There’s Nothing Friendly About Abuse

Children are at risk when custody cases rely on a meritless theory of parental “alienation”

by R. Dianne Bartlow

It’s a statistic so unbelievable that it’s difficult to wrap your head around: A research review by lawyer and domestic violence expert Joan Zorza found that in about half of the 100,000 contested child custody cases each year in the United States, custody goes to the father – even though at least one-third of these fathers reportedly committed domestic violence against the mother or the child.  In fact, women are actually more likely to win custody if they do not allege abuse.

The force behind these rulings are the innocuous-sounding “friendly parent” statutes on the books in at least 32 states, which mandate that courts, in deciding custody, consider how willing each parent is to facilitate a “close and continuing” relationship between the child and the other parent.  This is one factor in determining what custody arrangements are “in the best interests of the child.”

“Friendly parent” statutes are a dressed-down form of a theory called Parental Alienation Syndrome.  PAS theorizes that most accusations of child abuse (especially sexual abuse) made during a custody battle are actually fraudulent.  Not only are the charges false, says the theory, but they are deliberately undertaken by one parent (in most cases, the mother) to “alienate” the child from the other parent (generally, the father).

Never mind that the American Psychological Association has said PAS has no valid merit, nor that PAS inventor Richard Gardner has also said that society “overreacts” to sexual abuse and that pedophilia is an honorable lifestyle choice.  PAS lives on in “friendly parent” statutes and in the testimony of many court-appointed evaluators and mental-health professionals.  Those who diagnose PAS often recommend that full custody go to the “alienated parent” (usually the biological father) and that unsupervised visitation with the “alienating parent” (usually the mother) be cut off.

Ultimately, these outmoded ideas maintain their grip because of a long-standing tradition of discrediting women’s concerns and believability in comparison to men’s, wrote Zorza in Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody (Civic Research Institute, 2010).  Their effect is to lend powerful leverage to abusers.

“Severely abusive fathers may deliberately escalate their abuse to force the woman to complain, flee, or bargain away valuable marital assets, alimony or child support.  They then retaliate by filing for custody, knowing they will likely be able to deprive the mothers of the children,” writes Zorza.  “Other abusive fathers use the “friendly parent” concept to force the mother to pay them child support and to deprive her of any visitation.”

The consequences can be dire.  According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, a court advocacy organization, an estimated 75 children nationwide were murdered between June 2009 and April 2010 by abusive fathers who won custody battles.

Currently, about half of the states in the U.S. have laws requiring courts to consider domestic violence on an equal basis with factors such as “friendly parent” statutes when making custody determinations.  But family courts have wide discretion in how heavily to weigh domestic violence.  The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the American Bar Association recommend that abuse be given more consideration than other factors in custody cases – and that courts withhold sole or joint custody from anyone with a history of domestic violence.

It’s high time for parents and the public to know what’s going on in these situations, says Barry Goldstein, co-editor of Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: “I believe that if the public was aware of the frequency in which courts make fundamental mistakes and send children to live with abusers, the practice would quickly end because it would not be tolerated.”

R.Dianne Bartlow, PH.D., is associate professor of gender and women’s studies at California State University, Northridge.

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.

This proposal barely mentions that children may be come afraid of a parent because of the actions of that parent.  This includes seeing a parent abuse and beat the other parent, or maybe the child themselves.  The child may be sexually abused by a parent, therefore may not want to be alone with that parent.  Research has shown that the number one reason children refuse to visit a parent is because of the behavior of that parent.

The DSM-V has not been adopted at this point, nor is there any agreement that the following diagnosis should be added.

Proposed Text for Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM-V

DIAGNOSTIC FEATURES

The essential feature of parental alienation disorder is that a child – usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict divorce – allies himself or herself strongly with one parent (the preferred parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate justification. The primary behavioral symptom is the child’s resistance or refusal to have contact with the alienated parent (Criterion A).

The behaviors in the child that characterize parental alienation disorder include a persistent campaign of denigration against the alienated parent and weak, frivolous, and absurd rationalizations for the child’s criticism of the alienated parent (Criterion B).

The following clinical features frequently occur in parental alienation disorder, especially when the child’s symptoms reach a level that is moderate or severe (Criterion C). Lack of ambivalence refers to the child’s belief that the alienated parent is all bad and the preferred parent is all good. The independent-thinker phenomenon means that the child proudly states the decision to reject the alienated parent is his own, not influenced by the preferred parent. Reflexive support of the preferred parent against the alienated parent refers to the pattern of the child’s immediately and automatically taking the preferred parent’s side in a disagreement. The child may exhibit a disregard for the feelings of the alienated parent and an absence of guilt over exploitation of the alienated parent. The child may manifest borrowed scenarios, that is, rehearsed statements that are identical to those made by the preferred parent. Also, the child’s animosity toward the alienated parent may spread to that parent’s extended family.

The diagnosis of parental alienation disorder should not be used if the child’s refusal to have contact with the rejected parent is justifiable, for example, if the child was neglected or abused by that parent (Criterion D).

ASSOCIATED FEATURES

Parental alienation disorder may be mild, moderate, or severe. When the parental alienation disorder is mild, the child may briefly resist contact with the alienated parent, but does have contact and enjoys a good relationship with the alienated parent once they are together.

When the parental alienation disorder is mild, the child may have a strong, healthy relationship with both parents, even though the child recites criticisms of the alienated parent.

When the parental alienation disorder is moderate, the child may persistently resist

contact with the alienated parent and will continue to complain and criticize the alienated parent during the contact. The child is likely to have a mildly to moderately pathological relationship with the preferred parent.

When the parental alienation disorder is severe, the child strongly and persistently resists contact and may hide or run away to avoid seeing the alienated parent. The child’s behavior is driven by a firmly held, false belief that the alienated parent is evil, dangerous, or worthless.  The child is likely to have a strong, severely pathological relationship with the preferred parent, perhaps sharing a paranoid worldview.

While the diagnosis of parental alienation disorder refers to the child, the preferred parent and other persons the child is dependent on may manifest the following attitudes and behaviors, which frequently are the major cause of the disorder: persistent criticisms of the rejected parent’s personal qualities and parenting activities; statements that influence the child to fear, dislike, and criticize the alienated parent; and various maneuvers to exclude the rejected parent from the child’s life. The behavior of the preferred parent may include complaints to the police and child protection agencies with allegations about the rejected parent.

Parental alienation disorder may be the basis for false allegations of sexual abuse against the alienated parent. The preferred parent may be litigious to the point of abusing the legal system. The preferred parent may violate court orders that are not to his or her liking. Specific psychological problems – narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, traumatic childhood experiences, and paranoid traits – may be identified in these individuals.  Also, the rejected parent may manifest the following attitudes and behaviors, which may be a minor or contributory cause of the disorder: lack of warm, involved parenting; deficient parenting skills; and lack of time dedicated to parenting activities. However, the intensity and duration of the child’s refusal to have contact with the rejected parent is far out of proportion to the relatively minor weaknesses in the rejected parent’s parenting skills.

Although parental alienation disorder most often arises in the context of a child custody dispute between two parents, it can arise in other types of conflicts over child custody, such as a dispute between a parent and stepparent or between a parent and a grandparent. Sometimes, other family members – such as stepparents or grandparents – contribute to the creation of parental alienation disorder. On occasion, other individuals – such as therapists and child protection workers – contribute to the creation of parental alienation disorder by encouraging or supporting the child’s refusal to have contact with the alienated parent. Also, parental alienation disorder does not necessarily appear in the context of divorce litigation, but may occur in intact families or years following the divorce.

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

It is common for children to resist or avoid contact with the noncustodial parent after the parents separate or divorce. There are several possible explanations for a child’s active rejection of contact. Parental alienation disorder is an important, but not the only, reason that children refuse contact.

In the course of normal development children will become polarized with one parent and then the other depending on the child’s developmental stage and events in the child’s life. When parents disagree, it is normal for children to experience loyalty conflicts. These transitory variationsin a child’s relationship with his or her parents do not meet criteria for parental alienation disorder because they do not constitute “a persistent rejection or denigration of a parent that reaches the level of a campaign.”

If the child actually was abused, neglected, or disliked by the noncustodial parent or the current boyfriend or girlfriend of that parent, the child’s animosity may be justified and it is understandable that the child would not want to visit the rejected parent’s household. If abuse were the reason for the child’s refusal, the diagnosis would be physical abuse of child or sexual abuse of child, not parental alienation disorder. This is important to keep in mind because an abusive, rejected parent may misuse the concept of parental alienation disorder in order to falsely blame the child’s refusal of contact on the parent that the child prefers. In shared psychotic disorder, a delusional parent may influence a child to believe that the other parent is an evil person who must be feared and avoided. In parental alienation disorder, the alienating parent may have very strong opinions about the alienated parent, but is not usually considered out of touch with reality.

When parents separate or divorce, a child with separation anxiety disorder may become even more worried and anxious about being away from the primary caretaker. In separation anxiety disorder, the child is preoccupied with unrealistic fears that something will happen to the primary caretaker, while the child with parental alienation disorder is preoccupied with unrealistic beliefs that the alienated parent is dangerous.

It is conceivable that a child with specific phobia, situational type, might have an unreasonable fear of a parent or some aspect of the parent’s household. A child with a specific phobia is unlikely to engage in a persistent campaign of denigration against the feared object, while the campaign of denigration is a central feature of parental alienation disorder.

When parents separate or divorce, a child with oppositional defiant disorder may become even more symptomatic – angry, resentful, stubborn – and not want to participate in the process of transitioning from one parent to the other. In oppositional defiant disorder, the child is likely to be oppositional with both parents in a variety of contexts, while the child with parental alienation disorder is likely to focus his or her negativism on the proposed contact with the alienated parent and also to engage in the campaign of denigration of that parent.

When parents separate or divorce, a child may develop an adjustment disorder as a reaction to the various stressors related to the divorce including discord between the parents, the loss of a relationship with a parent, and the disruption of moving to a new neighborhood and school. A child with an adjustment disorder may have a variety of nonspecific symptoms including depression, anxious mood, and disruptive behaviors, while the child with parental alienation disorder manifests a specific cluster of symptoms including the campaign of denigration and weak, frivolous rationalizations for the child’s persistent criticism of the alienated parent.

Parent-child relational problem (a V-code) is the appropriate diagnosis if the focus of clinical attention is on the relationship between a child and his or her divorced parents, but the symptoms do not meet the criteria for a mental disorder. For example, a rebellious adolescent may not have a specific mental disorder, but may temporarily refuse to have contact with one parent even though both parents have encouraged him to do so and a court has ordered it. On the other hand, parental alienation disorder should be the diagnosis if the child’s symptoms are persistent enough and severe enough to meet the criteria for that disorder.

DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR PARENTAL ALIENATION DISORDER

A. The child – usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict divorce – allies himself or herself strongly with one parent and rejects a relationship with the other, alienated parent without legitimate justification. The child resists or refuses contact or parenting time with the alienated parent.

B. The child manifests the following behaviors:

• a persistent rejection or denigration of a parent that reaches the level of a
• campaign
• weak, frivolous, and absurd rationalizations for the child’s persistent criticism of the rejected parent

C. The child manifests two or more of the following six attitudes and behaviors:

(1) lack of ambivalence

(2) independent-thinker phenomenon

(3) reflexive support of one parent against the other

(4) absence of guilt over exploitation of the rejected parent

(5) presence of borrowed scenarios

(6) spread of the animosity to the extended family of the rejected parent.

D. The duration of the disturbance is at least 2 months.

E. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social academic (occupational), or other important areas of functioning.

F. The child’s refusal to have contact with the rejected parent is without legitimate justification. That is, parental alienation disorder is not diagnosed if the rejected parent maltreated the child.

Controversial disorder at center of bitter custody cases

By Susan Taylor Martin, Times Senior Correspondent
In Print: Sunday, May 23, 2010

[Photo by ALYSSA CWANGER]

Stephanie Carr, center, sued the Hochs after her daughters Kylie, left, and Kelli were taken to Rachel House by their father. Kelli said they were not allowed to eat until they said nice things about him.

HARPER, Texas — Deep in the Texas Hill Country, off a rutted road with a sign that says “Deer Processing,” sits a three-bedroom mobile home.

This is the Rachel House, run by Pamela and Bob Hoch. Dozens of kids from all over the nation have been brought here for days, even weeks with the goal of making them like a parent they fear or despise.

“The children are expecting an institution, not this,” says Pamela Hoch, gazing out over the 5-acre spread an hour-and-a-half from San Antonio and 22 miles from the nearest bus stop, pay phone or sheriff’s office. It is a hard place to find — and a hard place to run away from.

At 2,400 square feet, the Rachel House is big enough that a child and estranged parent can have separate bedrooms, yet small enough that they have little choice but to spend time together watching TV, eating meals and, presumably, talking.

The idea is that the child will eventually realize the parent isn’t so bad.

Though the Hochs say they have successfully reconciled many kids and parents, it is impossible to verify their claims because the Rachel House is not regulated by any state or federal agency. And its approach is rooted in the controversial notion that the kids they see have a mental disorder: parental alienation syndrome.

The term was coined in 1985 by New York psychiatrist Richard Gardner. He described it as a disorder that causes a child to vilify a parent without reason. It often arises, he said, in bitter custody cases in which one parent brainwashes a child against the other parent by making false accusations of sexual abuse.

Proponents of the theory are pushing to have PAS included in the 2012 edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the “bible” of the psychiatric field. So common is parental alienation, they say, that it could afflict 1 percent of American children. That means 750,000 children could potentially be deemed to have a mental disorder — more than are considered autistic.

“We don’t want to label kids unnecessarily, but these kids are not reacting in a normal way,” says William Bernet, a Vanderbilt University psychiatrist. “We’re talking about kids who have a false belief, a little like a delusion, that the other parent is an evil, dangerous person. To me that looks and sounds like a mental disorder.”

But PAS is fiercely rejected by many child advocates. They call it “junk science” and a tool used to help parents accused of sexual abuse — usually fathers — win custody of their kids.

PAS “is not geared toward helping the diagnosed individual, but assisting a third party — an estranged parent — with a legal or personal goal, and thus appears more to reflect a political agenda than a bona fide mental health disorder,” says psychologist Joyanna Silberg, executive vice president of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence.

Classifying PAS as a mental disorder could lead to higher health costs as providers rush to cash in on therapies not now covered by insurance. Among those that could benefit are providers like the Hochs.

The couple say that 93 percent of the kids they have dealt with show an improved relationship with a previously reviled parent. But some children who have gone through the program say they were threatened and cut off from the parent they loved.

“You can’t just open a facility with no accreditation, no oversight and say, ‘This is what we do,’ especially when you’re dealing with vulnerable children,” Silberg says.

Hero to fathers

The controversy over Rachel House and parental alienation syndrome is fanned by what many consider the outrageous ideas of the man who inspired both.

A onetime Columbia University professor, Richard Gardner thought society is too harsh on adults who have sex with kids.

“What I am against is the excessively moralistic and punitive reaction that many members of our society have toward pedophiles . . . far beyond what I consider the gravity of the crime,” he wrote in 1991.

Though he called pedophilia “a bad thing,” Gardner argued that it’s common in many cultures and that children might be less harmed by sex abuse than by the “trauma” of the legal process.

In the late ’80s and early ’90s, Gardner was widely quoted in counterpoint to what some felt were sensationalized allegations of sex abuse in day care centers. He was also a well-paid witness in custody cases, almost always appearing on behalf of the father.

Gardner contended that sex abuse allegations arising from divorce are usually false, made by a vindictive mother trying to cut off a child from the father. His typical advice: Kids should be forced to see the estranged parent, and judges should punish the “alienating” parent.

Those views made Gardner a hero to the fathers’ rights movement and an anathema to child advocacy groups.

“The premise that you can improve a relationship with a parent through force and coercion and isolation from the preferred parent is simply erroneous and unethical,” Silberg says.

In 1998, a Pittsburgh high school student, Nathan Grieco, was found dead with a belt around his neck after complaining that his father had caused him and his brothers “endless torment” in a custody fight. A judge, acting on Gardner’s recommendation, had threatened to jail the mother if the boys refused to see their father.

“These children need coercion,” Gardner had said.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette detailed the case in 2001 — the year Gardner testified in Tampa in a custody battle.

John M. Kilgore, a Brandon doctor, had accused his ex-wife of poisoning their two daughters against him to the point they refused to see him. The oldest had even changed her name.

Hillsborough Circuit Judge Ralph Stoddard allowed Gardner to interview all four family members, ruling that PAS had gained enough acceptance in the scientific community to be admissible as evidence.

But once Gardner got on the stand, his testimony was so biased in favor of the father against the daughters that the judge rejected it.

While interviewing the girls, Gardner “was really trying to get them to admit the facts were as their father saw them,” Stoddard said.

The Tampa case underscored what critics say is a major problem with classifying parental alienation as a mental disorder: It is hard to determine the cause of the alienation, who is to blame or even who has the alleged disorder.

In his ruling, Stoddard said both parents “were pretty much equally scoring out in their bad behavior.”

Few knew of the judge’s rebuke, and Gardner continued testifying in cases until 2003. At age 72, shortly after failing to appear in another Florida courtroom, he repeatedly stabbed himself with a steak knife.

“Let’s pray that his ridiculous, dangerous PAS foolishness died with him,” Richard Ducote, a New Orleans lawyer and child advocate, said at the time.

But the idea that a parent could brainwash a child to hate the other parent had its believers, including Pamela Hoch.

Biblical roots

A former music teacher, Hoch, 58, says she herself was an alienated parent whose first husband turned their four children against her by falsely claiming she belonged to a religious cult. A judge agreed that the father had “deliberately poisoned” the children’s minds, and in 1991 gave Hoch custody of the two youngest kids. (The others were deemed too old to be successfully reunited with her.)

The case drew heavy media attention and led to Hoch and Gardner meeting as guests on a TV program. Partly on his recommendation, she became executive director of a foundation that spread information on parental alienation syndrome.

But Hoch says she didn’t want to talk about alienation; she wanted to find a “solution.”

In 2000, she and her new husband, Robert Hoch, started their own nonprofit organization with $50,000 from the U.S. Justice Department. The Rachel Foundation gets its name from a Bible verse in which Rachel weeps for her descendants’ exile.

“Your children will return,” the Lord tells her.

Parents who go through the program must have legal custody of their kids, though Pamela Hoch acknowledges that most parents they deal with “have been accused of something.” The Hochs don’t do any checking but rely on the courts to ensure that sex abuse allegations “have been clearly investigated and negated,” she says. Referrals come from various sources, including court orders and websites.

At first, the Hochs operated out of a church parsonage in Maryland. One of their early “reunifications” involved a 14-year-old boy who had been on the run with his mother for nearly a decade after she accused her ex-husband of molesting him. (He was not charged.)

In 2000, the FBI arrested the mother for child abduction. Father and son spent weeks in a hotel suite. Each had his own room, separated by a room with a couch where Pamela Hoch slept.

“In the daytime, we would play games designed to help us learn about each other,” the son, now 23, said in a statement to the St. Petersburg Times. “For example: Write 10 things you like about your father so far . . . Things you don’t like . . . Finding positive memories we had of each other.”

A 2002 Readers’ Digest story suggested the reunification had been a success: Rather than run errands with Hoch one day, the son went shopping with his dad.

But the son says his experience with the Rachel Foundation was traumatic.

“I was well aware of parental alienation syndrome already, but I had to hear about it probably every day I was with the Rachel Foundation. Pam would tell me how my mother was disturbed, manipulative and selfish, had deprived me of a life with my father, who would tell me of the life I might have had with him.

“The Rachel Foundation is a scary organization. It’s taken every day of my life since to put myself back together in a way I see fit.”

Treatment disputed

The Hochs say they decided to leave Maryland in 2004 because the church didn’t renew their lease. Records show the couple owed $2,546 in Maryland state income taxes.

They weren’t in Texas long before a controversy erupted.

A New Jersey man who claimed his ex-wife was a “parental alienator” won custody of his two daughters in a 2004 court order and took them to the Rachel House.

At first, “they were very withdrawn and alienated toward their father,” Pamela Hoch says.

A month later, they were doing “very well,” she says, and even baked him a birthday cake. But the girls gave a different view when they testified last year on behalf of a Georgia woman fighting to keep her own daughter from being sent to Texas.

The Hochs “told us that if we didn’t obey our dad and if we didn’t agree to act happy with him that we would never see our mom again,” testified Kelli Carr, now 17.

She said she and her sister weren’t allowed to eat until they agreed to say positive things about their father.

“How many days did you go without being fed?” the judge asked.

“Just the first two days, because then my sister and I just started . . . making things up.”

Pamela Hoch calls the claims “ridiculous.” The girls’ mother, Stephanie Carr, sued the Hochs in 2005, but a judge recently dismissed the case for lack of prosecution. Carr’s lawyers said she let it lapse because she had regained primary custody of her daughters and was short of money.

Soon after Carr sued, the Hochs declared bankruptcy. Their Chapter 7 petition made no reference to the Rachel Foundation. It showed Robert Hoch as “retired” and Pamela as the $1,833-a-month music director of a local church.

The couple say they didn’t list the foundation because they didn’t draw a salary.

“We spend a lot of our own money,” Robert Hoch says.

Questionable ties

On its most recent 990 form, which nonprofits annually file with the IRS, the Rachel Foundation claims an impressive track record:

“Since 2000, reintegration services have been provided to over 1,000 families, 450 legal and mental health professionals and 241 organizations and agencies.”

The Hochs say that 44 parents and 59 children have attended “intense” programs, either at the Rachel House or in other residential settings. The parent who accompanies the child is responsible for costs that include $75 per person a day in room and board and up to $1,500 a day for “professional reunification/reintegration services.”

Verifying the foundation’s claims, like its 93 percent success rate, is stymied by the absence of any regulation. That is a huge problem, critics charge, especially as the Hochs consider expanding the Rachel House concept nationwide.

“I’m just blown away by the lack of information,” says Andrew Vachss, a New York lawyer who represents only children, not parents. “I can’t imagine a judge approving of a child going any place that isn’t monitored.”

Others are concerned that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, largely funded by U.S. taxpayers, has referred cases to the unregulated foundation and its controversial programs.

”It’s a very dubious association,” say Eileen King, regional director of the advocacy group Justice for Children.

The Rachel Foundation’s website says it gets referrals from the children’s center. But the center says it has referred no families there since the Hochs started charging for their services in 2004.

The foundation falls through licensing cracks because it is not a hospital, group home or mental health facility — all of which are regulated by Texas. Professionals connected with the Rachel Foundation are licensed, but several have run afoul of regulators.

The former clinical director, California psychologist Randy Rand, is on five years’ administrative probation for “unprofessional conduct” in child custody cases in Orlando and California.

A former member of the foundation’s advisory board, J. Michael Bone of Orlando, lost his Florida mental health counselor’s license in 2007 for failing to act in the child’s best interest in a custody case.

A Texas psychologist who has worked with the Rachel Foundation was put on probation for failing to disclose a DUI arrest and submitting a custody report with “numerous inaccuracies.”

And a California psychologist who has been to the Rachel House several times to help the Hochs does not have permission to practice in Texas, state regulators say.

Does it even exist?

Criticism of the Rachel Foundation reflects a broader concern — there is little solid research to determine if parental alienation syndrome really exists.

PAS is “highly controversial, and part of the reason for it being controversial is that there is no accepted definition or criteria for having the disorder,” says Mitchell Kroungold, a Clearwater psychologist.

He notes that there can be valid reasons that a child refuses visitation with a parent — “separation anxiety,” which often occurs with young children; or the preference a child feels for the parent who shares similar interests such as horseback riding or camping.

Kroungold, who has evaluated dozens of troubled families, says it would be unprecedented for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual to include parental alienation as a mental disorder.

“All of the diagnoses in this manual are disorders that exist within an individual. My understanding is that when parental alienation is occurring, it’s a family dynamic. It’s describing the nature of communication and dysfunction in a family, and I think that’s a major distinction as to why it’s not in the manual.”

The Hochs say they consider PAS a symptom, not an illness itself, and no longer use the term because of the controversy. “We really don’t care what they call it,” Pamela Hoch says. “We focus on behavior.”

But critics say the Hochs’ methods of altering behavior are highly questionable.

“There are scientific standards and practice standards for how to go about delivering therapy to children,” Silberg of the Leadership Council says, “and nothing I’ve seen from the Rachel House follows any known standards about the delivery of mental health care.”

Times researcher Carolyn Edds contributed to this report. Susan Taylor Martin can be reached at susan@sptimes.com.

There needs to be a little bit of propaganda to blanket their true goals.

Richard Gardner gave them that blanket by promoting ideas that society should punish those to speak against abuse as, “sick” and “requiring therapy”. He coined the term, “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. Appalled by the pro-pedophile material that was circulated on a large scale, researchers on child abuse and family violence worked even harder to debunk this content and for many years it has been frequently rejected by the American Psychology Association as a Syndrome. Regardless of the theory being discredited, it has still been used on court cases all over the world including a case where it was a defense for a brutal murder of a mother. Some backyard psychologists have even held workshops about, “Maternal Gate-keeping” and others have promoted theories such as, “Malicious Mother Syndrome”.

Whilst in most debates, we all amicably prefer to keep things gender neutral apart from where one gender is being targeted in a way no different to the apartheid in Africa, the slavery towards African Americans and of course the stolen generation of aboriginal children. Whilst the use of parental alienation syndrome appears to be one of those gender neutral terms, the literature and statistics of court cases where the reversal of custody cases involving abuse allegations suggests that the number one target is the mother. Enmeshed with child abuse cases are often intimate partner terrorism, mostly perpetrated by fathers and a deep lack of community support towards mothers who try against many odds to protect their children from further abuse and exposure to violence. The superficial surface of parent alienation suggests that their goal is to stop “false accusers” despite statistics stating over and over again that false accusers are a minority of cases and in fact most of the false allegations are use by fathers. Empirical research has defined this as part of a series of behaviors that follow the intervention of a intimate partner terrorism relationship. This is where the real problem lies, with little support thanks to the erosion of domestic violence and child protection services, mothers experiencing false accusations towards them have drifted unknowingly towards the movement that is solely there to continue these abuses against her and the children.

Supporters of this theory have even gone as far as promoting it as a form of child abuse and sadly many court cases involving child abuse and intimate partner terrorism with evidence are treated as alienation resulting with the child being transferred to the abuser. The influence of this theory has been so great that other aspects of the system where the perpetrator could be convicted are thwarted.

Whilst Parental Alienation attracts pedophile lobbyists, batterers and abusers, they also attract mistaken victims. These victims are in turn used to become the front of the organisations eliminating the promotion of any true need for children and victims of violence and appear as though they are gender inclusive. The laws, case statistics and culture of the courts are a true reflection of the backyard psych therapists and abuse excuser’s causes. Some organisations are obvious in their agenda, whilst others confuse the situation.

Given the clusters of abusers that are attracted to the cause, it is important to encourage police abuse units to investigate the members of these groups as they do with pedophile rings. This could help stop abuse occurring. Other things that can be done is reporting professionals who use the theory as a form of diagnosis to psychologist registers, law bars and social worker accreditation organisations. The use of junk science destroys the credibility of professionals who do not practice backyard therapies and such reports are welcomed to peak bodies. By alerting other parents of the dangers of these organisations, parents can then become aware of the potential risks they could expose the children to by engaging with potential abusers activities and prevent abuse from occurring.

Here are a list of confirmed pedophile organisations that promote Parent Alienation:

http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/digest.php

http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.support.boylovers/parent-alienation_s.html

http://www.boychat.org/messages/1195439.htm

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/pasyndrome.htm

http://pedophileophobia.com/Richard%20Gardner.htm

http://www.nambla.org/matters.htm

If a group of pedophiles and abusers named their cause, “Abusers Awareness Day”, no one would help champion their goals.

From the National Organization for Women’s Foundation website:

Over the years, hundreds of women have contacted National Organization for Women chapters looking for assistance in their efforts to protect minor children in family court custody proceedings. Often these women have been accused of a phony psychiatric condition, termed Parental Alienation Disorder (PAD). The “disorder” has been proposed by so-called father’s rights (men’s custody) activists to be added to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostics and Statistics Manual – V to give it more legitimacy than it currently has — or should have — in court.

This accusation is made by abusive ex-husbands and is intended to cause the courts to disregard mothers’ claims of fathers’ physical or sexual abuse in an effort to gain the fathers’ full or joint custody. NOW Foundation is concerned that because of the alienation accusation known batterers and child abusers have been awarded custody; the numbers of cases involving dads in custody disputes abusing and murdering children is appalling. (See link below)

The notion of a parental alienation in custody disputes was advanced by the late Dr. Richard Gardner who committed suicide in 2003. The alienation accusation has been embraced by men’s custody activists as an effective weapon to undermine mothers’ bid for legal custody of minor children. Many advocates on behalf of mothers believe that batterers, child abusers and pedophiles populate these men’s custody networks. There have been numerous instances of documented batterers and child abusers being awarded custody by biased family court judges.

NOW Foundation has sent a letter recently to the American Psychiatric Association noting that publications by the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have concluded proposed “alienation disorder” is inadmissible in court and has been discredited by the scientific community. Accordingly, family court judges, lawyers and other court personnel should take action against the use of the alienation accusation in cases before them. Read NOW Foundation’s letter (PDF) and for more information on family court issues, go to the family law website.

More information on fathers and ex-partners involved in child custody or child support matters who have killed children, murdered mothers and/or committed suicide, please visit this website.

If a group of pedophiles and abusers named their cause, “Abusers Awareness Day”, no one would help champion their goals.

There needs to be a little bit of propaganda to blanket their true goals.

Richard Gardner gave them that blanket by promoting ideas that society should punish those to speak against abuse as, “sick” and “requiring therapy”. He coined the term, “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. Appalled by the pro-pedophile material that was circulated on a large scale, researchers on child abuse and family violence worked even harder to debunk this content and for many years it has been frequently rejected by the American Psychology Association as a Syndrome. Regardless of the theory being discredited, it has still been used on court cases all over the world including a case where it was a defense for a brutal murder of a mother. Some backyard psychologists have even held workshops about, “Maternal Gate-keeping” and others have promoted theories such as, “Malicious Mother Syndrome”.

Whilst in most debates, we all amicably prefer to keep things gender neutral apart from where one gender is being targeted in a way no different to the apartheid in Africa, the slavery towards African Americans and of course the stolen generation of aboriginal children. Whilst the use of parental alienation syndrome appears to be one of those gender neutral terms, the literature and statistics of court cases where the reversal of custody cases involving abuse allegations suggests that the number one target is the mother. Enmeshed with child abuse cases are often intimate partner terrorism, mostly perpetrated by fathers and a deep lack of community support towards mothers who try against many odds to protect their children from further abuse and exposure to violence. The superficial surface of parent alienation suggests that their goal is to stop “false accusers” despite statistics stating over and over again that false accusers are a minority of cases and in fact most of the false allegations are use by fathers. Empirical research has defined this as part of a series of behaviors that follow the intervention of a intimate partner terrorism relationship. This is where the real problem lies, with little support thanks to the erosion of domestic violence and child protection services, mothers experiencing false accusations towards them have drifted unknowingly towards the movement that is solely there to continue these abuses against her and the children.

Supporters of this theory have even gone as far as promoting it as a form of child abuse and sadly many court cases involving child abuse and intimate partner terrorism with evidence are treated as alienation resulting with the child being transferred to the abuser. The influence of this theory has been so great that other aspects of the system where the perpetrator could be convicted are thwarted.

Whilst Parental Alienation attracts pedophile lobbyists, batterers and abusers, they also attract mistaken victims. These victims are in turn used to become the front of the organisations eliminating the promotion of any true need for children and victims of violence and appear as though they are gender inclusive. The laws, case statistics and culture of the courts are a true reflection of the backyard psych therapists and abuse excuser’s causes. Some organisations are obvious in their agenda, whilst others confuse the situation.

Given the clusters of abusers that are attracted to the cause, it is important to encourage police abuse units to investigate the members of these groups as they do with pedophile rings. This could help stop abuse occurring. Other things that can be done is reporting professionals who use the theory as a form of diagnosis to psychologist registers, law bars and social worker accreditation organisations. The use of junk science destroys the credibility of professionals who do not practice backyard therapies and such reports are welcomed to peak bodies. By alerting other parents of the dangers of these organisations, parents can then become aware of the potential risks they could expose the children to by engaging with potential abusers activities and prevent abuse from occurring.

Here are a list of confirmed pedophile organisations that promote Parent Alienation:

http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/digest.php

http://www.nnseek.com/e/alt.support.boylovers/parent-alienation_s.html

http://www.boychat.org/messages/1195439.htm

http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/pasyndrome.htm

http://pedophileophobia.com/Richard%20Gardner.htm

http://www.nambla.org/matters.htm

Since 1985, the claim of parent alienation syndrome (PAS) has represented the extreme collusion of male entitlement, the mental health profession, and family courts. PAS is a pseudoscientific theory used to prevent battered women from protecting their children from exposure to violent and abusive fathers. It asserts that children who resist parents’ visits are not legitimately seeking protection from their fathers but have been “alienated” from their fathers by their mothers. This article examines the impact of PAS on families, its admissibility in courts, and the role of social workers and other mental health practitioners in custody cases through the lens of a social worker, a social justice activist, and a mother who is involved in a PAS custody case.

To view the entire article, “Criminal Rewards: The Impact of Parental Alienation Syndrome on Families” by Andrae L. Brown,  please click here.  It is very good…it should be required reading for all family court judges.

As courts and legislatures continue their enthusiastic ventures into family law reform, they make frequent use of theories and research from the social sciences. This essay focuses on developments in child custody law stemming from Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a theory propounded in 1985 that became widely used (sometimes in a form called Parental Alienation) despite its lack of scientific foundations. The discussion highlights theoretical and practical problems with PAS, provides a similar discussion of more recent proposals concerning Alienated Children (AC), and concludes with recommendations for lawyers and judges who must evaluate these and similar developments.

To read the entire paper, “Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children – getting it wrong in child custody cases” by Carol Bruch, please click here.