T05:00:00.928-07:00Parental Alienation And False & Malicious Domestic Violence Allegations<div class="post hentry category-family-law tag-alienate-children tag-alienating-parents tag-child-custody tag-child-custody-proceedings tag-custodial-parent tag-dallas-divorce-attorney tag-divorce-attorney tag-domestic-violence-allegations tag-dr-richard-a-gardner tag-false-allegations tag-false-domestic-violence-allegations tag-misplaced-domestic-violence-restraining tag-non-custodial-parent tag-parental-alienation tag-parental-alienation-in-texas tag-parental-alienation-syndrome tag-protective-orders tag-restraining-order tag-supervised-visitation tag-supervised-visitation-centers" id="post-303"> <h2>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.<br /></h2> <div class="entry"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">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.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">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”.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">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.<span style=""> </span>This sends the implied message to the children that “Daddy/Mommy” is bad or dangerous, stamped by the court.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">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.<span style=""> </span>A third party observes the Accused Abuser Parent during their visit with their children so that the child is “protected” at all times.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Often the supervised visit is demeaning for the visiting parent in the eyes of his/her child.<span style=""> </span>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. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">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. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">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. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">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!</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></p> <p>Tags: <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/alienate-children" rel="tag">alienate children</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/alienating-parents" rel="tag">Alienating Parents</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/child-custody" rel="tag">child custody</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/child-custody-proceedings" rel="tag">Child Custody Proceedings</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/custodial-parent" rel="tag">custodial parent</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/dallas-divorce-attorney" rel="tag">dallas divorce attorney</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/divorce-attorney" rel="tag">divorce attorney</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/domestic-violence-allegations" rel="tag">Domestic Violence Allegations</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/dr-richard-a-gardner" rel="tag">Dr. Richard A. Gardner</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/false-allegations" rel="tag">false allegations</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/false-domestic-violence-allegations" rel="tag">False Domestic Violence Allegations</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/misplaced-domestic-violence-restraining" rel="tag">Misplaced Domestic Violence Restraining</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/non-custodial-parent" rel="tag">non-custodial parent</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/parental-alienation" rel="tag">parental alienation</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/parental-alienation-in-texas" rel="tag">parental alienation in texas</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/parental-alienation-syndrome" rel="tag">Parental Alienation Syndrome</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/protective-orders" rel="tag">Protective Orders</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/restraining-order" rel="tag">Restraining Order</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/supervised-visitation" rel="tag">Supervised Visitation</a>, <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/tag/supervised-visitation-centers" rel="tag">Supervised Visitation Centers</a></p> <p class="postmetadata alt"> <small> This entry was posted on Monday, May 24th, 2010 at 6:07 am and is filed under <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/category/family-law" title="View all posts in Divorce & Family Law" rel="category tag">Divorce & Family Law</a>. You can follow any responses to this entry through the <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/family-law/parental-alienation-and-false-malicious-domestic-violence-allegations/feed">RSS 2.0</a> feed. You can <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/family-law/parental-alienation-and-false-malicious-domestic-violence-allegations#respond">leave a response</a>, or <a href="http://www.nacollawfirmblog.com/family-law/parental-alienation-and-false-malicious-domestic-violence-allegations/trackback" rel="trackback">trackback</a> from your own site. </small> </p> </div> </div>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-2220450198127875882010-05-18T13:00:00.000-07:002010-05-18T13:00:02.095-07:00I 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!<br /><br /><h1 style="margin: 1px; padding: 4px; line-height: 1.1em; color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Lost-My-Children-To-Parental-Alienation/160766" class="gh_link" title="I Lost My Children to Parental Alienation">I Lost My Children to Parental Alienation</a></h1><br /><h2 style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; padding: 2px 8px; font-size: 115%; font-weight: bold;">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'</h2><a href="http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Lost-My-Children-To-Parental-Alienation/160766"><br />http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Lost-My-Children-To-Parental-Alienation/160766</a>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-65726399866421420682010-05-16T15:13:00.000-07:002010-05-16T15:14:52.770-07:00Parental Alienation is Psychological Child Abuse<h2><br /></h2> <hr /> Date: 2010-05-08, 11:57PM CDT<br />Reply to: <a href="mailto:james.edwards@fathersforchange.org?subject=Parental%20Alienation%20is%20Psychological%20Child%20Abuse&body=%0A%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Faustin.craigslist.org%2Fvnn%2F1731703600.html%0A">james.edwards@fathersforchange.org</a> <sup>[<a href="http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/replying_to_posts" target="_blank">Errors when replying to ads?</a>]</sup><br /><hr /><br /><div id="userbody"> Support the Child's Right to Both Parents by signing the petition at www.fathersforchange.org<br /><br /><br />Parental Alienation is Psychological Child Abuse<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />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<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.fathersforchange.org/aboutmecontactme.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fathersforchange.org/aboutmecontactme.html</a><br /><!-- START CLTAGS --> <br /><br /><ul class="blurbs"><li>it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests</li></ul> <!-- END CLTAGS --> <table summary="craigslist hosted images"> <tbody><tr> <td align="center"><img src="http://images.craigslist.org/3kf3p43l25Z65W45R1a5894427d2e28561dcd.jpg" alt="image 1731703600-0" /></td> <td align="center"><br /></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center"><br /></td> <td align="center"><br /></td> </tr> </tbody></table> </div> PostingID: 1731703600CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-68351796611159211882010-05-13T22:29:00.000-07:002010-05-13T22:37:50.681-07:00Family Courts are Partners in Parental Alienation<h3 class="uiStreamMessage"><a class="actorName" href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000477653021">Barbara Johnson</a> 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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />These are all instances from which parental alienation can and does arise.</h3>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-27119673649846154812010-04-25T18:50:00.000-07:002010-04-25T18:50:00.028-07:00Sunday Capitol Rally for 'Parental Alienation Awareness Day'<h1>Sunday California Capitol Rally for 'Parental Alienation Awareness Day</h1>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. <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>"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.</p> <p>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."</p> <p>"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.</p> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- ch_client = "abautos"; ch_type = "mpu"; ch_width = 550; ch_height = 250; ch_noborders = 1; ch_color_bg = "FFFFFF"; ch_color_border = "FFFFFF"; ch_color_title = "233799"; ch_color_site_link = "233799"; ch_color_text = "000000"; ch_non_contextual = 4; ch_vertical ="premium"; ch_sid = "storybase"; var ch_queries = new Array( ); var ch_selected=Math.floor((Math.random()*ch_queries.length)); if ( ch_selected < ch_query =" ch_queries[ch_selected];"></script> <script src="http://scripts.chitika.net/eminimalls/amm.js" type="text/javascript"> </script>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-75895869481052194072010-04-23T10:36:00.000-07:002010-04-23T10:37:30.625-07:00Parental Alienation Syndrome in DSM V<div class="post-220 post hentry category-uncategorized clear" id="post-220"> <h2>Parental Alienation Syndrome in DSM V</h2> <small>By djohnm</small> <div class="entry"> <div class="snap_preview"><p style="text-align: left;">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.</p> <p style="text-align: left;">One group which we very much <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=5372">admire–Fathers and Families–is doing great work</a> 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.</p> <p style="text-align: left;">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.</p> <p style="text-align: left;">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.</p> <p style="text-align: left;">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 <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=5372">Fathers and Families.</a></p> </div> <p class="postmetadata alt"> <small> This entry was posted on April 15, 2010 at 4:39 am and is filed under <a href="http://blog.modernfather.com/category/uncategorized/" title="View all posts in Uncategorized" rel="category tag">Uncategorized</a>. You can follow any responses to this entry through the <a href="http://blog.modernfather.com/2010/04/15/parental-alienation-syndrome-in-dsm-v/feed/">RSS 2.0</a> feed. You can <a href="http://blog.modernfather.com/2010/04/15/parental-alienation-syndrome-in-dsm-v/#respond">leave a response</a>, or <a href="http://blog.modernfather.com/2010/04/15/parental-alienation-syndrome-in-dsm-v/trackback/" rel="trackback">trackback</a> from your own site. </small> </p> </div> </div>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-70184539873957810312010-04-01T13:45:00.000-07:002010-03-31T18:49:34.204-07:00Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness<div>Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness Tuesday, January 12, 2010<br /><div class="filedunder-text">filed under: <a href="http://www.momlogic.com/divorce/stories/">divorce logic</a></div><br /></div><br /><div class="individual-entry"><strong>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. </strong><br /><div class="photoLeft" style="margin: 0pt 20px 20px 0pt;"><br /><div class="credit meebo-_sharableItem" style="width: 270px; height: 270px;"><br /><img src="http://www.momlogic.com/images/parental-alienation-270.jpg" alt="parents arguing" height="270" width="270" /><br /><div style="width: 263px;"><br /><br />Getty Images<br /><br /></div><br /></div><br /><br /><br /></div><br /><a href="http://www.momlogic.com/experts/michelle_golland/stories/"><strong>Dr. Michelle Golland</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Children who are caught in the severe emotional struggle of <strong><a href="http://www.momlogic.com/resources/divorce.php">divorcing parents</a></strong> may not only be suffering emotionally, but may now fall under a <a class="iAs" style="border-bottom: 0.075em solid darkgreen ! important; padding: 0pt 0pt 1px ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; text-decoration: underline ! important; color: darkgreen ! important; background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none;" href="http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php#" target="_blank">new</a> definition that is being proposed for the American Psychiatric Association reference tool, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).<br /><br />The DSM may include a new mental illness classification: "Parental Alienation." Through his research, Dr. Bernet of Vanderbilt University has defined <strong>PA as a form of brainwashing</strong> that occurs in a small number of highly contentious divorces. Children experiencing PA develop this condition by subtle or explicit signals the alienating <a class="iAs" style="border-bottom: 0.075em solid darkgreen ! important; padding: 0pt 0pt 1px ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; text-decoration: underline ! important; color: darkgreen ! important; background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none;" href="http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php#" target="_blank">parent</a> sends a child.<br /><br />Parental Alienation involves mental <strong>manipulation </strong>or <strong><a href="http://www.momlogic.com/resources/bullying.php">bullying</a></strong> of children, which results in the destruction of a loving or warm relationship with the other parent. Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive <a class="iAs" style="border-bottom: 0.075em solid darkgreen ! important; padding: 0pt 0pt 1px ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; text-decoration: underline ! important; color: darkgreen ! important; background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none;" href="http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php#" target="_blank">Parenting</a> deprives children coping with <a href="http://www.momlogic.com/2009/04/is_divorce_deadly.php"><strong>divorce</strong></a> of the stable and loving relationships they need when dealing with the divorce of their <a class="iAs" style="border-bottom: 0.075em solid darkgreen ! important; padding: 0pt 0pt 1px ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; text-decoration: underline ! important; color: darkgreen ! important; background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none;" href="http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php#" target="_blank">parents</a>, and in their life in general.<br /><br />Children experiencing the<strong> emotional bullying</strong> by one parent against the other can<strong> develop a severe opposition to contact </strong>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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.momlogic.com/2009/01/kids_keeping_the_peace_when_pa.php"><strong>divorce</strong></a>. 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.<br /><br />The Alienating Parent may seek emotional comfort from their child (and want validation for their pain and anger against their <a href="http://www.momlogic.com/2009/06/hiding_from_my_ex_kimberly_allers.php"><strong>ex-spouse</strong></a>) 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.<br /><br /><strong>Some Signs of Parental Alienation</strong><br /><br />• Children perceive one parent as causing <a class="iAs" style="border-bottom: 0.075em solid darkgreen ! important; padding: 0pt 0pt 1px ! important; font-weight: normal ! important; font-size: 100% ! important; text-decoration: underline ! important; color: darkgreen ! important; background-color: transparent ! important; background-image: none;" href="http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php#" target="_blank">financial</a> problems for the other parent<br />• Children have knowledge of the divorce details or legal procedures<br />• Children show sudden change in attitude toward a parent, which is hostile and negative<br />• Child is not being delivered for court-ordered visitation and is being allowed to "choose" if they go to visit the target parent<br />• Child makes false allegations of abuse<br />• Parent asks the child to choose one parent over the other<br />• Parent reminds and reinforces anger and negativity toward target parent<br />• 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<br />• Parent asks the children about the other parent's personal life<br />• Parent "rescues" the children from the other parent when there is no danger<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><table class="byline" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" width="479"><br /><tbody><br /><tr><br /><td><img src="http://www.momlogic.com/cdn/v3/images/about/m_golland.jpg" alt="dr michelle golland" height="80" width="80" /></td><br /><td valign="middle"><a href="http://www.drmichellegolland.com/" target="_blank">Dr. Michelle Golland</a> is a USC graduate and a licensed Clinical Psychologist (PSY#16974). She works with adults, teens and is an expert in the field of marriage and relationships. Dr. Michelle Golland has given her expert advice on CNN, HLN, MSNBC, ABC, and Fox news. She lives in Los Angeles with her husband and two wonderfully exhausting children.</td><br /></tr><br /></tbody><br /></table><br /></div><br />Read more: <a href="http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php#ixzz0cRd5tMAr">http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php#ixzz0cRd5tMAr</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.momlogic.com/2010/01/parental_alienation_divorce_mental_illness_dsm.php">Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness | momlogic.com</a>.CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-39493395461368219802010-04-01T05:00:00.000-07:002010-04-01T05:00:04.054-07:00Why the Courts are Failing Children from Divorced Homes<span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span>
<br /> <table class="contentpaneopen"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"><div class="jr_pgContainer jr_itemDetail">
<br /><h1 class="contentheading"> <!-- BEGIN TITLE AND ICONS --> Why the Courts Are Failing To Protect Children from Child Abuse <!-- END TITLE AND ICONS --> </h1> <div class="contentInfoContainer"> <div class="contentInfo"> <!-- ?php echo "<small>(Listing added by: " . $listing['User']['username'] . ")</small><br/>";? --> Contributed by Guest Author March 30, 2010 </div> </div> <div class="clr"> </div> <!-- BEGIN LISTING DETAILS --> <!-- BEGIN LISTING IMAGES --> <div class="itemImages"> <!-- BEGIN MAIN IMAGE --> <div class="itemMainImage"><a href="http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/images/stories/jreviews/9184_goldbergheadshot_1269916539.jpg" class="thickbox" rel="gallery" title=""><img src="http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/images/stories/jreviews/tn/tn_9184_goldbergheadshot_1269916539.jpg" alt="Why the Courts Are Failing To Protect Children from Child Abuse" border="0" /></a></div> <!-- END MAIN IMAGE --> </div> <!-- END LISTING IMAGES --> <!-- BEGIN CUSTOM FIELDS --> <!-- END CUSTOM FIELDS --> <!-- BEGIN SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION --> <div class="contentFulltext"> <p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><em>You can hear Joseph Golberg's recent Radio Show on the Divorce Source Radio Network at the bottom of this article.
<br /></em>
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">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.</span> 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 P<span style="font-weight: bold;">arental Alienation </span>(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 <span style="font-weight: bold;">Parental Alienation Disorder</span>.) 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. I<span style="font-weight: bold;">n addition, P.A. also involves the innocent parent being accused of abuse by the child and the aligned parent.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">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. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The term does not apply in actual cases of real abuse when the child rejects the parent to protect themselves.</span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The website for his consulting practice is <a href="http://www.parentalalienation.ca/" target="_blank">www.ParentalAlienation.ca</a>. 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.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The website for this organization is <a href="http://www.cspas.ca/" target="_blank">www.CSPAS.ca</a></p> <p style="text-align: justify;">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).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">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).</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">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.</p> <p><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.odeo.com/flash/audio_player_standard_gray.swf" quality="high" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" flashvars="valid_sample_rate=true&external_url=http://media.libsyn.com/media/steve2256/Uload23PAS.mp3" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" height="52" width="300"></embed></p> </div> <!-- END SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION --> <!-- END LISTING DETAILS --> <i>We would welcome your comments on this article, email Wikizine at: <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"> <!-- var prefix = 'ma' + 'il' + 'to'; var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '='; var addy97695 = 'postbag' + '@'; addy97695 = addy97695 + 'wikivorce' + '.' + 'com'; document.write( '<a>' ); document.write( addy97695 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //-->\n </script><a href="mailto:postbag@wikivorce.com">postbag@wikivorce.com</a></i></div></td></tr></tbody></table>
<br />CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-18584820688711311382010-03-30T10:42:00.000-07:002010-03-30T10:47:23.086-07:00Parental Alienation Syndrome is real and all too commonFeminists and other hate groups are doing women and children a great disservice by allowing "hate speech" that equates Parental Alienation by one one parent as the excuse of "abusers" when most everyone involved in Family Court knows that there are some mentally ill individuals who deliberately make false allegations in court to keep children away from the other parent.<br /><br /><h1>Parental Alienation Syndrome is real and all too common </h1> <h4> By <a href="http://connect.silive.com/user/sisialetters/index.html">Letters to the Editor/Staten Island Adva...</a> </h4> <h5>March 30, 2010, 4:51AM</h5> By DENNIS NEWMAN,<br />TOMPKINSVILLE<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /> Avemaria LaMonica [Your Opinion, March 6] dons a thickly opaque political blinder, disavowing increasing evidence, current developments in her own field and in law, and common sense, just to assert that parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is “junk science” “discounted by the courts.”<br /><br /> PAS — there are other names for it — simply put, is one parent’s turning a child against the other, with the manipulated child actively participating in rejecting the formerly loved parent. While there are not yet good statistics, in divorce it is tragically familiar, seemingly as commonly “American” as apple pie.<br /><br /> Family Court Review’s January 2010 special issue is entirely devoted to child alienation. Andrew Shepard, professor of law and director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra Law School, in the March 11, issue of the New York Law Journal, addresses head-on the political ideology LaMonica espouses: “What is concerning is that the feminist advocates who, in the name of helping women, deny that alienation exists, do a great disservice to not only the many mothers who are unjustifiably alienated from their children, and often by abusive men, but more importantly do a disservice to the children.”CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-72205119583495264352010-03-29T04:00:00.000-07:002010-03-29T04:00:00.530-07:00amily Court Abuse and Parental Alienation - Children As Causalities<a name="8886613202007463864"></a> <h3 class="post-title entry-title"> <a href="http://afathersvision.blogspot.com/2010/03/family-court-abuse-and-parental.html">Family Court Abuse and Parental Alienation - Children As Causalities</a> </h3> Family Court Abuse and Parental Alienation - Children As Causalities<br />By <a href="http://afathersvision.blogspot.com/2010/03/%5Bhttp://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Dr._Jeanne_King,_Ph.D.]">Dr. Jeanne King, Ph.D.</a><br /><br />For people who have been in family court battling abdomestic use, it's no secret that the children are the real causalities.<br /><br />Typically, the perpetrator will use the legal system to perpetuate domestic abuse upon the spouse he/she is divorcing. And the children are, more often than not, the convenient way in which to carry out the abuser's agenda to maintain control over the family.<br /><br />Accusations of parental alienation<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=633664017231918236&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0979696011&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="padding-top: 5px; width: 131px; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" align="left" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>, whether real or not, are often the maneuver that batterers use to separate protective parents from their children. Funny thing though is that what's being set in motion is a lifetime of parental alienation by the abuser.<br /><br />Children of Lies<br /><br />Then, once the protective parent is walled out of their children's lives, the children are given a convenient "story" to explain their absence or restricted contact. As is often the case for young children, they internalize their loss of their parent's disappearance as being their fault.<br /><br />That's quite a burden for a child to bear, and often they encounter serious psychological and emotional consequences. In adolescence, they can spiral out of control. The so-called "helpers" that are brought in to correct the behavioral issues are led to believe that all of the mishaps in the children's lives are because of the absence of the missing parent.<br /><br />This of course is relayed to the acting-out children as well. So they grow to believe that their life problems all stem from something the missing parent did or, shall we say, didn't do.<br /><br />Grown Children of Confusion<br /><br />Now at some point, the day comes when they become young adults and they can either hold to the family stories that have been dished out along the way. Or, they can sort out their own truths. Often it's something in-between.<br /><br />Let's say they seek out the estranged parent, and all is well between the two of them. The grown child then shares this satisfaction with the alienating parent, and you're back where you started-another round of parental alienation later in life.<br /><br />Why? Because, in order to insure that the earlier lies are kept hidden, one must resurrect what keeps them undercover. The child could be told, "Remember all the bad that came into your life because of that missing parent." This being a memory no young adult would want to rekindle then becomes the cause to engage in round two of parental alienation.<br /><br />I'm sure by now that you see how and why these children are the true casualties of family court when domestic abuse abounds before, during and after. If you are an estranged parent, don't ever give up hope of having a healthy and satisfying relationship with your child if he/she is a causality of family court. Something or someone could cross his/her path and inspire breaking the cycle of parental alienation.<br /><br />For free information on healing parental alienation, see: [http://www.preventabusiverelationships.com/v_healing_pas.html]3 Keys to Healing Parental Alienation Dr. Jeanne King, Ph.D. helps adult children of domestic abuse divorce reconnect with their estranged parent.<br /><br />2009 Copyright <a href="http://www.preventabusiverelationships.com/psychological_healing.php">Jeanne King, Ph.D.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://afathersvision.blogspot.com/2010/03/%5Bhttp://EzineArticles.com/?Family-Court-Abuse-and-Parental-Alienation---Children-As-Causalities&id=2959321]">Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Family-Court-Abuse-and-Parental-Alienation---Children-As-Causalities&id=2959321] Family Court Abuse and Parental Alienation - Children As Causalities</a>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-45193408780648342202010-03-28T19:30:00.000-07:002010-03-28T11:28:16.732-07:00Jessica Click-Hill and Dalton Lucas: two case studies in parental kidnapping<div class="post-2547 post hentry category-adam-haseeb-memorial-pages category-anniversary-of-disappearance category-cold-cases category-family-abductions" id="post-2547"> <h2 class="posttitle">Why do mothers kidnap their children and lie during child custody cases? Children need both parents.<br /></h2> <p class="postmeta"> March 14, 2010 · Filed under <a tip="View all posts in Adam Haseeb Memorial Pages" href="http://en.wordpress.com/tag/adam-haseeb-memorial-pages/" rel="category tag">Adam Haseeb Memorial Pages</a>, <a tip="View all posts in Anniversary of disappearance" href="http://en.wordpress.com/tag/anniversary-of-disappearance/" rel="category tag">Anniversary of disappearance</a>, <a tip="View all posts in Cold Cases" href="http://en.wordpress.com/tag/cold-cases/" rel="category tag">Cold Cases</a>, <a tip="View all posts in Family Abductions" href="http://en.wordpress.com/tag/family-abductions/" rel="category tag">Family Abductions</a> </p> <div class="postentry"> <div class="snap_preview"><p><a tip="" href="http://forthelost.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/dalton-lucas-and-brysun-and-phillippe-sabinus-found-safe/">Dalton Lucas</a> and <a tip="" href="http://forthelost.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/jessica-click-hill-found-safe/">Jessica Click-Hill</a> are both parentally abducted children that were found many years later. Both were abducted by their mothers, both at nearly identical ages (Jessica was eight and Dalton was seven), both who have fathers who were looking for them.</p> <p>The biggest difference in the cases, however, is that of the outcome. By the outcome I do not mean legally, as in both cases the mothers have been arrested. The outcome in these cases I am referring to is that of the relationship with the left-behind parent. News stories about Dalton’s case say that his father drove straight from Virginia to Texas to retrieve his son, and the comments on the stories indicate that Dalton introduced his friends and others to his dad before going back with him. It will not be easy for him to readjust under any circumstances, but he seems pleased to see his dad again. Jessica, on the other hand, is indicated by news stories to have no wish to have contact with her father. She was abducted for five years more than Dalton, but since four of those years she was over eighteen it’s possible that she did not live with her mother for all of those.</p> <p>So what accounts for the difference? Perhaps Dalton’s mother did not try to alienate her son from his father, although this is unlikely. Alienation is almost universal in parental kidnapping cases. Richard Warshak, an expert on parental alienation, has stated that some children are just more resilient to alienation. There are documented cases of parentally abducted children where the child later reports attempted alienation but does not succumb to its influence. Dalton’s mother could have used the classic “your father died” excuse which seems to produce less hostility towards the left-behind parent. Even that is not set in stone, of course: in the well known case of Steven Fagan he told his daughters their mother was dead and when he was arrested he admitted to the lie but then claimed she was an alcoholic. The mother had never been arrested or even accused of wrongdoing on the part of the children, but they still refused to see her or try to maintain any sort of relationship. (I mention the last to try to silence the “if the kid refuses to see a <strike>father</strike> parent they must have a good reason” crowd, but I doubt it will.) It could have something to do with the level of alienation involved – telling the child their other parent is a drug addict or alcoholic is one level, but telling them the other parent is a sadistic phyical and sexual abuser is quite another. </p> <p>There’s no way to find out directly what is responsible, of course. But perhaps in both cases there is something to be learned about the detrimental effects of parental kidnapping on a child.</p> <div style="margin-top: 1em;" class="possibly-related"><hr /><p><strong>Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)</strong></p><ul><li><a tip="" rel="related" href="http://forthelost.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/dalton-lucas-missing-nine-years/" style="font-weight: bold;">Dalton Lucas missing nine years</a></li><li><a tip="" rel="related" href="http://forthelost.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/dalton-lucas-and-brysun-and-phillippe-sabinus-found-safe/" style="font-weight: bold;">Dalton Lucas and Brysun and Phillippe Sabinus found safe</a></li><li><a tip="" rel="related" href="http://forthelost.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/jessica-click-hill-missing-fourteen-years/" style="font-weight: bold;">Jessica Click-Hill missing fourteen years</a></li></ul></div></div> </div> </div>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-16132140293082825252010-03-27T18:06:00.000-07:002010-03-27T18:09:46.076-07:00Children on the frontlines of divorce - Parental Alienation Disorder<h2 class="headLine">W5 investigates: Children on the frontlines of divorce</h2> <div class="storyPlayer"> <script language="javascript1.1" src="http://www.ctv.ca/generic/js/shared990/hbxVideo.js"></script> <script language="javascript1.1" src="http://www.ctv.ca/generic/js/shared990/newVideoPlayer.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://watch.ctv.ca/news/js/OneClip.aspx"></script> <script> var photoVal = null; function getSzone(){ return "VideoNational"; } function simpleAd(){ if(!ord){var abc=Math.random()+"";var ord=abc.substring(2,abc.length);} szone=getSzone(); sadpg=szone; isbroadband=true; placeRandom("728x90"); } function setAdsCookie(){ var tmpDate1=new Date(); var titleOfVideo; var pathOfVideo; var tmpDate2=new Date(); var tmpSeconds = tmpDate1.getSeconds() + (8*60); tmpDate2.setSeconds(tmpSeconds); var cookieE = document.cookie.indexOf(escape("playVideo") + '='); if (cookieE == -1) { } } var storyInfo = "&hub=WFive&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20091106&slug=w5_divorce_091107&archive=CTVNews"; var currentVolume = getCookie("EmbedBroadVol"); if (currentVolume == null) { currentVolume = 23; } var countFalseAd; var sourcePlayer = "story"; var playAd; var waitForCompleteAd; var maxPosT = 0; var maxPosM = 0; var maxPos = 0; var currentPos = 1; var previousTime = 0; var totalTime; var cT = "T"; var x = -1; var countForHBX = 0; var stateI="pause"; function switchMostTabs(item) { var topStories = document.getElementById("BroadTopStories"); var mostPopular = document.getElementById("BroadMostPopular"); if (item == 1) { maxPos = maxPosT; cT = "T"; document.getElementById("AllTopStoriesVideo").style.display = "block"; document.getElementById("AllMostPopularVideo").style.display = "none"; topStories.getElementsByTagName("a")[0].style.color = "white"; mostPopular.getElementsByTagName("a")[0].style.color = "#515151"; topStories.style.backgroundImage = "url(http://www.ctv.ca/mar/images/local990/broadBandMostPopularOn.jpg)"; mostPopular.style.backgroundImage= "url(http://www.ctv.ca/mar/images/local990/broadBandMostPopularOff.jpg)"; } else { maxPos = maxPosM + 1; cT = "M"; document.getElementById("AllTopStoriesVideo").style.display = "none"; document.getElementById("AllMostPopularVideo").style.display = "block"; topStories.getElementsByTagName("a")[0].style.color = "#515151"; mostPopular.getElementsByTagName("a")[0].style.color = "white"; topStories.style.backgroundImage = "url(http://www.ctv.ca/mar/images/local990/broadBandMostPopularOff.jpg)"; mostPopular.style.backgroundImage= "url(http://www.ctv.ca/mar/images/local990/broadBandMostPopularOn.jpg)"; } } function moveSlider(event) { previousTime = 0; var movePosition = (event.clientX - findPos(document.getElementById("slider"))[0]); if (document.getElementById("VIDEO") != null && document.getElementById("VIDEO").controls != null && playAd == "false") { document.getElementById("VIDEO").controls.currentPosition = (movePosition/168) * totalTime; document.getElementById("slider").style.paddingLeft = movePosition + "px"; } } var canMoveVol; function startVolMove(val) { canMoveVol = val; } function moveSliderVolC(event) { canMoveVol = 1; moveSliderVol(event); canMoveVol = 0; } function moveSliderVol(event) { if (canMoveVol == 1) { var movePosition = (event.clientX - findPos(document.getElementById("volslider"))[0]); if (movePosition <= 5) { movePosition = 0; } if (movePosition >= 23) { movePosition = 23; } if (document.getElementById("VIDEO") != null && document.getElementById("VIDEO").controls != null) { document.getElementById("VIDEO").settings.volume = movePosition * 4; } document.getElementById("volslider").style.paddingLeft = movePosition + "px"; currentVolume = movePosition ; } } function findPos(obj) { var curleft = curtop = 0; if (obj.offsetParent) { curleft = obj.offsetLeft curtop = obj.offsetTop while (obj = obj.offsetParent) { curleft += obj.offsetLeft curtop += obj.offsetTop } } return [curleft,curtop]; } function showInfo(ID) { var videoElement = document.getElementById("blurbVideo" + ID + cT); if (videoElement.style.display == "none") { videoElement.style.display = "block"; document.getElementById("infoRowImage" + ID + cT).setAttribute("src", "http://www.ctv.ca/mar/images/local990/broadbandminus.png"); } else { videoElement.style.display = "none"; document.getElementById("infoRowImage" + ID + cT).setAttribute("src", "http://www.ctv.ca/mar/images/local990/broadbandplus.png"); } } function clearVideoSelection(currentPosition, type) { for (i = 1; i < element =" document.getElementById(" backgroundcolor = "#FFFFFF" backgroundcolor = "#FFFFFF" titleofvideo =" URLString;" newvideo =" new" clipid="'" element =" document.getElementById(" backgroundcolor = "#dcdcdc" hash="#TopVideoAn" ct ="="" totaltime =" parseInt(clip_end.substring(0," clip_end = "-1" currentpos =" currentPosition;" content_type="video/x-ms-asf&brand="generic&tf="/ctv/generic/video/videoplayer.asx&cf="/ctv/generic/video/player.cfg&url="" start=" + clip_start + " end=" + clip_end + " spd="hi&hub="WFive" previoustime =" 0;" action ="="" action ="="" action ="="" x ="="" statei ="="" statei = "play" statei = "pause" action ="="" currentpos ="="" currentpos =" 1;" functionname =" document.getElementById(" action ="="" currentpos ="="" currentpos =" maxPos" functionname =" document.getElementById(" action ="="" fullscreen =" true;" action ="="" functionname =" functionName.replace(" functionname =" functionName.replace(" functionname =" functionName.replace(/'/g," display="none" newstring =" '<OBJECT" name="VIDEO" id="VIDEO" width="300" height="225" classid="CLSID:6BF52A52-394A-11D3-B153-00C04F79FAA6" type="application/x-oleobject">' + mediaString + '</object>'; document.getElementById("mainVideo").innerHTML = newString; } function switchVideo(inString) { inString = inString + "&ads=" + playAd + ""; if (playAd == "true") { simpleAd(); } //mediaString = '<object name="VIDEO" id="VIDEO" width="300" height="225" classid="CLSID:6BF52A52-394A-11D3-B153-00C04F79FAA6" type="application/x-oleobject">'; mediaString = ""; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="SendPlayStateChangeEvents" value="True">'; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="TransparentAtStart" value="True">'; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="AutoStart" value="1">'; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="uiMode" value="none">'; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="fullScreen" value="false">'; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="PlayCount" value="1">'; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="CurrentPosition" value="-1">'; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="Volume" value="' + (currentVolume * 4) + '">'; mediaString = mediaString + '<param name="URL" value="' + inString + '">'; //mediaString = mediaString + '</object>'; if (x == -1) { z = setTimeout("switchVideoT()",1000); } else { //switchVideoT(); // document.getElementById("VIDEO").innerHTML = mediaString; document.getElementById("VIDEO").URL = inString; } } function playVideo() { document.getElementById("VIDEO").controls.play(); } </script> <div id="VideoPlayer"> <div id="defaultBroad" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border: medium none; float: left; margin-right: 0px;"> <div id="Player" style="visibility: visible;"> <div id="Viewer" style="width: 470px; height: 308px; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(255, 255, 255);"><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://watch.ctv.ca/news/Flash/player.swf?themeURL=http://watch.ctv.ca/themes/CTVNews/player/470x264_Blue_OneClip.aspx?cachebreaker=asdassdfsdfs" style="visibility: visible;" id="__FlashPlayer" name="__FlashPlayer" bgcolor="#000000" quality="high" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" wmode="transparent" flashvars="PrePlayImageUrl=http://images.ctvdigital.com/images/pub2upload/30/2009_11_7/470_daughter_091107.jpg&bugURL=&isAd=false&nowPlaying=&permalinkURL=" height="100%" width="100%"></embed></div> </div> <span id="AdArea"></span> </div> </div> <div id="ErrorLogs" style="font-size: 11px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); display: none;"> No clip was passed on the query string
<br />FLASH:: current domain is authorized.
<br />FLASH:: Theme fully loaded.
<br />FLASH:: showPrePlay == http://images.ctvdigital.com/images/pub2upload/30/2009_11_7/470_daughter_091107.jpg
<br /></div> <script type="text/javascript"> function selectNewVideo(Video) { currentPosition = -1; for (o = 1; o < currentposition =" o;" currentposition ="="" ct ="="" setupnext =" function(" playerviewer =" document.getElementById(" setnowplaying =" function(" isad =" Playlist.GetInstance().Current.IsAd;" totaltime =" parseInt(clip_end.substring(0," clip_end = "-1" fontweight =" (Video" fontweight =" (Video" fontweight =" (Video" innerhtml =" (">Video will play after advertisement</em>" : "" ); } </script> <script> var VideoPlaying = new Array(); var t; function timedCount() { //alert(document.getElementById("VIDEO").controls.currentPosition); if (countForHBX == 3 && playAd == "false") { hbx.media="VIDEO"; writeHBX(); //var html_doc = document.getElementsByTagName('head').item(0); //js2 = document.createElement('script'); //js2.setAttribute('type', 'text/javascript'); //js2.setAttribute('src', "http://www.ctv.ca/mar/hbx/hbxmedia.js"); //html_doc.appendChild(js2); hbx.pn=titleOfVideo;//PAGE NAME(S) if ("National" == "CanadaAMV2") { pathOfVideo="/ctvnews/CanadaAM/video;/ctvnews/CanadaAM/video";//MULTI-LEVEL CONTENT CATEGORY } else { pathOfVideo=videoPathHBX; } html_doc = document.getElementsByTagName('head').item(0); js2 = document.createElement('script'); js2.setAttribute('type', 'text/javascript'); js2.setAttribute('src', "http://www.ctv.ca/mar/hbx/broadvideohbx.js"); html_doc.appendChild(js2); //getElementById("VideoTracking").innerHTML = '<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.ctv.ca/mar/hbx/hbxmedia.js"><script>'; } if (playAd == "false") { countForHBX++; } if (document.getElementById("VIDEO") != null && document.getElementById("VIDEO").controls != null) { //if (totalTime == "-1") { //totalTime = 0; //totalTime = VIDEO.Duration; //alert(totalTime); totalTime = document.getElementById("VIDEO").currentMedia.duration; //alert("FDS"); } percent = parseInt(document.getElementById("VIDEO").controls.currentPosition/totalTime * 168); if (percent > 163) { percent = 163; } document.getElementById("slider").style.paddingLeft = percent + "px"; //if (waitForCompleteAd == "true") //{ //countFalseAd++; //if (countFalseAd == 10) //{ //waitForCompletedAd = "false"; //} //} if (waitForCompleteAd == "true" && percent != 0) { waitForCompleteAd = "false"; } if (previousTime > 0 && percent == 0 && waitForCompleteAd == "false") { if (playAd == "true") { waitForCompleteAd = "true"; playAd = "false"; countFalseAd = 0; simpleAd(); } else { controlVideo(4); } } previousTime = percent; } x = setTimeout("timedCount()",1000); } </script> <div class="ctvVi"> <h3>CTV News Video</h3> <div id="AllTopStoriesVideo" class="MostPopularBlock"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="309px"> <tbody><tr> <td> <table style="font-size: 12px; width: 309px;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"> <script> photoVal = "http://images.ctvdigital.com/images/pub2upload/30/2009_11_7/470_daughter_091107.jpg"; </script> <tbody><tr id="videoSelection1T"> <td class="MostPopularBlockTD"> <a href="javascript:changeVideo('','470_daughter_091107','00:00:00.00','00:00:00.00','232700','1')"><div style="font-weight: bold;" class="vidCaption" id="captionVideo1T"> W5: Poisoned Minds, part one</div></a> <div id="blurbVideo1T" style="color: black; font-size: 11px;"> There is nothing pleasant about divorce, but for couples breaking up there is now a whole new battleground -- parental alienation. It is a proxy war that can produce poisoned minds. </div> </td> <script> VideoPlaying[1] = new Video( { ClipId:232700, Title:"CTVNews : W5: Poisoned Minds, part one", Format:'FLV'} ); </script> <script> function startVideo() { changeVideo('','470_daughter_091107','00:00:00.00','00:00:00.00','232700','1'); } if (sourcePlayer == "story") { //document.getElementById("videoPopup").setAttribute('href','http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player_local.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg¤t_clip_id=' + '232700' + '&clip_start=' + '00:00:00.00' + '&clip_end=' + '00:00:00.00'+ '&video_link_high=' + '' + '&video_link_low=' + '470_daughter_091107' + '&sourceV=' + sourcePlayer + storyInfo); } else { //document.getElementById("videoPopup").setAttribute('href','http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player_local.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg¤t_clip_id=' + '232700' + '&clip_start=' + '00:00:00.00' + '&clip_end=' + '00:00:00.00' + '&video_link_high=' + '' + '&video_link_low=' + '470_daughter_091107' + '&sourceV=' + cT + "&chub=National&csection=Top&clip_caption=W5: Poisoned Minds, part one"); } </script> </tr> <tr id="videoSelection2T"> <td class="MostPopularBlockTD"> <a href="javascript:changeVideo('','470_daughter_091107','00:00:00.00','00:00:00.00','232701','2')"><div style="font-weight: bold;" class="vidCaption" id="captionVideo2T"> W5: Poisoned Minds, part two</div></a> <div id="blurbVideo2T" style="color: black; font-size: 11px;"> Family courts and social workers are grappling with how to make divorcing parents cooperate, and heal the children. Even in a legal system where kids have all the rights, harmony doesn't come easy. </div> </td> <script> VideoPlaying[2] = new Video( { ClipId:232701, Title:"CTVNews : W5: Poisoned Minds, part two", Format:'FLV'} ); </script> </tr> </tbody></table> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </div> <div class="watchMore"> <p>Watch: <a href="http://watch.ctv.ca/news/" onclick="window.open(this.href,'_blank',',height=850,width=1010'); return false">See all Videos in the Player</a></p> </div> </div> <script> Playlist.FeaturedVideos = new Array(); for (i = 1; i < maxpost =" 3;" maxpos =" 3;" paddingleft =" currentVolume"> <div id="AllMostPopularVideo" style="display: none;" class="MostPopularBlock">
<br /><!-- file not found: /usr/local/web_htdocs/ctvlocal/shared990/generated/popular.html -->
<br /> <table broder="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> </table> </div> <div id="VideoTracking" style="display: none;"> </div> <script> if (photoVal == null) { new Framework( Format.FlashVideo, 3, "chumtvctv", "CTV News OneClip Player", "ctv.ctvwatch.ca/news/oneclip", "http://watch.ctv.ca/themes/CTVNews/player/470x264_Blue_OneClip.aspx?cachebreaker=asdassdfsdfs","http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/470_generic_video.jpg" ); } else { new Framework( Format.FlashVideo, 3, "chumtvctv", "CTV News OneClip Player", "ctv.ctvwatch.ca/news/oneclip", "http://watch.ctv.ca/themes/CTVNews/player/470x264_Blue_OneClip.aspx?cachebreaker=asdassdfsdfs",photoVal ); } Interface.PermalinkClicked = function( pUrl ) { if( pUrl.indexOf ( "ad.doubleclick.net" ) > -1 ) //should probably use a regular expression { document.location = pUrl; //might want to use a new window? } else { openW = window.open(pUrl,'bctvVideo','width=1010,height=850,status=no,scrollbars=1,resizable=1,toolbar=0'); if (openW) { FlashController.GetInstance().Wait(); } } } </script> </div> <div class="storyUserTop" onload="MM_preloadImages('http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/larger_small2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/smaller_large2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/print2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/share2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/comment2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/facebook_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/twiiter2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/digg2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/stumbleupon2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/newsvine2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/reddit2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/delicious2_over.jpg' 'http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/buzz2_over.jpg')"> <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"> function printStory() { var printUrl = 'http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107/?hub=WFive&subhub=PrintStory'; window.open(printUrl, 'PopUpPrintStory', 'height=445,width=696,menubar=yes,toolbar=yes,navbar=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes'); return false; }; </script> <p><span class="userFontTop">Font-size:</span> <a class="bigger" href="javascript:%20changeSize('bigger');" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image1','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/smaller_large2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/smaller_large2.jpg" name="Image1" id="Image1" alt="Bigger" border="0" height="29" width="28" /></a> <a class="smaller" href="javascript:%20changeSize('smaller');" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image2','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/larger_small2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/larger_small2.jpg" name="Image2" id="Image2" alt="Smaller" border="0" height="29" width="28" /></a> <span onmouseover="mopen('m1');MM_swapImage('Image3','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/share2_over.jpg',1)" onmouseout="mclosetime();MM_swapImgRestore()"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/share2.jpg" name="Image3" id="Image3" class="shareImg" alt="Share" border="0" height="29" width="28" /> <span class="userTextTop">Share</span></span> <a title="Printer friendly version of this story" href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107/?hub=WFive&subhub=PrintStory" onclick="printStory(); return false;" target="_blank" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image4','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/print2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/print2.jpg" class="shareImg" name="Image4" id="Image4" alt="Print" border="0" height="29" width="28" /> <span class="userTextTop">Print</span></a> </p><div> <ul id="sddm"><li> <div style="visibility: hidden;" id="m1" onmouseover="mcancelclosetime()" onmouseout="mclosetime()"> <ul class="sharing"><li> <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107?hub=WFive#" onclick="javascript:window.open('http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107/?hub=WFive' ,'sharer', 'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436'); return false" title="Send this to friends or post it on your profile." onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image6','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/facebook_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/facebook2.jpg" name="Image6" id="Image6" style="display: inline; vertical-align: middle; padding-right: 5px;" alt="Facebook" border="0" height="29" width="28" />Facebook</a></li><li><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=Currently%20reading%20http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107/?hub=WFive&title=W5%20investigates:%20Children%20on%20the%20frontlines%20of%20divorce&bodytext=The%20world%20of%20divorce%20is%20scary%20for%20any%20child.%20But%20when%20a%20divorce%20becomes%20especially%20toxic,%20children%20can%20become%20the%20target%20of%20an%20unrelenting%20crusade%20by%20one%20parent%20to%20destroy%20the%20child%27s%20relationship%20with%20the%20other.%20Experts%20call%20it%20parental%20alienation." title="Click to share this post on Twitter" target="_blank" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image7','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/twiiter2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/twiiter2.jpg" name="Image7" id="Image7" style="display: inline; vertical-align: middle; padding-right: 5px;" alt="Twitter" border="0" height="29" width="28" />Twitter</a></li><li><a title="Submit this story to DIGG" href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107/?hub=WFive&title=W5%20investigates:%20Children%20on%20the%20frontlines%20of%20divorce&bodytext=The%20world%20of%20divorce%20is%20scary%20for%20any%20child.%20But%20when%20a%20divorce%20becomes%20especially%20toxic,%20children%20can%20become%20the%20target%20of%20an%20unrelenting%20crusade%20by%20one%20parent%20to%20destroy%20the%20child%27s%20relationship%20with%20the%20other.%20Experts%20call%20it%20parental%20alienation." target="_blank" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image8','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/digg2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/digg2.jpg" name="Image8" id="Image8" style="display: inline; vertical-align: middle; padding-right: 5px;" alt="DIGG" border="0" height="29" width="28" />DIGG</a></li><li><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107/?hub=WFive&title=W5%20investigates:%20Children%20on%20the%20frontlines%20of%20divorce" target="_blank" title="Submit this story to StumbleUpon" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image9','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/stumbleupon2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/stumbleupon2.jpg" name="Image9" id="Image9" style="display: inline; vertical-align: middle; padding-right: 5px;" alt="StumbleUpon" border="0" height="29" width="28" />StumbleUpon</a></li><li><a href="javascript:void(0)" onclick="window.open('http://www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?popoff=1&u=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/storyv2/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107/','newsvine','toolbar=no,width=590,height=600,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes')" title="Submit this story to Newsvine" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image10','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/newsvine2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/newsvine2.jpg" name="Image10" id="Image10" style="display: inline; vertical-align: middle; padding-right: 5px;" alt="Newsvine" border="0" height="29" width="28" />Newsvine</a></li><li><a href="http://www.reddit.com/submit" target="_blank" onclick="window.location = 'http://www.reddit.com/submit?url=' + encodeURIComponent(window.location); return false" title="submit to reddit" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image11','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/reddit2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/reddit2.jpg" name="Image11" id="Image11" style="display: inline; vertical-align: middle; padding-right: 5px;" alt="Reddit" border="0" height="29" width="28" />Reddit</a></li><li><a href="http://del.icio.us/post" onclick="window.open('http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+'&title='+encodeURIComponent(document.title), 'delicious','toolbar=no,width=700,height=400'); return false;" title="Submit this story to del.icio.us" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image12','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/delicious2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/delicious2.jpg" name="Image12" id="Image12" style="display: inline; vertical-align: middle; padding-right: 5px;" alt="delicious" border="0" height="29" width="28" />delicious</a></li><li><a href="http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?targetUrl=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091106/w5_divorce_091107/20091107/?hub=WFive&headline=W5%20investigates:%20Children%20on%20the%20frontlines%20of%20divorce&summary=The%20world%20of%20divorce%20is%20scary%20for%20any%20child.%20But%20when%20a%20divorce%20becomes%20especially%20toxic,%20children%20can%20become%20the%20target%20of%20an%20unrelenting%20crusade%20by%20one%20parent%20to%20destroy%20the%20child%27s%20relationship%20with%20the%20other.%20Experts%20call%20it%20parental%20alienation." target="_blank" title="Submit this story to Yahoo! Buzz" onmouseout="MM_swapImgRestore()" onmouseover="MM_swapImage('Image13','','http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/buzz2_over.jpg',1)"><img src="http://images.ctv.ca/v2/images/icon/share/buzz2.jpg" name="Image13" id="Image13" style="display: inline; vertical-align: middle; padding-right: 5px;" alt="Yahoo! Buzz" border="0" height="29" width="28" />Yahoo! Buzz</a></li></ul> </div> </li></ul> </div> </div> <div class="storySubs"> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.ctv.ca/v2/js/imgslide.js"></script> <style> .slideImage{filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Fade()} </style> <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- var SLIDES = new slideshow("SLIDES"); SLIDES.timeout = 1000; SLIDES.prefetch = -1; SLIDES.repeat = true; win_width1 = 650; win_height1 = 650; win_prop1 = "width="+win_width1+",height="+win_height1+",status=no,scrollbars=0,resizable=1,toolbar=no,left=1,screenX=1,screenY=0"; //alert(win_prop1); //FULL SIZE IS http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091106/470_w5_PoisonedMinds_091107.jpg ss = new slide(); ss.src = "http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ImageShrinker?http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091106/470_w5_PoisonedMinds_091107.jpg,225,128"; ss.text = unescape("<p>Experts call it parental alienation, when in the midst of a divorce, one parent tries to turn a child against the other parent. It's a mind-warping tactic for the child.</p>"); ss.link = "/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=ctv/v2/photoBeta.html&cf=ctv/v2/ctv.cfg&pname=http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091106/470_w5_PoisonedMinds_091107&win_width=&description=Experts call it parental alienation, when in the midst of a divorce, one parent tries to turn a child against the other parent. It's a mind-warping tactic for the child."; ss.target = ""; ss.attr = ""; ss.filter = ""; SLIDES.add_slide(ss); win_width2 = 650; win_height2 = 650; win_prop2 = "width="+win_width2+",height="+win_height2+",status=no,scrollbars=0,resizable=1,toolbar=no,left=1,screenX=1,screenY=0"; //alert(win_prop2); //FULL SIZE IS http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/470_Richardson_son_091107.jpg ss = new slide(); ss.src = "http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ImageShrinker?http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/470_Richardson_son_091107.jpg,225,128"; ss.text = unescape("<p>Pamela Richardson and her son Dash are seen in an undated image. For almost 12 years, Richardson rarely saw her son because of a campaign by her ex-husband.</p>"); ss.link = "/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=ctv/v2/photoBeta.html&cf=ctv/v2/ctv.cfg&pname=http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/470_Richardson_son_091107&win_width=&description=Pamela Richardson and her son Dash are seen in an undated image. For almost 12 years, Richardson rarely saw her son because of a campaign by her ex-husband."; ss.target = ""; ss.attr = ""; ss.filter = ""; SLIDES.add_slide(ss); win_width3 = 650; win_height3 = 650; win_prop3 = "width="+win_width3+",height="+win_height3+",status=no,scrollbars=0,resizable=1,toolbar=no,left=1,screenX=1,screenY=0"; //alert(win_prop3); //FULL SIZE IS http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/470_Brownstone_091107.jpg ss = new slide(); ss.src = "http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ImageShrinker?http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/470_Brownstone_091107.jpg,225,128"; ss.text = unescape("<p>Justice Harvey Brownstone, a family court judge in Toronto, is the author of a book on how divorce and custody battles affect children.</p>"); ss.link = "/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=ctv/v2/photoBeta.html&cf=ctv/v2/ctv.cfg&pname=http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/470_Brownstone_091107&win_width=&description=Justice Harvey Brownstone, a family court judge in Toronto, is the author of a book on how divorce and custody battles affect children."; ss.target = ""; ss.attr = ""; ss.filter = ""; SLIDES.add_slide(ss); win_width4 = 650; win_height4 = 650; win_prop4 = "width="+win_width4+",height="+win_height4+",status=no,scrollbars=0,resizable=1,toolbar=no,left=1,screenX=1,screenY=0"; //alert(win_prop4); //FULL SIZE IS http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/4770_Psychologists_091107.jpg ss = new slide(); ss.src = "http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ImageShrinker?http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/4770_Psychologists_091107.jpg,225,128"; ss.text = unescape("<p>Psychologists Peggie Ward and Robin Deutsch run a camp in Vermont that aims to bring together feuding parents and children together.</p>"); ss.link = "/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=ctv/v2/photoBeta.html&cf=ctv/v2/ctv.cfg&pname=http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091107/4770_Psychologists_091107&win_width=&description=Psychologists Peggie Ward and Robin Deutsch run a camp in Vermont that aims to bring together feuding parents and children together."; ss.target = ""; ss.attr = ""; ss.filter = ""; SLIDES.add_slide(ss); if (false) SLIDES.shuffle(); //--> </script> <div id="rImage"> <h3>Photos</h3> <div class="topPhoto"> <img style="opacity: 0.99;" name="SLIDESIMG" src="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ImageShrinker?http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20091106/470_w5_PoisonedMinds_091107.jpg,225,128" class="slideImage" alt="Slideshow image" border="0" height="128" width="225" /> </div> <div id="SLIDESTEXT"><p>Experts call it parental alienation, when in the midst of a divorce, one parent tries to turn a child against the other parent. It's a mind-warping tactic for the child.</p></div> <p class="vLarge"><a style="display: block;" href="javascript:SLIDES.slides[SLIDES.current].link" rel="ibox&width=730&height=550" id="slideShowThing">View Larger Image</a></p> <script> document.getElementById("slideShowThing").onclick = iBox.handleTag; </script> <div class="slideNav"> <a href="javascript:SLIDES.previous()" class="prev"> </a> <a href="javascript:SLIDES.next()" class="next"> </a> </div> <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- if (document.images) { SLIDES.image = document.images.SLIDESIMG; // Create a function to ramp up the image opacity in Mozilla var fadein_opacity = 0.04; var fadein_img = SLIDES.image; function fadein(opacity) { if (typeof opacity != 'undefined') { fadein_opacity = opacity; } if (fadein_opacity < mozopacity =" fadein_opacity;" post_update_hook =" function()"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- if (document.images) { SLIDES.image = document.images.SLIDESIMG; SLIDES.textid = "SLIDESTEXT"; SLIDES.update(); } //--> </script> </div> <script> SLIDES.showHideViewT(); </script> </div> <p class="storyAttributes">W5 Staff</p> <p class="timeStamp"><span>Date:</span> Sat. Nov. 7 2009 6:58 PM ET</p> <p>The world of divorce is scary for any child. Even when spouses split amicably children can be forced to balance their love and time between two parents. </p> <p>But when a divorce becomes especially toxic children can become the target of an unrelenting crusade by one parent to destroy the child's relationship with the other. Experts call it parental alienation, a persistent campaign by one parent to poison a child's relationship with the other parent. </p> <p>Typical tactics include lying or making false allegations about the targeted parent, refusing to let the child see the other parent, even punishing the child for showing affection for the other parent. Experts claim, in its more extreme forms, it is child abuse. </p> <p><strong>Pamela Richardson</strong> </p> <p>For almost 12 years, Pamela Richardson rarely saw her son Dash because of the campaign her ex-husband waged against her. </p> <p>According to Richardson, after her marriage dissolved her ex-husband, who had custody of the then-four-year-old, did everything he could to alienate Dash from his mother - fabricating illness, booking activities for Dash to prevent visits; he even arranged to have Richardson banned from Dash's school. </p> <p>"I wouldn't see Dash for, you know, a number of months and not without me trying, not without me doing all the classic things that alienated parents do -- cookies on the doorstop, faxes, phone calls, notes, trying to see him at friends' houses -- everything you possibly can to keep that thread of a relationship alive," said Richardson. </p> <p>Despite a court order giving her regular visits with Dash, Richardson said her ex-husband did everything he could to keep them apart and to convince their son that she was a bad and uncaring mother. </p> <p>"There was period of two years, and I added up the hours (with Dash) and it came to 24 - in two years," Richardson lamented. </p> <p>Richardson said she wasn't the only one suffering as a result of the alienation - Dash was suffering too. Alienated from his mother, the once happy little boy turned into an isolated, depressed and angry teenager. </p> <p>On January 1, 2001, Dash, then 16, jumped off Vancouver's Granville Street bridge, in the middle of the night, to his death. While Richardson blames her ex-husband, she also blames a court system that she insists did little to intervene and help. </p> <p>"This is extreme and this was something that was in the courts many, many times...they had an opportunity to do something and they didn't," said Richardson. </p> <p><strong>Parental Alienation and the Courts</strong> </p> <p>Courts are paying more attention. Family court judges are increasingly considering issues of parental alienation in deciding custody. </p> <p>Justice Harvey Brownstone is a family court judge in Toronto and the author of a book on the bitter realities of divorce court. </p> <p>"Parents who are on a campaign to destroy the child's relationship with the other parent could lose custody and, in extreme cases, courts have changed custody to the other parent," said Brownstone. </p> <p>He encourages divorcing couples to focus on parenting together rather than using children as a tool of revenge, dragging them through protracted, bitter family feuds. </p> <p>"While there may be some therapeutic benefits to coming to court and venting and telling a judge how much you were hurt by the other parent's infidelities or bad conduct, at the end of the day, we are looking at parenting capacity, parenting skills," he said. "We need to look at how couples are going to reinvent themselves from ex-partners to co-parents." </p> <p><strong>Co-parenting</strong> </p> <p>The concept of divorced parents co-parenting isn't new for psychologists Peggie Ward and Robin Deutsch. They bring bad-mouthing alienating parents, targeted parents, and their children to a camp in Vermont in an effort to help these broken families learn new ways to properly raise their children </p> <p>Eight-year-old Tori Cercone knows first hand how it feels to be caught in the middle of a high conflict divorce. "What is so painful is that your mom and dad get separated and they don't like each other but you like both. And it's kind of like a contest who you like better" </p> <p>Two years ago Tori's parents Fran Beecy and Chris Cercone couldn't stand to be in the same room after Beecy made abuse allegations against her ex-husband. </p> <p>"Oh my God, he hated me," said Beecy. "I was like the big mother bear guarding the door, not letting my ex-husband near my kids...I just wanted to protect them, to keep them safe. And yet he, on the other hand, was just like 'these are my kids, I want to see them. I have every right to see them.'" </p> <p>Divorce camp in Vermont changed everything. Today, they visit together, gather for family dinners, and get along. </p> <p>As Cercone explained, "whichever side you're on, whether you're the alienated or the alienator, you've got to come to grips that it can't be about how I feel or getting back at the other one." </p> <p>"I think I'm a better mom because I'm happier," said Beecy. "I'm not trying to create any wedges between my kids and their dad." </p>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-23431999763368584502010-03-16T17:56:00.000-07:002010-03-16T17:59:06.913-07:00Parental Alienation Syndrome - from a Woman's Rights Advocate!<span class="statcounter"><a class="statcounter" href="http://www.statcounter.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://c.statcounter.com/t.php?sc_project=5499037&resolution=1366&h=768&camefrom=http%3A//mail.google.com/mail/%3Fui%3D2%26view%3Dbsp%26ver%3D1qygpcgurkovy&u=http%3A//ontheflywithabrokenwing.blogspot.com/2010/03/parental-alienation-syndrome.html&t=On%20The%20Fly...%3A%20Parental%20Alienation%20Syndrome&java=1&security=2b784a15&sc_random=0.6310134397860325&sc_snum=1" alt="StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter" border="0" /></a></span> <noscript><div class="statcounter"><a title="blogspot hit counter" class="statcounter" href="http://www.statcounter.com/blogger/"><img class="statcounter" src="http://c.statcounter.com/5499037/0/2b784a15/0/" alt="blogspot hit counter" /></a></div></noscript> <!-- End of StatCounter Code --> <span class="widget-item-control"> <span class="item-control blog-admin"> <a class="quickedit" href="rearrange?blogID=8978478749276108296&widgetType=HTML&widgetId=HTML2&action=editWidget" onclick="'return" target="configHTML2" title="Edit"> <img alt="" src="http://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png" height="18" width="18" /> </a> </span> </span> <!-- google_ad_section_start(name=default) --> <h2 class="date-header"><span>Tuesday, March 16, 2010</span></h2> <a name="7550664596698805587"></a> <h3 class="post-title entry-title"> <a href="http://ontheflywithabrokenwing.blogspot.com/2010/03/parental-alienation-syndrome.html">Parental Alienation Syndrome</a> </h3> <div class="post-header"> </div> <div class="post-body entry-content"> As anyone who knows me knows, I am an advocate for the rights of women. I am dedicating my life to empowering women and fighting for the rights of all women, not only in Canada but throughout the world. However, at this time, I want to point out a very serious and detrimental issue affecting children that is only now gaining attention in the court system: Parental Alienation Syndrome.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this syndrome is difficult to prove in court, but I believe it to be one that is more prevalent than judges even realize. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in child-custody or child-access disputes. It results from a parent's repeated denigration of the other parent or "brainwashing" of the child against the other parent (the targeted parent) in an attempt to control child access.<br /><br />This process may start out as seemingly innocent. For example, a child may have visitation with her father, and the anxious mother may react by calling the child during her visit, and indirectly imply that she is not safe with her father. This may cause the child to become stressed or frustrated, confused or even angry. It is, in essence, a form of emotional abuse.<br /><br />I know of someone close to me who actually had his ex-wife call up on his Christmas Day visit with his daughter in his home (I will note here that he was only enititled to an hour's visitation before the ex-wife called, threatening to involve the police if the child was not returned immediately). During this phone call, the mother was found to be emotionally unstable, frantically crying on the phone with her child, almost screaming to the child: "Are you ok???" Of course the child was ok. She was more than ok. She was spending time with her daddy opening presents from Santa on Christmas Day! Clearly, this was an attempt to instill fear and confusion into the child, so that the child would no longer feel comfortable visiting with her daddy at his home. This incidence is a perfect example of the alienating parent's blatant attempts to limit child access and denigrate the target parent, the father. Unfortunately, the alienation did not stop there. This father was denied access to his own child for over a year. It was not until he hired a lawyer and took his ex-wife to court that he was able to resume visitation with his own child. Meanwhile, the little girl would telephone her father crying, telling him how much she missed him while the mother just stood over her listening and apparently not caring enough about her child's needs to allow her to see her father. Appalling. Appalling that she would put her selfish needs over her own child's needs (and rights!!!) to have a relationship with her daddy.<br /><br />I would like the court system to become more actively involved in recognizing these cases when they appear on their dockets. Children have been found to become so depressed and anxious over the constant attacks on the other parent, and new family situation if there is one, that some have found that the only way out is suicide.<br /><br />Emotional abuse of children is not given the same attention as physical abuse of children, which is indeed a very sad reflection of how our society regards children and their rights. Denying a child the right to have a happy, healthy relationship with his or her other parent violates that child in a despicable way. When one's own angry and vindictive desire to regain power and control in a relationship that is now over begins to negatively affect the children of that relationship, it is the responsibility of the courts to determine who should have custody of the children. Surely a parent who continually puts down the other parent, or makes false allegations against that parent and his/her ability to care for the children deserves to have rights as custodial parent revoked. </div> <span class="post-author vcard"> Posted by <span class="fn">Tanya Thibodeau</span> </span> <span class="post-timestamp"> at <a class="timestamp-link" href="http://ontheflywithabrokenwing.blogspot.com/2010/03/parental-alienation-syndrome.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" title="2010-03-16T10:49:00-07:00">10:49 AM</abbr></a> </span>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-13164375376400541062010-03-16T11:58:00.000-07:002010-03-16T11:58:00.556-07:00Diana Yarnall alienates daughter Athena from her father who she adored...<h3 class="post-title entry-title"> <a href="http://alecbaldwinisnotalone.blogspot.com/2010/03/diana-yarnall-alienates-daughter-athena.html">Diana Yarnall alienates daughter Athena from her father who she adored...</a> </h3> <div class="post-header"> </div> <div class="post-body entry-content"> Destroyed relationships. Evil x's. Corrupt courts. Money hungry lawyers, doctors and psychologists. Parental alienation. Only those who are wealthy can win against this money train of corruption. May God be your judge. <br /><br />Read my posts and see one of the worse parental alienation cases ever. Diana Yarnall, the X and mother of Athena Phillip is exposed for what she has done. <br /><br />Exposed.<br /><br />FACT: Diana Yarnall stated: "I don't want my daughter's abused life on national tv" when asked to appear on the dr. phil show with AThena's father Gary to sort out the truth.<br /><br />FACT: Weeks later she favorites Athena's new youtube video where she stated that her father sexually molested her and that it was not parental alienation... and then she burned her father's picture and said she hoped he burned in hell and told him that she hated him. <br /><br />Now, why did she not want to expose her daughters abused life on dr. phil, but she didn't mind it being exposed on youtube by Athena herself. <br /><br />Hmmmm<br /><br />Could it be that maybe it didn't happen and she didn't want to be EXPOSED for alienating her daughter from the father she had always loved and adored? <br /><br />Don't believe me? I have the documents of proof.... it's sad what was done to this child and father. very sad. </div> <span class="post-author vcard"> Posted by <span class="fn">chambrayblue</span> </span> <span class="post-comment-link"> </span> <span class="post-icons"> <span class="item-action"> <a href="email-post.g?blogID=5534829830976289235&postID=86126902892238747" title="Email Post"> <img alt="" class="icon-action" src="img/icon18_email.gif" height="13" width="18" /></a><a href="email-post.g?blogID=5534829830976289235&postID=86126902892238747" title="Email Post"> </a> </span></span>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-35040498108714593652010-03-03T16:30:00.000-08:002010-03-03T16:30:00.474-08:00Parental Alienation Disorder Needs Your Help<h2>Calling all Counselors</h2> <p><a href="http://afamilysheartbreak.com/2010/03/calling-all-counselors-2/">http://afamilysheartbreak.com/2010/03/calling-all-counselors-2/</a><br /></p><p>The American Counseling Association (ACA) recently asked its members to provide feedback on a draft of the DSM-V– which the ACA will consolidate and forward to the DSM-V Task Force. As many of you know, the DSM is the mental health profession’s bible — the final authority on symptoms and syndromes and the definitive diagnosis on legitimate mental health conditions. The newest edition of the DSM will be released in 2013.</p> <p>More than 60 international experts — academics, authors and mental health professionals — recently submitted a proposal to include parental alienation in the DSM-V. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Many groups and individuals are working diligently to make the DSM Task Force aware of the huge number of parents and children currently struggling with the emotional heartbreak of parental alienation.</span> It is also vitally important that all ACA members lobby their organization to include parental alienation in the next edition of the DSM.</p> <p>Including any new diagnosis in the DSM is a long, complex, and some say, political, process. However including parental alienation in the DSM as an Adjustment Disorder should not be difficult. While special interest groups with their own agendas are fighting to keep parental alienation out of the DSM, mental health professionals see Adjustment Disorders related to depression and anxiety all the time. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Why is it so hard to believe that a parent with unresolved emotional issues, going through the strain and emotional upheaval of a divorce or separation (the adjustment issue), could put his or her unhealthy emotional needs above the needs of his or her child?</span> Further, why is it so hard to believe that these unhealthy needs might somehow damage, and in some cases destroy, the child’s relationship with the child’s other parent? And finally, why is it so hard to believe that the targeted parent might actually object to these events and turn to mental health professionals to help address an issue that has its roots in mental and emotional health? </p> <p>The deadline for ACA members to provide feedback is March 22, 2010. The member’s ACA ID number is required with the submission. ID numbers can be found on the back of the Journal of Counseling and Development, or on the ACA website after logging in or contacting member services. To contribute, go to <a href="http://www.counseling.org/dsm/comments.html">http://www.counseling.org/dsm/comments.html</a>.</p> <p>Tags: <a href="http://afamilysheartbreak.com/tag/advocacy/" rel="tag">Advocacy</a>, <a href="http://afamilysheartbreak.com/tag/american-counseling-association/" rel="tag">American Counseling Association</a>, <a href="http://afamilysheartbreak.com/tag/dsm/" rel="tag">DSM</a>, <a href="http://afamilysheartbreak.com/tag/parental-alienation/" rel="tag">Parental Alienation</a></p>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-50150959953701209422010-03-03T11:46:00.000-08:002010-03-03T11:50:30.477-08:00Understanding Parental Alienation<a name="1472412166812920735"></a> <h3 class="post-title entry-title"> <a href="http://evilsofpa.blogspot.com/2010/02/understanding-parental-alienation.html">Understanding Parental Alienation</a> </h3> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdzWIH5GCIFrwgUjHUIsxMPuV5guGALTliKAkQNRwd6Dz6UWkZszxFc0oUBc9xGWlBbiGXzj08TlizVoqgqPz9bCTqqAUWNZOqaSScj5Z6M9bcjB35hIxPNz-0gZrLf-u7Lx6Nul4OuDwi/s1600-h/Dakotas+Ball+game0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img kt="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdzWIH5GCIFrwgUjHUIsxMPuV5guGALTliKAkQNRwd6Dz6UWkZszxFc0oUBc9xGWlBbiGXzj08TlizVoqgqPz9bCTqqAUWNZOqaSScj5Z6M9bcjB35hIxPNz-0gZrLf-u7Lx6Nul4OuDwi/s400/Dakotas+Ball+game0001.jpg" border="0" height="267" width="400" /></a><br />Oldest Son Josh on the left and youngest, Colton on the right. We were at Dakotas Basket Ball game.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">Parental Alienation #2. Understanding </div><br /><br />American Journal of Family Law. Vol. 10. 121-133 (1996)<br /><br /><strong>Understanding and Collaboratively Treating Parental Alienation Syndrome</strong><br /><br />Kenneth H. Waldron, Ph.D. and David E. Joanis, J.D.Madison, Wisconsin<br /><br />Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a <strong>special case of postdivorce conflict in which one parent appears to go to great lengths, at times including making fictitious allegations of physical and/or sexual abuse, to turn a child(1) against the other parent.</strong> Dr. Richard Gardner first described PAS in an article and then later in a book and portions of another.(2) Earlier researchers had rioted similar processes in families (for example, the "medea complex" described by Wallerstein and Kelly in the late 1970s), and professionals working with divorcing families easily recognized the syndrome, <strong>sometimes described as brainwashing,</strong> presented by Gardner. That his "syndrome" was so readily adopted is less a testament to Dr. Gardner's "discovery" than to his conceptualizing a familiar type of high-conflict divorcing family problem that is complex, perplexing, very resistant to change; and sometimes tragic.<br /><br />Gardner's conceptualization of the problem and the dynamics underlying the problem proved at best incomplete, if not simplistic and erroneous. He portrays the <strong>alienating parent as virtually solely responsible for the dynamic, turning the vulnerable child against the innocent target parent</strong>.<br />Contextual factors can be used to detect the presence or absence of PAS. These factors fall on a continuum in the normal curve in all families. The factors that make up PAS may exist in many divorcing families to varying degrees, but they come together and pass a fulcrum point in a few. When PAS becomes the dominant family process, <strong>children reject a parent outright and the stage is set for gut-wrenching allegations, extreme resistance, threatened "move-aways," and often a great deal of litigation.</strong><br /><br />ACTORS IN THE FAMILY DRAMA<br /><br />In most instances, all of the family members play a role for PAS to take hold. There is an easy temptation to place all of the responsibility for the process on the alienating parent, whose maneuvering is the most obvious and appears the most self-serving and malevolent. <strong>Gardner points out that even the child usually has some motive for enlisting in the process, </strong>although the child's motives may be vague and more defensive than malevolent. <strong>The child must play the part</strong>, however. The authors have seen instances where both parents appear to be playing their roles in the alienation process, but the child simply won't join in and is able to disengage from the parental battle and maintain independent relationships with each of the parents.<br /><strong>Exceptions exist, however. In some instances, the alienating parent's efforts at alienating the child will be so ruthless, sophisticated, pervasive, and persistent, playing heavily on the loyalties, fears, and even trust of the child, that the child's ability to maintain an independent relationship with the target parent will slowly be crushed. </strong>If the child continues to see the target parent in these cases, the child will often display a split identity (clinically referred to as vertical splitting). That is, when with the alienating parent, the child will appear thoroughly rejecting of the target parent, but when with the target parent, he or she will display affection, attachment, interest, fun, and freedom from the oppressive alignment with the alienating parent.<br /><br />The Alienating Parent (AP)<br /><br /><strong>In the typical PAS family drama, the AP has the motive to turn the child against the other parent; develops the content themes of the rejection; designs and employs the techniques of programming the child; and has limited insight into the damage caused but not into the motives or goals, which often include eliminating an unwanted parent. </strong>The damage caused is not only to the child and the target parent, but it is usually self-defeating and in some instances self-destructive.<br /><br />(PAS) is a family dynamic in which all of the family members play a role, have their own motives, and have their own reasons for resisting the efforts of others at correction.<br />The AP's motives will vary from family to family. In some, <strong>revenge for felt injustice or for feelings of rejection will dominate,</strong> but in others, the fear of loss of or abandonment by the children will be the driving force. Distrust is so high in some divorces that the AP readily will believe the worst about the target parent (TP), especially if the AP has an early family history of abuse, molestation, or betrayal. The AP usually assumes that the child is fragile or in extreme danger in the care of the TP. These assumptions probably are projections, meaning that at the hub of the AP's personality are primitive feelings of anxious vulnerability. By maintaining proprietary control over the child, onto whom these dangers and vulnerability are projected, the AP is externalizing the defenses. The <strong>sometimes improbable and unsubstantiated allegations seen in these cases can reflect the AP's actual experiences or childhood fears.</strong><br /><br />The Target Parent (TP)<br /><br />In cases of PAS, the TP may have abandoned or may wish to abandon the child. Despite the angry protests of the TP against the AP, the TP may talk of moving away from the area or may be satisfied with and perhaps desirous of a marginal role in the life of the child. The rejection by the child may be a convenient excuse for this way of thinking on the part of the TP. In some cases, there may be geographic distance between the TP and the child. The TP may have substantial weaknesses in parenting abilities or in the parent-child relationship; may have played the family "parent," with the AP joining the child in rebellion; or may have obvious psychological or emotional problems. The TP may have been violent, may be insensitive to the child, and usually has limited insight into his or her own contributions and role in the PAS (for example, failing to counter the alienation theme, focusing on the AP rather than the needs of the child) but good insight into the techniques and damage caused by the AP.<br /><br />The Child<br /><br />Children most vulnerable to PAS, due to several converging developmental issues, are in the<strong> 8- to 15-year-old range. Typically, the child adopts the content theme (for example, accusing the TP of being abusive); refuses to confront the AP even in the presence of contradictory evidence; employs the AP's techniques (such as spying); has various levels of insight and "real" cooperation with the AP</strong>; and fears the AP. While some children seem completely drawn into the themes of the alienation, seemingly believing every word they say others are very aware of the exaggerations and lies. One of the authors had a case in which two children in their early teens actively participated in the PAS, alleging sexual abuse on the part of their father. <strong>Their stories were consistent and believable, and while the father was found not guilty in a criminal trial, due largely to factual inaccuracies in the children's stories, he was nevertheless eliminated from contact with the children.</strong> The children refused even supervised contact. The vehemence of the rejection by alienated children is often telling. These children threatened to run away, or worse, "if you make us" even have dinner with their father. Two years later, one of the children surfaced the "lie," which the other child soon admitted. There had been no molestation and no real cause for the rejection. Even then the children had no good explanation as to why they had gone along with the instructions of their mother other than that they were "scared."<br /><br />In families with multiple children, roles in a PAS drama often are divided up, with the children representing the range of alienation--usually <strong>one child completely alienated, one ambivalent, and one still attached to the TP.</strong><br /><br />The Family System<br /><br />The PAS is a family system defense mechanism. The function of the defense is not always obvious, but there is often a subtle underlying complicity on the part of the family members in the drama. The research provides clues to some defense functions:<br /><br />· to protect the AP's self-esteem (for example, when <strong>PAS escalates as the TP becomes more "successful" after the separation, including getting on with life and remarriage);</strong><br /><br />· to help the AP cope with his or her difficulty "letting go" of the marriage (for example, when <strong>the AP can't stop thinking about or talking about the other parent; or when PAS escalates around birthdays, holidays, vacations, etc.);</strong><br /><br />· to maintain the AP's symbiotic dependence on the child (for example, when the <strong>AP calls the child every day when he or she is with the TP</strong>--one of the authors had a case in which the AP would tell the child that she "couldn't stand to go into your room while you were away, it makes me so sad");<br /><br />· to deal with anger and revenge (for example, when the AP expresses moral outrage at the exposure of the child to a new romantic partner, when the real issue is anger for an affair, or simply at being so easily replaced);<br /><br />· to help the AP through what he or she perceives to be a "grown up" version of a childhood experience; and<br /><br />· to help the family cope with the AP's tendency to turn on the child or anyone else who disagrees, or to abandon the child if there is a change (the child fears having feelings independent of and in opposition to the AP and becoming a target of the rage and rejection he or she has seen the AP direct at others who disagree).<br /><br />One of the authors has seen other "life and death" causes, such as where the PAS protected a psychologically fragile AP or where the AP was the agent of the AP's family of origin, eliminating the TP from the extended family network. When encountering PAS in a particular family and trying to determine its cause, a good question to ask is what the family would be dealing with if everyone wasn't so preoccupied with the PAS process.<br /><br />PROGRAMMING STAGES<br /><br />The programming one sees in situations of PAS is <strong>often a longstanding part of the family dynamic that simply escalates after a separation.</strong> Although all of the family members play roles, the AP is in charge of the programming of the child, a process that usually follows stages.<br /><br />Content Theme Identification<br /><br />The content theme of the alienation is identified early, sometimes by the AP, sometimes by the TP and sometimes accidentally. One of the authors had a case in which there were two dominant themes: abandonment, which had been introduced by the TP through an actual abandonment that lasted about seven months; and, paradoxically, an intense fear of kidnapping by the TP, introduced by the AP. The TP was in a difficult situation where any lack of effort to see the children was viewed as abandonment (that is, proof that she did not care), and any effort to see the children was obstructed and set off a panic that it was an effort to kidnap them. In cases of PAS, the belief in the themes becomes delusional. Though there may be some foundation for the themes in an incident or two, the themes essentially are very unrealistic. In the above case, though the mother had abandoned the children for seven months, she had been consistent in her involvements and interest for the five years prior to the separation and six years since the abandonment. The real threat of a kidnapping of the 12- and 8-year-old children was minimal, especially since the children were so schooled in the threat.<br /><br />Mood Induction<br /><br />The next stage is mood induction, during which the AP may employ the following strategies:<br /><br />· guilt (e.g., "I don't know why your father left us; everything seemed okay");<br /><br />· intimidation (e.g., "Go to your mother's if you want, but you are not to hug her cute little boyfriend anymore. Do you understand?");<br /><br />· fear (e.g., "<strong>I just want you kids to know that I'11 be here the whole time you are at your dad's and that you can call if you need me");</strong><br /><br />· playing the victim (or, "poor me") (e.g., "Jeez, your mom is taking me to court again. When is she gonna leave me alone to just spend time with you?");<br /><br />· sympathy seeking (e.g., "<strong>Look kids, you need to know that I just can't afford to take you the places your dad takes you because he has much more money. I know that's not fair to you but it is just the way it is");</strong><br /><br />· telling the child the "truth" about past events (e.g., "I hid a lot from you before your mom left us because I didn't want you hurt, or for you to hate your mom, but now you deserve an explanation ... ");<br /><br />· <strong>overindulgence and permissiveness</strong> (e.g., "Of course it is all right for you to own your own hunting rifle. Your mom just doesn't want us to have fun together"); and/or<br /><br />· <strong>threats </strong>(e.g., "So, you had a good time. Maybe you'd like to go and just live there. I just want you to know, if you do, you won't see me again").<br /><br />The theme, with mood induction, is processed over and over until the AP begins to gain the child's compliance, usually with the TP participating by escalating the emotional battle with the AP rather than working directly with the child. Once the child's compliance is gained, the AP begins to back off, letting the child carry the ball, although often there will be tests of the effectiveness of the program. The most powerful method is to tell the child, "<strong>It is your choice."</strong> The more the child supports the AP in rejecting the TP, the more emphatically the AP wants people to "<strong>just listen to the child."</strong> This can reach the point of the AP seeing himself or herself as the champion of the child in a world ignoring the child's feelings. Another common test is that the child will consistently <strong>report bad experiences at the home of the TP (whether true or not) that usually reflect the theme chosen by the AP.</strong> These reports are often recorded in some way by the AP and may not be used in the judicial system for years.<br /><br />Reward/Punishment<br /><br />Once tested, the child's complicity is rewarded and any sign of a breakdown in the child's alignment with the AP is punished, sometimes very directly, or in most instances in a re-escalation of the earlier stages of the programming. There are many patterns in this stage. If the child, for example, reports that "Dad never pays attention to me when I am there," the AP might "make up" for the lack of attention by doing special things with the child after visits if the child reports the visits negatively, if the child reports a positive visit, the AP might be vaguely inattentive or may say overtly "Well, I guess you've had your fun, so now we have to get down to the real business of life." Once the program is in place, generalizing begins to occur, leading the child to a loss of ambivalence and to total rejection of the TP. <strong>By this time, everything the TP does will be "wrong."</strong><br /><br />Unfortunately, these cases often reach professionals at the point where the program has been generalized and simply is being maintained. The AP may be doing very little alienating, since it is already in place as a family dynamic. At this stage, the AP simply will watch for slippage in the child's resolve and shore it up when it happens. The AP role may miss detection at this stage. The AP may say things like, <strong>"I tried to encourage the relationship," or, "I really wish he'd visit his father. I could use the break, frankly, but it isn't fair to make him, considering the way he feels," or, "I just can't make her go. I have tried."</strong><br /><br />TECHNIQUES<br /><br />The AP's techniques usually are in various combinations:<br /><br />· Denying the existence of the TP: This can be blatant ("I don't ever want to hear her name in this house") or very subtle (refusing to acknowledge that the child has positive experiences in the other house). In one family, the father would play catch with the children and would not look up when the mother drove in, nor would he stop the game. He held the children's attention until the mother was forced to intrude openly, at which point he would walk away from the children and mother, never acknowledging her presence.<br /><br />· Pairing good experiences or feelings with bad feelings: This is displayed by not responding to the child's expressions of love or enthusiasm for the other parent, or pairing these good experiences with bad feelings ("Oh, that's nice. I had a terrible weekend without you").<br /><br />· <strong>Constantly attacking the TP's character or lifestyle:</strong> Here, the AP creates an illusion of what "might happen." Attacks are on the TP; the TP's extended family ("Your mom can't help the way she is, her parents abused her when she was growing up"); the TP's career, living arrangements, activities, travel, or even <strong>religion; and the TP's associates, especially new romantic partners.</strong><br /><br />· Putting the child in the middle: This technique may involve engaging the child in a <strong>"spy game</strong>," using the child as the principal communicator between the parents; or giving the child subtle <strong>"third degrees</strong>" (for example, one of the authors had a case in which the mother could reduce the child to a bundle of nerves by saying, "Let's talk about...."--<strong>the child had learned that this was a signal to hate something that the father had said, done, chosen, etc.).</strong><br /><br />· Generalizing from one or two instances to a global meaning: An AP using this technique might say, "Remember when your mother was screaming after us when we drove away [not mentioning that he closed the window on her when she was trying to kiss the kids goodbye]? That's what I mean when I say that she is, well, out of control. She just doesn't have control over her emotions. That's why I get scared when you are over there."<br /><br />· Taking normal differences and turning them into good/bad and right/wrong problems: The AP can manipulate circumstances to put the TP into a bad light in the child's eyes or undermine the TP by expressing puzzlement about what is wrong with him or her. "I don't know what's the matter with your father. He knows that kids need to be in bed by eight". The use of this technique can be very subtle (e.g., a shake of the head and a smirk when the child reports an activity with the TP).<br /><br />· Creating alliance in the parental battle: An obvious use of this technique would be, <strong>"Do you think it's fair for your rich father to take your poor mother to court all the time?"</strong> A more subtle approach would be, "If you were the mother, what would you do? Would you go to court to try to protect your children?" This can include the powerful tool of the threat of withdrawal of love, or complete abandonment, if the child demonstrates love for or interest in the TP. Another version of this technique is to convince the child that kids need one parent (the primary parent syndrome) or to give the child the illusion that "I am the one who really loves you." The other parent then becomes the threat because "she is trying to take you away from me."<br /><br />· Portraying the child as fragile and needing the AP's protection: This is very common in PAS. The child convincingly will portray his or her life as fragile, about to fall apart if anyone "makes" him or her have contact with the TP. The AP solidifies the relationship with the child by creating an image for the child that he or she is at great risk out of the control and protection of the AP. A frequent twist of this technique is to portray the AP as fragile to the child, requiring the child's presence to maintain balance.<br /><br />· <strong>Lying: False or highly suspicious allegations of abuse, neglect, or molestation are examples of this. The blatant nature of some of these lies creates an illusion for the child, and many children simply do not have the nerve to confront or contradict the parent</strong>.<br /><br />· Brainwashing: Through a process of rewriting the child's experiences in a way to create reality confusion, the parent incorporates the child into a <strong>false view of reality</strong>. This can include outright lies ("Your father never enjoyed spending time with you. He complained about that all the time, but not in front of you because he didn't want to hurt your feelings. I wonder why he wants to see you now"), subtly implied rewrites of the child's feelings ("You were scared of her even when you were a baby. You wouldn't even let her hold you"), or implanted memories ("Remember when your father used to hit me, or have you blocked this out of your mind?"). <strong>The child resolves the confusion by adopting the AP's view of reality.</strong><br /><br />UNDERSTANDING PAS DYNAMICS<br /><br />The motivational factors underlying PAS vary greatly from family to family. In the AP, these can include <strong>revenge; self-righteousness</strong>; guilt; fear of loss of the child or the role of primary parent; the wish to have proprietary control over the child; <strong>jealousy; the desire to obtain sufficient child support</strong>; loss of identity; a history with the family of origin of abandonment or alienation; pain avoidance (out of sight/out of mind); self-protection; avoiding scrutiny by pointing the finger; <strong>maintaining the marital relationship through conflict</strong>, power, and domination; or protecting his or her own precarious self-esteem. The TP's motives may include a desire to abandon, anger at the AP, self-righteousness, <strong>a history of problems in the family of origin</strong>, stupidity, <strong>a personal history of scapegoating</strong>, protecting the fragile mental health of the AP, the assumption of a victim stance, or a fear of a relationship with the children. The motivation of the child can include coping with loss, resolving parental conflict for self-preservation, normal developmental pressures, real relational difficulties with the TP, resolution of ambivalence about the AP, or fear of the AP.<br /><br />As discussed previously, there is also the family system defense. The question has to be asked, "What would happen in this family if the alienation issue was resolved?" Usually there is a very serious underlying family problem needing attention. PAS can serve the function of a lot of smoke, covering up other difficulties that defy identification.<br /><br />DETECTION OF PAS<br /><br />Detection, especially in the last stages, may seem difficult. The "truth" of the family becomes very relative. However,<strong> typical patterns in PAS allow for detection by a professional familiar with this form of family conflict:</strong><br /><br />1. Contradictions: <strong>This is relevant especially when the child's own statements are contradictory, or they contradict factual history or the perceptions of unbiased individuals;</strong><br /><br />2. Child has inappropriate and unnecessary information (e.g., "My dad had an affair while my mom was in the hospital having me," or, "My mom wanted me aborted");<br /><br />3. Child engages in character assault: This can include the use of globally negative descriptions for which the child has trouble coming up with specifics sufficient to justify them;<br /><br />4. Collusion and one-sided alliance with the AP: This is often given away by the use of blended pronouns (e.g. "<strong>When my dad left us ...," or, "We don't have enough money to live on");</strong><br /><br />5. Child parrots themes of the AP, even using the same words--the child's identity becomes enmeshed with that of the AP;<br /><br />6. Child reports on the TP, even to professionals, <strong>the way a spy would;</strong><br /><br />7. Child displays a sense of urgency and fragility: Everything seems to have life-and-death importance (e.g., "<strong>If you make me have dinner with him, I'll run away or kill myself</strong>");<br /><br />8. Child's affiliations with the TP's associates and family change;<br /><br />9. Splitting: The child cannot come up with any positives about the TP nor with any negatives about the AP;<br /><br />10. Marked absence of complex thinking about relationships: Splitting is one example, and simplistic characterizations of the parents (e.g., "My mom is the homebody and my dad is the entertainer") are another;<br /><br />11. Child demonstrates a feeling of restriction in permission to love or be loved.<br /><br />PAS IN THE COURTS<br /><br />PAS must have seemed a boon to lawyers representing fathers (<strong>who are most often the target parents</strong>) and criminal defense lawyers, since allegations of physical and sexual abuse frequently occur in cases involving PAS. Dr. Richard Gardner has stated:<br /><br />Fabricating children [in cases of fabricated allegations of sexual abuse] are more likely to exhibit manifestations of the aforementioned parental alienation syndrome. Children with this disorder typically <strong>involve themselves in a campaign of vilification of their fathers</strong> and idolization of their mothers. They have been <strong>programmed by their mothers to hate their fathers</strong> and also contribute their own scenarios of hostility. The fabricated sex-abuse allegations may very well be one manifestation of this disorder. Its presence strongly supports the argument that the sex abuse is fabricated. Children who have been genuinely abused do not usually manifest the signs and symptoms of the parental alienation syndrome. Although there are situations in which a child with parental alienation syndrome has suffered genuine sexual abuse, I suspect that this is rare.(4)<br /><br />Think of the opportunity here. If a lawyer representing an accused child sex abuser can find a mental health professional who will testify that the children are victims of PAS, the same expert can take the next step to say that it would be rare for a child suffering from PAS to suffer genuine sexual abuse. By simply naming the child's antipathy for the parent as PAS, the lawyer has a defense.<br /><br />Even absent such extreme allegations, lawyers representing men whose children dislike them in divorce actions can, by labeling the hostility PAS, blame the mother for the child's feelings.<br /><br />These concerns have been collected and published in the Spring 1994 edition of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review under the title, "Notes and Comments: The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability."(5) The comment argues that evidence of PAS should not be admissible in court because the theory has not gained acceptance among experts in the field. The comment does note the "general acceptance" standard promulgated in Frye v. United States.(6)<br /><br />The article attacks Dr. Gardner in strong terms. The commentator points out that the PAS theory is built upon criteria that Dr. Gardner invented and included in his widely discredited sex abuse legitimacy scale. It then goes on to argue that testimony regarding PAS should be excluded from the court both under the Daubert test and under the Frye analysis. Under Daubert, the trier of fact must rule on admissibility based on an expert's opinion as to whether the evidence is reliable and thus relevant. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), the trial judge must make a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid. in other words, the court may consider whether the theory has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance.(7)<br /><br />PAS must have seemed a boon to lawyers representing fathers (who are most often the target parents) and criminal defense lawyers.<br /><br />In spite of the commentator's concerns, PAS has not received an enthusiastic acceptance in the courts, as shown in reported cases. The most frequently cited case showing the dangers of PAS is Karen "PP" v. Clyde "OO."(8) In that case, the mother sought a requirement that the father's visits he supervised because of alleged sexual abuse. The experts differed in their opinions as to whether sexual abuse had occurred. In its opinion, the court cited at length from Dr. Gardner's text. It is for this that this decision has been subjected to criticism. However, an examination of the text indicates that the court based its decision on the evidence and the testimony from witnesses rather than Dr. Gardner's theories. In the end, the court transferred custody from the mother to the father and suspended the mother's visitation, with the resumption of contact subject to treatment and monitoring.<br /><br />In other cases, reviewing courts have similarly made their decisions without making a determination as to whether PAS is a generally accepted diagnostic tool.(9) In T.M.W., a birth father opposed the adoption of his daughter by her stepfather. The court granted an order requiring a psychological evaluation of the child with a view to determining whether PAS was present. The appellate court overturned the order requiring the examination because it failed to meet Florida's technical requirements. It permitted a new order to be issued provided the new order met the requirements of the statute. In this case, the father was contending that the presence of PAS would justify his conceded lack of contact or communication with the child for several years. In a footnote, the reviewing court noted that no determination was made as to the general professional exceptions of PAS as a diagnostic tool and went on further to recite the cautionary words of other commentators:<br /><br />"When considering the theory of expert testimony discussed in this subsection, it is vitally important to avoid confusion engendered by reference to syndromes.... [A]t the present time experts have not achieved consensus on the existence of a psychological syndrome that can detect a child's sexual abuse. Use of the word syndrome leads only to confusion and to unwarranted and unworkable comparisons to battered child syndrome. The best course is to avoid any mention of syndromes." citing Myers, Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 68 Neb. L. Rev. 69 (1989).<br /><br />In a 1994 Iowa case,(10) the father brought an appeal challenging the trial court's temporary order transferring custody of his children to their mother. The father contended that the trial court placed too much emphasis on the testimony of a psychologist regarding PAS. The father contended that the theory is not accepted in the field of psychology. The trial court made a modification in the effective date of the transfer but otherwise affirmed, saying:<br /><br />We do not pass upon the issue of whether Parental Alienation Syndrome is a reliable theory. Rather we look at the evidence introduced and draw our own conclusion. Because this is a de novo review, we only look at the evidence we deem admissible. We consider the opinions of all the experts as we do the other testimony. We give opinion testimony the weight we consider it deserves after considering, among other things, the expert's education, experience, familiarity with case; reasons given for the opinion, and interests, if any, in the case.<br /><br />In a 1992 Ohio case,(11) the appellant's expert witness testified in favor of a change of custody, claiming that one of the children exhibited symptoms of PAS. The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, denying the father's motion for change of custody and stating that the appellant's argument was not persuasive. The court said that while evidence had been presented to show that the child was being pressured to distrust and distance herself from her father and there was testimony from a psychologist as to the existence of PAS, there was also evidence indicating that the mother had encouraged the relationship between the father and the daughter, and another psychologist testified that the mother provided a supportive and caring environment for the daughter. The trial court was therefore affirmed in its decision.<br /><br />The appellant's expert witness testified in favor of a change of custody, claiming that one of the children exhibited symptoms of PAS.<br /><br />A Wisconsin case directly comments on PAS.(12) The father had petitioned the trial court for a change of primary placement from the mother. His basis was that the children suffered from PAS, the condition was caused by the mother, and the only cure was to transfer primary placement to the father. <strong>The trial court found the children were alienated from the father but concluded that it would not be in the children's best interests to transfer primary placement to him to cure the syndrome. The father's expert testified that both children suffered severely from PAS. The psychologist also stated that he was positive that the mother was the cause of the syndrome and the only remedy was to place the children with the father. The trial court rejected the psychologist's recommendations, pointing out that the psychologist had admitted that transferring primary placement involved certain risks. </strong>The trial court acknowledged that the long-range negative effects of the alienation would exist but said it was speculative that the degree of harm described by the psychologist would actually occur. Moreover, the trial court pointed out that the transfer could jeopardize the children's progress in school and their relationships with friends. The expert's testimony itself indicated that the cure was controversial and that there was limited research data to support the success of transferring the children to the "hated" parent. The court concluded that the evidence was not strong that the alienation would be cured by placing the children with the father. <strong>The trial court also interviewed the children and found that they did not like their father and did not want to live with him. One child told the judge that her feelings came from her own observations. Because the children were adamantly opposed to living with their father,</strong> the trial court stated that the potential risk of harm to the children outweighed the questionable benefits of transferring placement. It then concluded that the cure proposed by the father presented too high a risk for harm.<br /><br />Even though the psychologist who testified on behalf of the father was the only expert who testified, the appellate court found it reasonable for the trial court to reject that testimony, saying that the expert's "testimony indicated that the cure was controversial, bears limited research data, and there are certain risks. Furthermore, the testimony of both parents and the children was other evidence that the cure ... would not be successful and was not reasonable."<br /><br />The Wisconsin Court of Appeals took pains to point out in a footnote that the trial court had examined both parents' personalities and roles in the ongoing dispute and that both were blameworthy for the children's alienation. The court disapproved of each party's actions toward the other and of their ongoing tactics to place the children in the middle of their anger toward one another. This footnote was entered so as to stress that the trial court and the appellate court decisions were not to be seen as rewarding one parent over the other.<br /><br />EFFECTS OF PAS ON THE CHILD<br /><br /><strong>The effect of PAS on the child is never benign; it is malevolent and intense</strong>. The degree of severity will depend on the extent of the brainwashing, the amount of time the child spends enmeshed with the AP, the age of the child, the number of healthy support people in the child's life, and the degree to which the child "believes" the delusion. (In many cases of PAS, the child will exhibit all of the signs of absolute rejection of the TP, but in private will disclose that the rejection is just an act.) The effects run across all areas of functioning.<br /><br />The child's internal psychological and emotional organization becomes centered around the rejection of the TP. The child develops identity and self-concept through a process of identification with both parents, a process that begins very early in the child's life. <strong>The rejection of the hated parent becomes an internalized rejection and leads, over time, to self-loathing fears of rejection, depression, and often suicidal ideation.</strong> These developments often are a surprise to the AP and others, since at the time of the alienation, the child will often look mature, assertive, and confident. These are facades, however,<strong> often reflecting the feelings of power granted the child in cases of PAS, who is given reign to lie, be manipulative, and be as hostile as he or she wishes without reprimand.</strong> The child is also internalizing the rage of the AP as part of the self-concept, which often combines with intense guilt over the harm done to the TP to become chronic feeling states. Sadness and longing often accompany these other feelings.<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size: large;">The child ... learns that hostile, obnoxious behavior is acceptable in relationships and that deceit and manipulation are a normal part of relationships.</span></strong><br /><br />When the PAS includes grave distortions of reality, the child's reality-testing abilities become compromised, and<strong> he or she has permission to distort other aspects of life</strong>. For example, the child may develop a fantasy relationship with the TP or even with a fantasy parent and begin to relate to that as though it is real. (Remember, the child is relating to the TP as a hated rejection-worthy parent as though that is real, when it is not.) This approach to relationships often generalizes as the child becomes older and continues to relate to his or her fantasy of others rather than reality.<br /><br />The child's interpersonal functioning is affected even more directly. Often, the enmeshment with the AP inhibits the development of the child in other spheres of functioning. For example, the child may become socially withdrawn, regress in social situations, or be seen by others as immature. Often these won't show up until the child reaches the final stages of individuation in early adulthood. Unable to make the break from the family of origin, the child persists in adolescent types of relationships and often continues to be enmeshed with the AP. The child also learns that hostile, obnoxious behavior is acceptable in relationships and that deceit and manipulation are a normal part of relationships.<br /><br />A dominant emotion for the child is loss, though this may not show up right away. Worse yet, the effects of the loss of the parent on other aspects of adjustment are pervasive. <strong>Children who are raised by one parent and who lose the other have been found to have lower academic performance; increased chance of psychological disturbance; lower self-esteem; cognitive deficiencies; higher impulse control problems; school adjustment problems; higher fear and anxiety (particularly about abandonment); greater dependency, which interferes with other aspects of development; and impaired sex-role identification.(13) There are generally negative effects on sibling relationships.(14)</strong><br /><br />Other studies have demonstrated the reverse is true for postdivorce families in which children experience the active involvement of both parents. <strong>Children who maintain continuing relationships with both parents have higher satisfaction with their families, better overall adjustment (including higher self-esteem, better sex-role identification, higher IQ scores and academic performance, better adjustment to the divorce, and better adjustment to adolescence), substantially lower levels of fear and anxiety (again, especially of abandonment), and an increased quality of relationship with both parents.(</strong>15) No study of which the authors are aware has demonstrated that children are better raised with one parent absent (with the possible exception of cases in which there was severe physical abuse by the absent parent).<br /><br />FIXING THE PROBLEM<br /><br />No policy or approach can be applied universally. Each family circumstance, despite the similarities of the symptoms, has its own complex, interacting, underlying dynamics. What can be said about all cases of PAS is that successful intervention requires the collaboration of the professionals involved, particularly between the legal community and the mental health community. There is a danger in PAS cases that the professionals will become as split and contentious as the parents, only further demonstrating to the child the inadequacies and ineptness of the adults in his or her world. <strong>Contentious attorneys, battles of the experts, and confused judges will be great obstacles, and perhaps even decisive impediments, to improvement.</strong><br /><br />Each of the professionals involved can play a constructive role in each family. Each case of suspected PAS must be carefully, thoroughly and collaborativeiy assessed, a plan developed, and interventions enacted.<br /><br />Role of the Attorney<br /><br />The attorney likely is the first to come into contact with a case of PAS, in the initial interview with the AP or the TP. The American court system is inherently adversarial, which <strong>does not serve the family in conflict well. The adversarial process further alienates and polarizes. Unfortunately, the charges and countercharges inherent in a PAS-involved family fit tongue-and-groove into the adversarial system.</strong><br /><br />Nevertheless, the attorneys, including an attorney appointed to represent the interests of the child, each can play constructive roles. The question then is, how are those roles played out against the backdrop of PAS given the certainty that extreme adversarial conduct will <strong>almost always result in a poor outcome for the parties and the child?</strong> Despite the simultaneous demands to represent the client and to intervene constructively in the PAS, it is possible to be an effective advocate and still deal with the short- and long-term implications of PAS.<br /><br />There is a danger in PAS cases that the professionals will become as split and contentious as the parents, only further demonstrating to the child the inadequacies and ineptness of the adults in his or her world.<br /><br />A lawyer for either the husband or the wife who recognizes that his or her client is either the AP or the TP should begin by giving as much information as is available to the client regarding PAS. The attorney for the TP will find a more receptive audience than the attorney for the AP. <strong>The next step is to identify the alienating behaviors employed by both the TP and the AP and to tell the client to stop the behaviors.</strong> While this may sound sophomoric, clients do listen to their attorneys, whom they are likely to assume have their interests at heart. Obtaining the client's agreement to stop engaging in PAS behaviors is somewhat like obtaining an alcoholic's agreement to stop drinking, since, like drinking, engaging in PAS behavior is ultimately self-defeating for the client. The decision to stop is the first step. Although this may not "cure" the problem, the termination of the destructive behaviors undergirds further progress.<br /><br />The lawyer for the AP has a difficult role. The AP has collected evidence and invested time and energy in his or her role and has rectitude and certainty on his or her side, or so he or she believes. The AP wants badly for the lawyer, the mental health professional, and the system to agree with him or her.<br /><br />The lawyer has been hired, however, for his or her knowledge and judgment. Both attorneys should cooperate with each other, <strong>with the guardian ad litem or other counsel for the child when one has been appointed, and with mental health professionals working on the case.</strong> The interests of the client will be served best when there is a commitment from both parents to the benefits of the children having a healthy relationship with both of them.<br /><br />When an attorney (or nonattorney ombudsman), such as a guardian ad litem, has been appointed to represent the interests of the child, <strong>a special opportunity arises for coordinating the collaboration among the other professionals.</strong> This attorney needs to avoid being swept up in the seductive process of PAS and remain neutral, with a focus on concrete evidence. The AP cannot be rewarded for hysteria or histrionic claims, nor can the TF be permitted to play the role of victim. The child's advocate can serve as the focal point for information, obtaining and disbursing information to the professionals involved and potentially to the court, and can advocate appropriate treatment steps. The lawyer in this role must be active to constructively slow or stop the cancerous growth of the process.<br /><br />Role of the Psychologist<br /><br />If the initial interventions of the attorney do not turn the family to a more constructive route, the next step is to <strong>involve a mental health professional who is familiar with divorce, custody assessment, and PAS in a family assessment. </strong>It is crucial that the attorneys collaborate on the choice of a professional and that efforts be made to avoid bringing in hired guns for each side of the issue. The psychologist must look first to identify whether the case truly is PAS, since in some families, the rejection of a parent by a child is not the result of PAS. The evaluation must go beyond the identification of PAS to the motives of all of the family members, the defense factors or functions of PAS in the family, the specific techniques employed, and the patterns involved.<br /><br />There are several reasons for so thorough an evaluation. First, progress will not be made without treating the factors and motives underlying the PAS. If the family has organized itself around maintaining the fragile mental health of the AP, for example, <strong>pressuring for change likely will lead to more defensiveness</strong>, not less, or <strong>may put the AP at undue risk of a mental breakdown or even suicide</strong>. The AP, in our example, must be given collateral supports and perhaps counseling before pressure for change can be applied. The techniques used to accomplish the alienation can also be good clues as to interventions that are likely to work. For example, if denying the existence of the TP is one of the techniques, a corrective intervention may be for the AP to go to great lengths to acknowledge the importance of the TP to the child.<br /><br />Collaboration<br /><br />Once the evaluation is complete, the mental health professional and the attorneys involved must collaborate on a plan. Each plays an important role in this process. This should be an open process, since the process itself models for the family a healthy problem-solving approach. The intervention plan must be based on the factors in the individual case, though in all cases there will be some similarities in approach, including but not limited to the following steps:<br /><br />1. <strong>Establishing the benefits of ongoing contact between the children and the TP</strong>. Some of these are inherent in the parent/child relationship. Others may be family specific (e.g., "My father may be more willing to contribute to my college expenses if he has ongoing contact with me"). With all family members contributing to the process of identifying the benefits of contact, they begin to incorporate a family culture of valuing the contact rather than disputing it. The family also needs to identify any drawbacks to contact between the child and the TP, but these ought to be reframed as obstacles to be overcome rather than as reasons for elimination.<br /><br />2. 2. <strong>Establishing structure around the contact. This may include behavioral contracts regarding concerns and problematic behavior. Frequent telephone calls by the AP to the child, for example, may prevent the child from having an independent experience with the TP. Contracting to a certain number of calls at certain times may reduce the anxiety. </strong>If the TP makes bothersome statements to the child, contracting can include limiting these. The structure, particularly initially when the system is fragile, must have a reliable system of reporting and enforcement.<br /><br />3. 3. Avoiding the use of placement as a corrective tool. In most cases, the child's relationship with the AP is important. In many instances, the AP has played the role of primary caregiver, and the threat of breaking that attachment may drive the destruction deeper into the family system. However, frequent contact with the TP provides counterbalancing influences to the PAS process and may also provide the child reliable contact with other people (for example, grandparents) who are respected by and important to the child. If necessary, therefore, placement may be a tool to provide corrective experiences for the child.<br /><br />4. Encouraging the TP to have expert counseling in approaching the child with sensitivity, cool patience, and loving persistence. The TP, often the weak link in the destructive system, may be required to provide delicate explanations of the situation to the child without denigrating the AP. Drawing the TP out of the family process first provides the child with some sense of relief from the pressures.<br /><br />5. Eliciting some permission, even if insincere, from the AP for the child to love and be involved with the TP. If the AP is on record as giving such permission, the child may have the courage to progress. This may also provide some reassurance to the child at times, in that others can point out that while the AP may in part be reluctant, there is at least some wish for the relationship between the child and the TP to be successful.<br /><br />6. Having an outside professional take a strong role in protecting the child by giving a powerful message that the TP is nor a bad person, directly opposing the message of the AP. This must fit the real experiences of the child, however. If the TP has misbehaved, this should not be ignored or glossed over.<br /><br />7. <strong>Conveying a clear, strong message to the family that the alienation process is harmful to the child. In some instances, it may be wise to identify PAS as a form of psychological abuse </strong>and to indicate that the courts will not tolerate its continuance. Not all cases require a court order; in some, this may be counterproductive or an exercise in futility. Some cases absolutely cannot proceed without the external authority of the court order, but only if the court is willing to enforce. The judge or family court commissioner, therefore, must be included in the collaborative assessment of the family and the recommended plan of intervention.<br /><br />8. Developing a clear picture of the benefits to the child in maintaining contact with the TP. These include both the general benefits (e.g., the biological needs of the child for the parent; benefits to the identification process; maintaining a reality foundation for the child's fears [no contact will almost always lead to an irrational increase in the fear level, and the fantasies about the TP almost always become irrational]; and prevention of the loss of a love object [which most often leads to self-resentment by the child and guilt, regardless of the cause of the loss]) and the specific benefits given the AP, the TP, the TP's associates, and family. A clear picture of these benefits will help the collaborating professionals take the unambiguous approach required. Any ambivalence regarding the benefits will feed the polarization in the family. If there are no clear benefits to the child, given the nature of the family, treatment may prove fruitless.<br /><br />9. <strong>Realizing that confrontation rarely helps. For example, if the issue is loss, focusing on reducing the loss is more likely to help than confronting the alienation and bringing on the threat of more loss.</strong><br /><br />10. Providing emotional support. The AP may need a great deal of emotional support for correction to take place, as the breakdown of the alienation may bring to the surface serious problems for the AP.<br /><br />CORRECTION, WHEN POSSIBLE, TAKES TIME<br /><br /><strong>The probability of successful intervention is moderately poor</strong> (informal estimates range between a third and a half of these cases resolving well). This may be more of a statement about the state of the art in dealing with the more difficult issues in high-conflict divorces such as those involving PAS, however, than the tenacity of this particular type of conflict. The approaches identified in this article, for example, are relatively new, based on our increasing body of knowledge about high conflict in divorce. It is our responsibility to continue to study and work at these high-conflict cases. Even with the best of approaches, however, the dynamics underlying PAS are resistant to an easy fix and require hard work over a sometimes long period of time to provide the relief all of the family members, including the AP, are likely to experience, and for which each secretly hopes.<br /><br />ENDNOTES<br /><br />1. Throughout this article we will refer to a child in the singular, although in most instances. the same could be applied to the plural, children.<br /><br />2. R. Gardner, Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation Between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse (Cresskill, N.J. 1987).<br /><br />3. Clawar & Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children (American Bar Association 1989).<br /><br />4. Gardner, supra note 2. at 109.<br /><br />5. C.L. Wood, Notes and Comments: The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability, 27 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1367 (Spring 1994).<br /><br />6. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). superceded by Fed. R. Evid. 702, construed in Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).<br /><br />7. Wood, supra note 5, at 1411-12<br /><br />8. Karen "PP" v. Clyde "OO", 574 N.Y.S. 2d 267 (Fam. Ct. 1991), aff d sub nom., Karen "PP" v. Clyde "OO", 602 N.Y.S. 2d 709 (App. Div. 1993).<br /><br />9. In the interest of T.M.W., 333 So. 2d 260 (Ra. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).<br /><br />10. In re Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld. 524 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).<br /><br />11. (Hornby) Simms v. Hornsby (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist., 1992)<br /><br />12. In re Marriage of Wiederholt v. Fisher, 485 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).<br /><br />13. E. Ferri, Growing Up in a One-Parent Family (NFER 1976); J. Santrock, & R Warshak, Father Custody and Social Development in Boys and Girls, 35 J. Soc issues 112 (1979); M. Shinn, Father Absence and Children's Cognitive Development, 85 Psychol. Bull. 295 (1978); C. Marino & R. McCowan, The Effects of Parent Absence on Children, 6 Child Study J. 165 (1976); E. Heatherington, Effects of Paternal Absence on Personality Development in Adolescent Daughters, 7 Developmental Psychol. 313 (1972); R. Sears, E. Maccoby & H. Levin, Patterns in Childrearing (Row Peterson 1957); J. Santrock. Infuence of Onset and Type of Paternal Absence on the First Four Ericksonian Crises, 3 Developmental Psychol. 273 (1970); W. Hedges, R. Wechsler, & C. Ballantine, Divorce and the Pre-school Child, 8 J. Divorce 33 (1979); J. Vess, A. Schwebel, & J. Moreland, The Effects of Early Parental Divorce on the Sex Role Development of College Students, 7 J. Divorce 83 (1983).<br /><br />14. W. Hedges, Interventions for Children of Divorce: Custody Access, and Psychotherapy (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1991); R. Gelles, Child Abuse and Violence in Single-Parent Families: Parent Absence and Economic Deprivation, 59 Am. I. Orthopsychiatry 492 (1989).<br /><br />15. Ferri, supra note 13; S. Kellam, M. Ensminger, & F. Turner, Family Structure and the Mental Health of Children: Concurrent and Longitudinal Community-wide Studies, 34 Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1012 (1977); J. Santrock & R. Tracy, The Effects of Children's Family Structure Status on the Development of Stereotypes by Teachers, 70 J. Educational Psychol. 754 (1979); Hedges, supra note 14; E.E. Maccoby & R.H. Mnookin, Dividing the Child (Harvard Univ. Press 1992); F. Furstenberg & C. Nord, Parenting Apart: Patterns in Childrearing After Marital Disruption, 47 J. Marr. & Fam. 483 (1985); M. Bowman & C. Ahrons, Impact of Legal Custody Status on Father's Parenting Post-divorce, 47 J. Marr. & Fam. 483 (1985); M. Kline et al., Children's Adjustment in Joint and Sole Physical Custody Families, 25 Developmental Psychol. 297 (1989); N. Coyish et al., Parental Post-divorce Adjustment in Joint and Sole Physical Custody Families, 10 J. Fam. Issues 52 (1989); J. Arditti, Differences Between Fathers with Joint Custody and Noncustodial Fathers, 62 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 186 (1992); J. Wallerstein & J. Kelly, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce (Basic Books 1980).<br /><br />Authors<br /><br />Kenneth H. Waldron, Ph.D., is a psychologist in Madison, Wisconsin, with a practice focused on divorce. His practice includes divorce mediation, coparenting counseling, custody assessment, parent education, and consultation to courts and court-connected mediation and investigation services.<br /><br />David E. Joanis practices law with the Madison, Wisconsin, firm of Boushea, Segall & Joanis. His practice focuses exclusively on family lawCAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1078922872531633994.post-47265645913011083862010-03-01T08:45:00.000-08:002010-03-01T08:45:00.294-08:00Round 2 of Campaign to Ask DSM to Include Parental Alienation—We’ve Made Progress, but Need You to Act Again<div class="post hentry category-fathers-families-advocacy-group category-parental-alienationpas" id="post-5971"> <small><span style="font-style: italic;">Mental health experts, along with the judiciary and family law attorneys in California recognize Parental Alienation for a very serious problem in Family Court. If you have a problem with seeing your children because of alienation, you can voice your concern to the DSM-V task force to include this form of mental illness into the mainstream of health care for children and fathers, mothers and grandparents cut off from their kids.- CAConservative</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">February 15th, 2010 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director</span></small> <div class="entry"> <p>Fathers & Families wants to ensure that the DSM-5 Task Force is aware of the scope and severity of Parental Alienation. To this end, in December we asked our supporters to write the Task Force to urge them to consider including Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM-5. As usual, your response was overwhelming. It also helped lead to progress–while as expected the newly-released draft version does not specifically include Parental Alienation Disorder, the DSM-5 Task Force has now listed Parental Alienation Disorder among the “<a href="http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/ConditionsProposedbyOutsideSources.aspx" target="_blank">Conditions Proposed by Outside Sources</a>…that are still under consideration by the work groups.”</p> <p>The Task Force says it “welcome[s] your comments on whether available evidence indicates that the following [disorders] should be included in DSM-5.” <strong>Fathers & Families is asking its supporters to write to the Task Force </strong>and again emphasize that Parental Alienation Disorder is a large-scale problem<strong>–to do so, please </strong><strong><a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=5372#takeaction" target="_blank">click here.</a></strong></p> <p>As in Round 1, Fathers & Families will print out your letter and send it by regular US mail to the three relevant figures in DSM-V: David J. Kupfer, M.D., the chair of the DSM-V Task Force; Darrel A. Regier, M.D., vice-chair of the DSM-V Task Force; and Daniel S. Pine, M.D., chair of the DSM-V Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence Work Group.</p> <p>This isn’t easy–as Dr. Kupfer recently told the media, ”The door to get in [the manual] is pretty hard.” But Parental Alienation Disorder does merit serious consideration.</p> <p>Many observers have noted that hundreds of mental health professionals, doctors, educators, family law professionals and prominent citizens endorsed our campaign. If you belong to one of these groups and would like to be publicly listed as an endorser, please see our endorsement statement in the right-hand column and submit your name, title, city and state to us at <a href="mailto:GlennSacks@FathersandFamilies.org"> GlennSacks@FathersandFamilies.org</a>.</p> <p>The <em>Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</em> article <a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10046/1036018-114.stm">Mental health professionals getting update on definitions</a> (2/15/10) details the DSM-V process:</p> <blockquote><p>[There are] many questions that scores of mental health professionals wrestled with for nearly a decade, as they conducted their periodic update of the neuroses of an evolving society.</p> <p>The result of their work was unveiled by the American Psychiatric Association last week, as a draft version of the new “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.”</p> <p>Known as the DSM-5, because it represents the fifth edition of this exhaustive bible for psychiatrists, psychologists and others, it attempts to catalog [disorders]…</p> <p>The first update since 1994 also includes descriptions of depression, sleep disorders, alcohol abuse and other common maladies, but everything gets a fresh look because of the volume of new research and science affecting how they’re all regarded, said David Kupfer, the University of Pittsburgh psychiatry professor who chaired the DSM-5 task force.</p> <p>The final product will go into the offices of all sorts of health professionals — from psychiatrists to family practitioners — while also influencing treatment payments by insurance companies, drug development by the pharmaceutical industry and future research by government and academia.</p> <p>Dr. Kupfer, the longtime head of Pitt’s psychiatry department before stepping down in October, said the manual remains a work in progress, with revisions based on public and professional reaction before final publication in 2013.</p> <p>“We weren’t out to make major changes, but so much has happened that we needed to address, that some may accuse us of being overambitious,” he said…Dr. Kupfer…said there is intense discussion during every update about what problems merit entering the manual for the first time…</p> <p>“The door to get in [the manual] is pretty hard,” Dr. Kupfer said. “Once you’re in the club, it’s then hard to get out. All of us are a little tight about admitting people in the club.”</p></blockquote> <p>Again, <strong>write to the DSM-5 Task Force by </strong><strong><a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=5372#takeaction" target="_blank">clicking here.</a></strong><strong></strong></p> <p>Together with you in the love of our children,</p> <p>Glenn Sacks, MA<br />Executive Director, Fathers & Families</p> <p>Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.<br />Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families</p> <!-- Social Bookmarks BEGIN --> <div class="social_bookmark"> <a><strong><em>Bookmark This Post:</em></strong></a><br /><div class="d"><br /><a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://buzz.yahoo.com/submit?submitUrl=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5971&submitHeadline=Round+2+of+Campaign+to+Ask+DSM+to+Include+Parental+Alienation%26%238212%3BWe%26%238217%3Bve+Made+Progress%2C+but+Need+You+to+Act+Again&submitSummary=" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Buzz"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/buzz.png" title="Add to Buzz" alt="Add to Buzz" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5971&title=Round+2+of+Campaign+to+Ask+DSM+to+Include+Parental+Alienation%26%238212%3BWe%26%238217%3Bve+Made+Progress%2C+but+Need+You+to+Act+Again" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Del.icio.us"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/delicious.png" title="Add to Del.icio.us" alt="Add to Del.icio.us" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5971&title=Round+2+of+Campaign+to+Ask+DSM+to+Include+Parental+Alienation%26%238212%3BWe%26%238217%3Bve+Made+Progress%2C+but+Need+You+to+Act+Again" rel="nofollow" title="Add to digg"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/digg.png" title="Add to digg" alt="Add to digg" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5971" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Facebook"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/facebook.png" title="Add to Facebook" alt="Add to Facebook" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=edit&output=popup&bkmk=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5971&title=Round+2+of+Campaign+to+Ask+DSM+to+Include+Parental+Alienation%26%238212%3BWe%26%238217%3Bve+Made+Progress%2C+but+Need+You+to+Act+Again" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Google Bookmarks"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/google.png" title="Add to Google Bookmarks" alt="Add to Google Bookmarks" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5971&title=Round+2+of+Campaign+to+Ask+DSM+to+Include+Parental+Alienation%26%238212%3BWe%26%238217%3Bve+Made+Progress%2C+but+Need+You+to+Act+Again" rel="nofollow" title="Add to reddit"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/reddit.png" title="Add to reddit" alt="Add to reddit" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5971&title=Round+2+of+Campaign+to+Ask+DSM+to+Include+Parental+Alienation%26%238212%3BWe%26%238217%3Bve+Made+Progress%2C+but+Need+You+to+Act+Again" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Stumble Upon"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/stumbleupon.png" title="Add to Stumble Upon" alt="Add to Stumble Upon" /></a> <a onclick="window.open(this.href, '_blank', 'scrollbars=yes,menubar=no,height=600,width=750,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,location=no,status=no'); return false;" href="http://www.technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=5971" rel="nofollow" title="Add to Technorati"><img class="social_img" src="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-content/plugins/social-bookmarks/images/technorati.png" title="Add to Technorati" alt="Add to Technorati" /></a><br /></div> </div> <!-- Social Bookmarks END --> <p class="postmetadata alt"> <small> This entry was posted on Monday, February 15th, 2010 at 10:29 pm and is filed under <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=171" title="View all posts in Fathers & Families Advocacy Group" rel="category">Fathers & Families Advocacy Group</a>, <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?cat=6" title="View all posts in Parental Alienation/PAS" rel="category">Parental Alienation/PAS</a>. You can follow any responses to this entry through the <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?feed=rss2&p=5971">RSS 2.0</a> feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can <a href="http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/wp-trackback.php?p=5971" rel="trackback">trackback</a> from your own site. </small> </p> </div> </div>CAconservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15945217049014607719noreply@blogger.com0