Victim of the Scam

Another Parental Alienation Syndrome Article Bites the Dust: Mom Logic Takes Down it’s Shameful Post

In Dr. Richard Gardner, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Disorder, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome on February 13, 2010 at 7:21 pm

They just weren’t posting an honest story about parental alienation.  Written by Dr. Michelle Golland, a clinical psychologist in California, it actually sounded more like an advertisement to drum up business.  Parents who have lost their children to abusers came to the article to tell their story, and to inform this psychologist that claims of so-called parental alienation syndrome was all it took.  Some of these psychologists just don’t get it.  From the article “Parental Alienation, Divorce & Mental Illness” (now gone):

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.

These mental health professionals do not have any training in domestic violence situations.  The professionals that do know have debunked so-called parental alienation syndrome, such as the American Judges Association, the National District Attorney’s Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, who have warned judges about parental alienation syndrome:

2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department

Page 12:

C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34

Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38

The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.

The American Medical Association and American Psychological Association do not recognize it, but plenty of abusers, crooked father’s rights lawyers, book sellers, professors trying to get tenure by whoring for research dollars, and those who sell their paid-for expert testimony do.  Nothing is worse than when a parent loses their children to their abuser, because short of actually killing them, they know nothing will hurt them worse.  We are tired of the Whores of the Court making a living taking children and giving them to abusers for a price.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: