Alec Baldwin on Parental Alienation Syndrome

Poison Parents - a book on Parental Alienation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous

2 comments Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Albany CPS and Family Court Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

ShareThis

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

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

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

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

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

Mother consistently lied about father's custody rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother claims children don't want to see father

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mother accuses father of sexual abuse

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

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

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

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

Mother's behavior not affected by pending contempt proceeding

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

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

Judge Ross discusses parental alienation

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

Ross said:

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

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

The sentence and justification for the sentence

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

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

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

Read article by Dan Weaver on parental alienation in Saratoga County

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

Parental Alienation And False & Malicious Domestic Violence Allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: alienate children, Alienating Parents, child custody, Child Custody Proceedings, custodial parent, dallas divorce attorney, divorce attorney, Domestic Violence Allegations, Dr. Richard A. Gardner, false allegations, False Domestic Violence Allegations, Misplaced Domestic Violence Restraining, non-custodial parent, parental alienation, parental alienation in texas, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Protective Orders, Restraining Order, Supervised Visitation, Supervised Visitation Centers

This entry was posted on Monday, May 24th, 2010 at 6:07 am and is filed under Divorce & Family Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Parental Alienation is Psychological Child Abuse

---

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

---

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


Parental Alienation is Psychological Child Abuse

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

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

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

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

PostingID: 1731703600

Family Courts are Partners in Parental Alienation

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

Sunday Capitol Rally for 'Parental Alienation Awareness Day'

Sunday California Capitol Rally for 'Parental Alienation Awareness Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parental Alienation Syndrome in DSM V

Parental Alienation Syndrome in DSM V

By djohnm

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

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

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

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

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

This entry was posted on April 15, 2010 at 4:39 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness

Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness Tuesday, January 12, 2010

filed under: divorce logic

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

Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Signs of Parental Alienation

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

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

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

Dr. Michelle Golland 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.

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

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

Feminists 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.

Parental Alienation Syndrome is real and all too common

By Letters to the Editor/Staten Island Adva...

March 30, 2010, 4:51AM

By DENNIS NEWMAN,
TOMPKINSVILLE




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.”

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.

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.”

amily Court Abuse and Parental Alienation - Children As Causalities

Family Court Abuse and Parental Alienation - Children As Causalities

Family Court Abuse and Parental Alienation - Children As Causalities
By Dr. Jeanne King, Ph.D.

For people who have been in family court battling abdomestic use, it's no secret that the children are the real causalities.

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.

Accusations of parental alienation, 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.

Children of Lies

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.

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.

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.

Grown Children of Confusion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

2009 Copyright Jeanne King, Ph.D.

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

Jessica Click-Hill and Dalton Lucas: two case studies in parental kidnapping

Why do mothers kidnap their children and lie during child custody cases? Children need both parents.

March 14, 2010 · Filed under Adam Haseeb Memorial Pages, Anniversary of disappearance, Cold Cases, Family Abductions

Dalton Lucas and Jessica Click-Hill 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.

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.

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 father 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.

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.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Dalton Lucas missing nine years
• Dalton Lucas and Brysun and Phillippe Sabinus found safe
• Jessica Click-Hill missing fourteen years

Children on the frontlines of divorce - Parental Alienation Disorder

W5 investigates: Children on the frontlines of divorce

No clip was passed on the query string
FLASH:: current domain is authorized.
FLASH:: Theme fully loaded.
FLASH:: showPrePlay == http://images.ctvdigital.com/images/pub2upload/30/2009_11_7/470_daughter_091107.jpg

CTV News Video

W5: Poisoned Minds, part one 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. W5: Poisoned Minds, part two 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.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

Font-size: Share Print

• • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • DIGG
  • StumbleUpon
  • Newsvine
  • Reddit
  • delicious
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Photos

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.

View Larger Image

W5 Staff

Date: Sat. Nov. 7 2009 6:58 PM ET

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.

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.

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.

Pamela Richardson

For almost 12 years, Pamela Richardson rarely saw her son Dash because of the campaign her ex-husband waged against her.

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.

"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.

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.

"There was period of two years, and I added up the hours (with Dash) and it came to 24 - in two years," Richardson lamented.

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.

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.

"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.

Parental Alienation and the Courts

Courts are paying more attention. Family court judges are increasingly considering issues of parental alienation in deciding custody.

Justice Harvey Brownstone is a family court judge in Toronto and the author of a book on the bitter realities of divorce court.

"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.

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.

"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."

Co-parenting

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

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"

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.

"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.'"

Divorce camp in Vermont changed everything. Today, they visit together, gather for family dinners, and get along.

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."

"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."