I finally found the text of what Dr. William Bernet submitted for consideration for inclusion in the DSM-V, the diagnostic bible used by ethical psychologists/psychiatrists and Court Whores alike. Dr. Bernet and some of the magical “50 professionals” (who all make a significant portion of their income promoting this) were recently at the Denver AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – the father’s rights-leaning association for judges and court whores) conference and engaged in debate with Dr. Peter Jaffe and others about the so-called “parental alienation disorder.” The text below came from that conference.
As one with multiple scientific degrees, I was very interested in seeing the proposal. I found it to be more of a sales pitch instead of one scientifically driven. What I found most laughable was on the diagnostic criteria it included “independent thinker phenomenon.” Yes, it ACTUALLY says this towards the end. How far out can these court whores reach to bizarro world? What is scary is that if the DSM-V committee buys this drivel, the court whores and lawyers will be unleashed to destroy children and their families.
Richard (Bill) Warshak Diagnoses Parental Alienation Syndrome Like This
And Warshack isn't the only one who does this.
But as parental alienation is a magical syndrome/disorder, anything is accepted. Just tell your paid parental alienation professional that your child has been "turned against you," or "brainwashed, "and that is all the evidence he or she needs; however, there must be a divorce or visitation/custody proceeding underway (even though I have also read that parental alienation occurs in intact families, and many other situations)
For which other scientific diagnoses will this work? Let's be the professional and see if we also have magical skills. Let's try this:
parental alien, no, actually schizophrenia.
What? I'm wrong? That's not what my research has told me!!
Isn't this ridiculous?
The thing about it is, for hard science (some would call it real science), a method is followed from which, conclusions are derived after it has been tried and tested. With psychology (some would NOT call it a science) it is different. No machines are used...there are no lab values...it is based upon subjective evidence which is then interpreted by another party (the professional) who fills in the gaps with his/her own "objective" information. This objective information is based on the professional's own experience and research, subject to his/her biases and that of his/her peers that he/she surrounds him/herself with. No double-blinds studies, no valid replication. It is whatever he/she says it is.
In a typical situation, this case with Richard Warshak went like this as reported in this article in the Law Times:
(emphasis mine)
Parents teach children how to stay out of adult conflict. However, when that "adult conflict" involves the child (protecting the child, believing the child, validating the child), how can the child stay out of it? Why should children "maintain a compassionate view toward each parent"? Because it is their parent? Are there situations in which this is unjustified.
What this reminds me of is the sexual abuse accommodation that Dr. Richard Gardner (father of parental alienation syndrome) spoke of/wrote about/testified for, and it makes me sick to my stomach:
(emphasis mine)
Now we must question, who is really doing the abusing?
But as parental alienation is a magical syndrome/disorder, anything is accepted. Just tell your paid parental alienation professional that your child has been "turned against you," or "brainwashed, "and that is all the evidence he or she needs; however, there must be a divorce or visitation/custody proceeding underway (even though I have also read that parental alienation occurs in intact families, and many other situations)
For which other scientific diagnoses will this work? Let's be the professional and see if we also have magical skills. Let's try this:
Does your child have a fever, cough, runny or stuff nose, body aches, chills, fatigue, diarrhea or vomiting?If you answered yes, then your child has H1N1.
Does your child have a fever, headache, sore throat, swollen lymph glands and/or a rash?If you answered yes, then your child has AIDS.
Does your child display delusions (false beliefs strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence), disorganized behavior and speech, or affective flattening (seems to stare, doesn't maintain eye contact with you) around you?If you answered yes, then your child has
What? I'm wrong? That's not what my research has told me!!
Isn't this ridiculous?
The thing about it is, for hard science (some would call it real science), a method is followed from which, conclusions are derived after it has been tried and tested. With psychology (some would NOT call it a science) it is different. No machines are used...there are no lab values...it is based upon subjective evidence which is then interpreted by another party (the professional) who fills in the gaps with his/her own "objective" information. This objective information is based on the professional's own experience and research, subject to his/her biases and that of his/her peers that he/she surrounds him/herself with. No double-blinds studies, no valid replication. It is whatever he/she says it is.
In a typical situation, this case with Richard Warshak went like this as reported in this article in the Law Times:
(emphasis mine)
In S.G.B. v. S.J.L., the court set aside part of an award concluding that the workshop was in the best interest of the boys because the arbitrator relied too heavily on an assessment of them prepared by Richard Warshak, who admitted he hadn’t met them personally.How in the world can a conclusion be made without directly involving the subject (child[ren]) in question?
Yet the arbitrator ordered that the remedy was “necessary for the children in this case and completely consonant with their best interests.”And so how did the arbitrator derive at this conclusion? Did he ask the children about their own best interests (one of the children was 17 or 18 yrs old, one had a disability)? How does one prove that a certain relationship is in someone's best interest--especially if that person (the subject/child) is NOT interested?
Another issue arose prior to the hearing when the father asked the arbitrator to order an assessment to determine the appropriateness of the workshop for the children.Herein lies another problem and seeming conflict of interest (therapeutic jurisprudence): arbitrators with "experience" in multiple areas...like in the U.S. attorneys serving as Guardians Ad Litem, and attorneys with dual degrees (J.D. and LCSW or PsyD).
The arbitrator declined to do so, instead relying on his own experience as a custody and access assessor.
In addition, Herman said the arbitrator failed to consider the psychological impact the workshop would have on the younger boy. He suffered from Klinefelter syndrome, a genetic disorder that, among other things, caused a language delay.Did the arbitrator really "fail to consider" it? No. It just wasn't important, period. Nothing else is important when one is making a parental alienation claim.
...based on Warshak’s report that the children were suffering irrational alienation towards their mother, the arbitrator awarded sole custody of both children to her and ordered that they participate in the workshop to help to restore their ties with her.How is an "irrantional alienation" decided? What happens if children do not want relationships "restored"? Should they be forced into psychological treatment?
Logistically, this meant no contact with their father for the three months that the boys were in the program. Once the workshop concluded, communications could resume as long as those in charge authorized them.Treatment for parental alienation: alienation from the primary caretaking parent, and then, a third party dictating that relationship in the future. What kind of shit is that? Who is autonomous at this point? Who has any rights?
The order also allowed the mother to use transporting agents to take her children to the workshop in Texas if they were unwilling to go on their own volition.I tell ya, THIS will REALLY make your children love you!!!!
“The work of Dr. Warshak has been submitted for peer review so it’s not as controversial as the media hype may lead some to believe,” says Jaret Moldaver, counsel for the mother. “Dr. Warshak has successfully worked with children who have been alienated, and in cases where conventional approaches don’t work, it’s the only viable option to save the child from abuse.”Honest question here: Has it been submitted for peer review, or has it been peer reviewed (tried, tested and approved)? What constitutes "successfully worked"?--the word of the parent, or the child? And where are those long-term studies? What "abuse" has the child been saved from?
A larger issue, however, is that often these cases come down to a battle of costly expert evidence, says the father’s counsel, Jan Weir.And this is what it comes down to: Parental alienation professionals aren't providing evidence, they are providing opinion. And if the other party doesn't have the money to have a difference of opinion to testify, only this one opinion stands on the case. Justice bought.
“My concern is that in most of these cases, it appears that one parent has the financial means to retain high-end counsel and experts like Dr. Warshak, but the other parent seems to have modest means and never retains an expert, meaning that they can’t lead evidence against the findings or methodology of Dr. Warshak.”
A week at the workshop costs about US$40,000.$40K???? Understand the push for the inclusion in the new DSM. How is the campaign "unjustified"? Who decides what constitutes "unjustified"? How does one know if the parent is influencing the child? How can you know anything if you don't interview the child?
According to Warshak, parental alienation syndrome is “a child’s unjustified campaign of denigration against, or rejection of, one parent, due to the influence of the other parent combined with the child’s own contributions.”
It is recognized as a form of emotional abuse that happens when parents get so caught up in their own problems that they lose sight of their children’s needs.But who decides that the child has been neglected in the emotional department? What if, in spite of the "evidence," the child is faring well emotionally, physically, etc? Is "treatment" necessary? If the child is doing just fine how does someone step in an disrupt that child's equilibrium? What right do they have?
In an interview in 2008 with Maclean’s magazine, Warshak said the workshop “teaches children how to stay out of the middle of adult conflicts and how to maintain a compassionate view toward each parent” and that it helps the child “recapture a major part of his identity.
When the child no longer feels the need to pledge allegiance to one parent by rejecting the other, that’s enormously liberating.”
Parents teach children how to stay out of adult conflict. However, when that "adult conflict" involves the child (protecting the child, believing the child, validating the child), how can the child stay out of it? Why should children "maintain a compassionate view toward each parent"? Because it is their parent? Are there situations in which this is unjustified.
What this reminds me of is the sexual abuse accommodation that Dr. Richard Gardner (father of parental alienation syndrome) spoke of/wrote about/testified for, and it makes me sick to my stomach:
(emphasis mine)
“The child should be able to pity the father for the curse (in our society) of having pedophilic tendencies. In other times and other places, he would be considered normal.”
--RICHARD A. GARDNER, TRUE AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD SEX ABUSE 592 (1992).
Special care should be taken not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home “should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile.”
--Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 537)
The child should be told that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. “The sexual exploitation has to be put on the negative list, but positives as well must be appreciated”
--Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572)
Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who said, “Nothing’s either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”Furthermore, how is a child's identity "recaptured" if the child is not a voluntary party to the treatment/therapy?...and also if the child's opinions are being reformulated based on some outsider's point of view? Seems like the child's identity could be getting compromised, invalidated, inundated.
--Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 59)
Now we must question, who is really doing the abusing?
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.
Think about it. How many times do parental alienation evaluators come into a child custody case and say,
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
- Crying is an unhealthy behavior
- Crying is an epidemic.
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:
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.
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):
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
"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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
