Invalidating parental alienation

I am deriving this post, based on A Policy Proposal in Joan Meier's research, Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews.

3. Once abuse is found, alienation claims by the accused abuser should not be considered.

Virtually every article about alienation and abuse, including Gardners', gives lip service to the principle that if abuse is real, then alienation is not. However, the current trend propounded by both Johnston and Kelly (2004a, 2004b) and Drozd and Olesen (2004) toward a "multivariate" approach, which evaluates both abuse and alienation simultaneously, unavoidably gives too much attention to alienation claims. This approach undermines recognition of the validity and impact of real abuse claims (Meier, in press). Alienating conduct bound up with a batterer's pattern of abuse should be identified as part of the abuse.

Okay, so upon discovery of real abuse, a parental alienation claim should be dumped, right, even according to Gardner? But the reality is, and has been, that it is not.

Think about it. How many times do parental alienation evaluators come into a child custody case and say,

Gee, you know what, this ain't even parental alienation. You've got it all wrong. This child and mother have been abused.

?????

In order to make that determination, we would have to go back to # 2, Requiring evaluators to have genuine expertise in both child abuse and domestic violence.

A parental alienation evaluator will lose money in this case because he/she won't be allowed to "treat" the child. So instead, the abuse is ignored, parental alienation is substantiated, and the profiteer can "order" "deprogramming therapy."

Lip service is an understatement of what is going on here. This is a malicious pseudoscientific and legal diversion of father-abuse and blatant victim-blaming that has been clearly demonstrated throughout herstory.

Parental alienation is harmful

There is a large flock of parental alienation syndrome cult members that have temporarily migrated to Canada for their symposium (CSPAS). Many of these members have dubious, even criminal, backgrounds. Some of these members are unlicensed, some have been disciplined for ethical violations, and some are currently under investigation. Many of them purport to be the leaders (as in ring-leaders) in their field--a field in which their "research" cites their own "research" and/or the "research" of their comrades. Most of this "research" is based on the self-published theories of the cult leader, Richard A. Gardner. And this "research" evolves whichever way the politico-legal wind blows, whichever way the money flows.

Parental alienation syndrome "experts" claim that one parent is brainwashing the child against the other parent...as if all children are so impressionable that they have no independent thought. They frame it as the worse form of child abuse imaginable.

I don't know about you, but I think sex with children is much worse. And it was child sex abuse allegations that spurred the creation of this parental alienation syndrome, by Dr. Richard Gardner.

Dr. Gardner simultaneously viewed most child abuse reports as fictitious, and as real. He was a member of the False Memory Syndrome Society and created a Sexual Abuse Legitimacy Scale that was ridiculed by the science community. Additionally, he held non-traditional, borderline pro-pedophilia views on sex with children (see Richard A. Gardner: In His Own Words).

Coincidentally, similar views have been espoused by other parental alienation theorists such as Warren Farrell and Ralph Underwager (both men have held major positions in fathers’ organizations funded by the U.S. government). And yet supporters are constantly denying the implications and attempting to leave this history behind.

Why should we separate the origin of a theory from the theory itself? Wouldn’t we, as scientists and as consumers, be ignorant in doing so?

Dr. Gardner specified that if genuine abuse is present, parental alienation claims are invalidated. However, how can domestic and sexual violence be detected if the parental alienation players do not have dual expertise in family violence ?

Parental alienation "experts" are not called into the case as neutral experts to assess violence, they are called by one party in the case to testify in their favor--against the other parent. This is what a hired-gun is. Even "normal" child custody evaluators, appointed by the court, are suspect. They are known to come in with preconceived notions against one parent, to fail to interview all parties in person, and to disregard conflicting evidence. Judges utilize the same evaluators across family court cases and these evaluators apply the same diagnosis across a myriad of complex situations.

And where does this leave the child?

Consider this: You have a child, upset about his parents' divorce, lives with his mother, and is otherwise well-adjusted. Father wants custody. Child is stable, happy, and expresses no desire in custody change.

Do we force the child into changed custody? Are we as outsiders really the authority on telling this child that he must have a relationship with his father? If so, why?

Are children autonomous beings? Do children really have rights?

Consider this: Mother and child have been physically abused by father. Mother retains custody, maintains an environment that promotes honesty and healing, naturally invoking feelings of anger regarding family history. Father seeks a change in custody charging parental alienation. Mother and child become hostile, fueling the accusations. Change of custody is ordered and child is forced to undergo therapy with his abuser. Child is isolated from the parent with whom the original bond existed.

“Casualties of a Custody War”, Pittsburg Post Gazette.

‘While Gardner did not recommend transferring custody of the boys to Grieco at that point, he did recommend something he called ‘threat therapy.’

‘These children need coercion” to see their father, he said. If they are forced to visit him, they ‘then will most likely relax with their father.’

And the penalty for not complying, he said, should be court-enforced sanctions against the mother…. Nathan Grieco, 16, of North Huntingdon was found dead in his bedroom, a belt around his neck. His death came after years of custody disputes between his mother, Karen Scott, and his father, Louis Grieco.”

Psychology is faddish and often promotes harmful experimental therapies (not unlike the science community). Parental alienation theorists are performing a social experimentation, similar to the horrendous “rebirthing therapy” in which children were forced to undergo “treatment” in order to bond with their adoptive parents.

Stop casualties of pop therapy
Detroit News/May 2, 2001
By Martha A. Churchill

But the really chilling thing about the "rebirthing" casualty is the pop psychology, fad-of-the-day culture among many therapists, including some in Michigan. Unproven, dangerous practices spread around a national grapevine of irresponsible mental health practitioners. Certain ones latch on to a particular idea, like converts to a new religion, and won't let the facts get in the way of their beliefs.

Michigan has plenty of crusading therapists, using treatment methods just as questionable as rebirthing. Rather than testing their ideas in double-blind studies, these therapists throw around buzz words, especially "healing," "faith" and "spirituality."

Psychotherapists are not required to use only scientifically proven methods, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, or medications. The responsible ones choose treatments that withstand scientific scrutiny; others use whatever fad happens along.

Junk treatments are easy to spot. You hear testimonials from grateful patients who say breathlessly "My therapist saved my life!" Soon, someone is making a buck teaching the latest psycho fad. Therapists without scientific training assume that if a treatment method is taught at a seminar, it must be valid.

Some patients end up sicker on account of their therapy, but won't complain because they "believe in" the treatment.

The aforementioned article can be specifically applied to parental alienation syndrome.

How is this family therapy? How is this beneficial to the child? [It has been noted that these therapies are geared to benefiting the [target] parent, rather than the child.]

The answer is that it is truly beneficial to the parent with the large ego. The parent who knows that he can control and manipulate the family with the use of the legal system...because any other parent would make amicable negotiations. For an abuser, the court system is a kingdom in which he can reclaim his throne.

We are talking about divorce--an unpleasant situation, in general. And then we are talking about “high conflict” divorces, a term that is a mask for divorces involving a history of family violence. And on top of that, we are talking about scenarios that are a natural occurrence. People are mad, people are dealing with their pain, grief, and anger. PAS theory is trying to pathologicize normal behaviors and base things off of another's dislike of the other’s coping mechanisms. Or, it represents the abuser’s refusal to accept his own behavior as contributory to that of the others.

Science is supposed to cure pathological conditions. In psychology, there are no cures because everything is subjective. The reason that PAS theorists can claim that PAS is an epidemic, is that they are classifying normal behaviors. For example:

If I told you that 80% of people at funerals cry, does this mean that:

1. Crying is an unhealthy behavior
2. Crying is an epidemic.

Just because I am upset that people are crying and I am not, does that give me a right to call them not normal. And furthermore, outside of funerals, are people not crying?

Which this leads me to another point: PAS claims to be experienced in a select population. But can it not exist in intact families?

If the answer to this is yes, then what makes PAS so unique that it deserves treatment centers, awareness days, and government funding?

In an intact relationship, does a child not have a preference for one parent over another? Does a child not get angry with a parent and attempt to resolve that anger in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, ceasing communication with that parent? Does this child not go to school and tell their friends about the incident, perhaps ridiculing the parent and building resentment in others? Does animosity not build within the household especially as the child ages and especially if the marital relationship is dysfunctional?

Now add the dynamics of abuse into the equation.

Why doesn't anyone ever ask what dysfunction existed in the household when the relationship was intact? Why doesn’t anyone ever ask who the primary caregiver was in the intact household? The answer is constantly omitted.

If children need stability and security in order to have healthy development, why must we interfere with this in order to appease angry parents? Is all of this nonsense not out of concern for the best interest of the children?

We are destroying children's coping mechanisms, natural defenses, and the use of boundaries by this parental alienation experimentation. There are no long term studies on the results of reunification therapy, deprogramming, or forced psychotherapy. If children are so resilient, why not ask them what they want and allow them to resolve their issues on their own?

According to PAS cult members, the child must exhibit certain "symptoms" in order for him to be labeled as alienated. But are they really labeling the child, or the protective parent? In the end, both are punished. So let's call parental alienation syndrome what is really is-- a legal tactic, enmeshed in politics, ignoring intricate familial patterns, and shifting the focus to support our victim-blaming culture.

What professionals need to know about parental alienation syndrome

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know
Part 1 of 2

By Erika Rivera Ragland & Hope Fields

Introduction

The late Dr. Richard Gardner, a clinical professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, coined Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) in 1985, after noticing a “disorder” among patients within his private practice. The “disorder” involves one parent alienating the child against the other parent typically in the context of a child-custody dispute. Dr. Gardner defined PAS as follows:

[t]he parental alienation syndrome is a childhood disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. When true parental abuse and/or neglect is present, the child’s animosity may be justified and so the parental alienation syndrome explanation for the child’s hostility is not applicable.

Absent from this definition is specific reference to sexual abuse allegations, but these are often the “denigration” to which Dr. Gardner referred in his definition. In this context, PAS becomes a litigation tool for the accused parent to discredit the validity of the child’s sex abuse allegations by mounting an attack against the “inducing parent.”

Although PAS may be hailed as a “syndrome” (a group of symptoms that occur together and constitute a recognizable abnormality), in fact it is the product of anecdotal evidence gathered from Dr. Gardner’s own practice. The purpose of this article is to briefly discuss the major premises upon which PAS is based, and to identify key weaknesses. Part 2 of this Update considers case law and strategies for meeting PAS defenses.

PAS is based primarily upon two notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical research.

1. PAS Presupposes a High Rate of False Accusations in Custody Cases

The theory of PAS is based in part on the notion that, within custody disputes, there is a high incidence of false abuse allegations. Dr. Gardner theorized that allegations arising within the context of a custody dispute have a “high likelihood of being false,”5 and went so far as to state that he believed “the vast majority of allegations in this category [divorce cases with custody disputes] are false.” To the contrary, the available research suggests that false allegation rates are not significantly high. For example, a 1990 study by Thoennes and Tjaden evaluated 9,000 divorces in 12 states and found that sexual abuse allegations were made in less than 2 percent of the contested divorces involving child custody. Within this group, it appears false allegations occurred in approximately 5% to 8% of cases. This study is one of the most comprehensive and least subject to bias and sampling problems, since its sample is so large and representative of the population of those divorcing with custody and visitation disputes.

2. PAS Presumes a Disadvantage to Women in Child Custody Determinations

Another underlying principle of PAS is that women more often than men resort to making false allegations of abuse in disputed custody proceedings. The theory is that mothers encourage false accusations in order to obtain financial or strategic advantage during custody determinations. The reasoning behind this theory seems to be that, in most jurisdictions, custody determination standards have changed from the “tender years” presumption—a standard which favored women obtaining custody of young children—to the “best interests of the child.”

This hypothesis ignores the fact that most sex offenders are indeed men. It also fails to account for the possibility that the divorce process might liberate an abused child from the heavy burden associated with keeping a secret like sexual abuse, or that post-divorce living conditions or circumstances might render a child vulnerable to sexual abuse.

Although the tender year’s presumption which favored women is largely gone, women are not disadvantaged under the new standard. The “best interests” standard removes gender presumptions altogether from custody determinations. It should be noted that some legal scholars suspect a gender bias within PAS theory itself.

Other Weaknesses: Lack of Peer Review and Recognition by DSM-IV

Dr. Gardner mostly self-published and thus did not generally subject his theory to the peer review process. Moreover, PAS is not recognized by any professional associations, including the American Psychiatric Association. PAS is also not included within the DSM-IV.

It is also worth noting that Dr. Gardner often expressed disdain for child abuse professionals, labeling them “validators,” theorizing that greed and desire for increased business prompted some sexual abuse allegations, and speculating that parents and professionals alike made some false allegations because “all of us have some pedophilia within us.”

Conclusion

At best, PAS is a nondiagnostic “syndrome” that only explains the behavior of the child and the mother when there is a known false allegation. It is a courtroom diagnosis befitting adversaries involved in legal sparring. It is not capable of lending itself to hard data or inclusion in the forthcoming DSM-V.

In short, PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law.

Prosecutors and other child abuse professionals should educate themselves, their colleagues and clients when confronting PAS in the legal realm. Part 2 of this newsletter will address the case law on this subject. For more in-depth and comprehensive treatment of these issues, contact the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.

Why are mothers alienating kids from their fathers?

If you're seeking a psychological theory, you may be better off asking Sylvia Browne (better yet, try this one) or your local astrologist. Psychology is NOT a science...it only has "ideas" about things. Richard Gardner, pro-pedophilic founder of parental alienation syndrome, wrote it best (emphasis mine):

"Psychodynamic psychiatry, to an even greater extent, psychoanalysis, is probably the most speculative of all the alleged scientific disciplines. In fact, it is reasonable to say that it is much more an art than a science. We spin off the most fantastic explanations for human behavior and often come to believe our own delusions.

Although the concept of scientific proof may be of importance in such fields as chemistry, physics, and biology, the concept is not as applicable in the field of psychology; especially with regard to issues being dealt with in such areas as child-custody disputes, and sex-abuse accusations." Id. at 12.

But going back to the root of your inquiry, ask yourself, why might you alienate your own child from someone else? A grandparent or other family member, a friend. Matter of fact, take out the word alienate, because it has too many connotations in this false PAS climate right now.

Why might you keep your own child, or loved one, away from someone else?

Come on, you can come up with something....

Maybe because of that person's behavior, or how that person makes you or your child feel...right????

No theory required.

Here is a helpful list of characteristics of "y" person that may cause "x" person (and their child) to not want to be around them:


Angry

Abusive

Violent

Coercive

Controlling

Threatening

Intimidating

Demanding

Domineering

Harassing

Stalking

Tyrannical

Oppressive

Forceful

Manipulative

Deceptive

Unethical

Un-empathetic (Lacks Empathy)

Entitled

Immature

Self-centered

Neglectful

Guilt inducing

Pushy

Intentionally tries to humiliate

Harsh, rigid and punitive parenting style

Outrage at child’s challenge of authority

May use force to reassert parental position

Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes

Vents rage, blames mother for “brainwashing” child and takes no responsibility

Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise

Inept and unempathic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits

Read it from an adult who's parent exhibited some of these characteristics during her youth: http://americanchildrenunderground.blogspot.com/2009/09/domestic-violence-by-proxy-clarity-on.html

See Also: Maternal Deprivation

Reasons why parental alienation has to go into the DSM V

The parental alienation [syndrome] theorists are fighting hard for its inclusion in the new Diagnostic and Statistic Manual for psychiatry. This makes sense because if it is then considered a valid disorder, the following things can happen:

1. "Treatment" at centers like the Rachel Foundation in Texas and Dr. Randy Rand's center in California can be covered by insurance. ("A week at the workshop costs about US$40,000.")

2. Medication can be prescribed to both the offending parent and the child and offered to the court as evidence of malignancy and parental deficiency.

3. "Research" can be funded for experimentation and "cures" for the expansion of the diagnosis.

Problems

Ethical violations are abundant in parental alienation treatment protocol and the "professionals" involved have questionable behaviors:

The Rachel Foundation has been under a lawsuit.

Dr. Randy Rand has complaints against his license. One more strike and he's out (like Dr. Michael Bone of Florida).

"Treatment" centers will spring up left and right:

Like many supervised visitation centers, they will be funded by government grant money.

Grant money for other programs, like fatherhood programs, comes from your tax dollars, and has little-to-no oversight and NO proven efficacy.

Further money will be poured into "research" for "cures" which will fund the same people pushing the theory.

There are no conclusive tests to determine if a child is suffering from parental alienation. A parental alienation accusation can mask ANY other disorder or complaint, including domestic and sexual abuse. Parental alienation theorists are not trained in accurate domestic violence assessment and treatment (they are trained d.v. parity), leaving the accused parent to hire his/her own specialist to refute the claim.

So we are left to wonder, who really profits from the inclusion of parental alienation into the DSM?

Insurance companies
Big Pharma
Doctors and other licensed "professionals"
Universities


What about the children?

Do we need more children being forced into treatments? Being forced into certain treatment centers? Being forced onto psychotropic meds?

Which is the real parental alienation?

The controversial parental alienation [syndrome] is up for consideration in the new DSM. As psychology is not science, it is hard to determine anything concrete. Tests are based off of questionnaires that are subjective. Any objective notations are subject to the tester's own interpretation and bias. So, what is the method of discovery to be able to conclude that a child has been parentally alienated?

I have seen many cases in which any behavior in which the child has any dislike for the noncustodial parent, considered as parental alienation. I haven't seen any mothers win a parental alienation claim, only fathers. No, take that back, I have seen mothers with money win, but then the court did not enforce the order, or even retracted the order. I have heard of "experts" testifying on behalf of a parental alienation claim being made, without interviewing the custodial parent (Dr. Randy Rand)...without interviewing the child...without interviewing people in the child's life (Dr. Michael Bone)...only making an assessment and evaluation based on the word of the noncustodial parent.

So, which is the real PAS?

1) Child dislikes non-custodial parent (NCP), with little or no psychological input or discouragement from custodial parent (opinion formed more or less independently)

Child could have always not liked the NCP. Child could have recently stopped liking the NCP. Child could have been building a dislike for the NCP that is becoming increasingly obvious. Custodial parent may acknowledge this dislike, but makes nothing of it/is indifferent...really doesn't give a shit.

2) Child dislikes non-custodial parent, with minor grumbling on part of custodial parent, but no active discouragement (opinion formed more or less independently, with little to no influence from custodial parent's negativity)

Child could have always not liked the NCP. Child could have recently stopped liking the NCP. Child could have been building a dislike for the NCP that is becoming increasingly obvious. Custodial parent is bothered by this, maybe in expressed agreement, but really doesn't give a shit.

3) Child dislikes non-custodial parent, despite custodial parent making great effort to be "positive"

Child could have always not liked the NCP. Child could have recently stopped liking the NCP. Child could have been building a dislike for the NCP that is becoming increasingly obvious. Custodial parent goes out of his/her way, expending much effort to turn everything negative into a positive, regarding the NCP. This may include reshaping the child's views in a way that could be considered "lying" to the child, just so that he/she can benefit from a relationship with the NCP.

4) Child dislikes non-custodial parent, and custodial parent is highly negative too because of extensive history of abuse directed towards custodial parent (tries to restrict contact out of need to protect child from further trauma and abuse)

Child could have always not liked the NCP. Child could have recently stopped liking the NCP. Child could have been building a dislike for the NCP that is becoming increasingly obvious. Custodial parent shares in the dislike of the NCP for valid reasons and thus parent and child prevent a relationship from continuing or forming with the NCP.

5) Child dislikes non-custodial parent, because custodial parent is highly manipulative, negative and the abuser in the household (cuts off contact out of spite, personal control needs, desire to punish other person for leaving)

Child could have always not liked the NCP. Child could have recently stopped liking the NCP. Child could have been building a dislike for the NCP that is becoming increasingly obvious. NCP is an authoritarian, a disciplinarian, frigid, anal retentive, and otherwise unpleasant to be around.

6) Child is neutral towards non-custodial parent, despite minor grumbling on the part of custodial parent and/or active discouragement (child not alienated, despite negative opinion of custodial parent)

Child has no opinion of NCP. Take it, or leave it relationship, which typically, the child will "take it" when it is obvious that the child will benefit ($$$$) at a specific time. Custodial parent is notably bothered and may hinder a relationship from forming because there is an irregular, disruptive pattern that he/she considers maladaptive.

7) Child is positive towards non-custodial parent, despite minor grumbling on part of custodial parent and/or active discouragement.

Child could have always liked the NCP. Child could have recently begun liking the NCP. Child could have been building likeness for the NCP that is becoming increasingly obvious. Child only says great things about NCP and expresses great desire for beginning or continuing a relationship. Custodial parent is bothered by it, possibly interfering with the relationship by creating obstacles or reframing the child's view.

8) For his/her own protection, child echoes the negative attitude of (abusive) custodial parent, but doesn't really believe it.

Child completely emulates the maladaptive behavior of the custodial parent. This may have been building. This may be recent. But the behavior is only active in the presence of the custodial parent. Child may tell others that his/her real feelings do not reflect the viewed behaviors.


So, which is is gonna be?



Thanks silverside.