I am very excited about the upcoming teleseminar that will be offered beginning Tuesday, April 29, 2008. This seminar consists of four one hour sessions, attended via telephone, and recorded for later listening. The attendees, once registered, will be given a specific telephone number and pass code that will admit them into the call, each of these four Tuesday evenings. In the event that an attendee cannot be present for the live call, a recorded version will be available for later listening.
Each session will consist of an interactive interview format wherein John Curtis, PhD, author, well known parenting advocate, will be interviewing myself on the topic of that particular evening. Each of these four separate interview sessions will be focused onto what I have identified as the four most prevalent errors committed in the litigation of cases in Family Court where Parental Alienation is present. My experience for over fifteen years as an expert witness, evaluator, therapist and educator in cases involving Parental Alienation, has given me the opportunity to witness and then to distill the specific and predictable points where these cases are sabotaged. Just as Parental Alienation is a very patterned process with a predictable outcome and course, likewise, how it evolves within the Family court System is also patterned. This patterning creates a high degree of predictability that typically is only seen when it is too late.
The purpose of this four part teleseminar is to prepare the parent and their attorney to identify these seemingly benign issues, before they blow up into becoming a serious problem to later overcome.
The goal of this four part seminar is to provide proactive strategies that allows one to spot a potential upcoming problem area, and develop counter strategies to overcome it.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Misinformation and the Critics
One of the most mysterious and vexing issues related to the subject of Parental Alienation, as especially Parental Alienation Syndrome, is the continued criticisms of it. In most cases, the criticisms are based in misinformation. One of the most prevalent of these notions is that Parental Alienation is used as a shield to deflect from the abuse of a child by a parent. This is simply not the case. It is repeated throughout the literature (even by sources that disagree on other matters related to the subject) that Parental Alienation is not a proper explanation for a child’s not wanting to see a parent, when that parent has truly been abusing that child. When this is the case, Parental Alienation is not the proper explanation. That said, it is also the case that Parental Alienation may be misused by unethical attorneys and abusive parents, claiming that their abused child does not want to see them, not because they have been abused, but because of the influences of the other parent. This is a clear misuse of the Parental Alienation label. This misuse however should not be used as a rationale to dismiss it legitimate use.
Other such criticisms follow this same pattern of misunderstanding and misuse of the literature related to Parental Alienation. I would like to draw attention to an article authored by myself that addresses this in more detail. It may be found on my website or by the following link http://parental-alienation.com/articles/article0004.htm.
I have found that when the criticisms are confronted, that the critic has not read that to which they are referring, or that they had simply been told this misinformation by someone else, who also had not read the source material. This is a troubling, but common finding. It should not perhaps be surprising to find that the dynamic of vilification and distortion is well practiced within this context.
Other such criticisms follow this same pattern of misunderstanding and misuse of the literature related to Parental Alienation. I would like to draw attention to an article authored by myself that addresses this in more detail. It may be found on my website or by the following link http://parental-alienation.com/articles/article0004.htm.
I have found that when the criticisms are confronted, that the critic has not read that to which they are referring, or that they had simply been told this misinformation by someone else, who also had not read the source material. This is a troubling, but common finding. It should not perhaps be surprising to find that the dynamic of vilification and distortion is well practiced within this context.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Professional Debate About How Children are Alienated
There is currently a debate within the professional community regarding just what causes children to become alienated within the context of their parents divorcing or its aftermath. The debate boils down to this question: Is the behavior of the alienating parent sufficient to cause children to become alienated, or does the targeted parent’s behavior also play a role? While this may seem like an interesting question with not much significance, we find that its answer has profound implications regarding what may be recommended as a solution to the problem.
For example, if one believes that the behavior of an alienating parent is sufficient cause to create alienation within a child, and that the targeted parent simply plays little if any role in the creation of the alienation, the recommendations coming out of that understanding will focus much more on eliminating the toxic effects of that alienating parent’s behavior onto that child. The goal here will likely enforce time with the targeted parent, even over the child’s protest in the beginning. This model will tend to see the child’s protests regarding that parent as unrealistic or even irrational. The goal will be to help the child to eliminate these unrealistic or irrational negative feelings about that parent.
If however, one believes that the alienating behaviors of the alienating parent is necessary but not sufficient to create alienation, then the responsibility for the child’s alienation will be also be placed at the feet of the targeted parent as well as the alienating parent. Even though this model will recognize that it is unhealthy for a parent to influence a child to see their other parent critically and negatively, it will tend to see this parental alienating behavior as being simply bad parenting, but not tantamount to child abuse. Under this understanding, recommendations will be more likely to include, among other things, parenting classes for the targeted parent, and will be less likely to enforce access between that targeted parent and that alienated child. These recommendations will probably refer to access between this child and this parent, as resuming when “the child is ready.”
As a greater generalized understanding of Parental Alienation develops, it appears that the latter model, the one that spreads the responsibility between both parents, is gaining more popularity among the professionals who do these evaluations. This is concerning since this latter model tends to see the alienation of children, once sufficiently progressed, as being incurable. The first model however does not agree with this at all. In support of this position, growing evidence is cited, gleaned from once alienated children, that even severely alienated children can and do become no longer alienated, and do and can reconnect to the parent from whom they were once alienated.
What does this mean? It means that it is of paramount importance to know to which model your potential evaluator subscribes. Both groups will boast knowledge of and familiarity with Parental Alienation, and they will do so honestly, but their recommendations will vary dramatically, as will their outcomes.
For example, if one believes that the behavior of an alienating parent is sufficient cause to create alienation within a child, and that the targeted parent simply plays little if any role in the creation of the alienation, the recommendations coming out of that understanding will focus much more on eliminating the toxic effects of that alienating parent’s behavior onto that child. The goal here will likely enforce time with the targeted parent, even over the child’s protest in the beginning. This model will tend to see the child’s protests regarding that parent as unrealistic or even irrational. The goal will be to help the child to eliminate these unrealistic or irrational negative feelings about that parent.
If however, one believes that the alienating behaviors of the alienating parent is necessary but not sufficient to create alienation, then the responsibility for the child’s alienation will be also be placed at the feet of the targeted parent as well as the alienating parent. Even though this model will recognize that it is unhealthy for a parent to influence a child to see their other parent critically and negatively, it will tend to see this parental alienating behavior as being simply bad parenting, but not tantamount to child abuse. Under this understanding, recommendations will be more likely to include, among other things, parenting classes for the targeted parent, and will be less likely to enforce access between that targeted parent and that alienated child. These recommendations will probably refer to access between this child and this parent, as resuming when “the child is ready.”
As a greater generalized understanding of Parental Alienation develops, it appears that the latter model, the one that spreads the responsibility between both parents, is gaining more popularity among the professionals who do these evaluations. This is concerning since this latter model tends to see the alienation of children, once sufficiently progressed, as being incurable. The first model however does not agree with this at all. In support of this position, growing evidence is cited, gleaned from once alienated children, that even severely alienated children can and do become no longer alienated, and do and can reconnect to the parent from whom they were once alienated.
What does this mean? It means that it is of paramount importance to know to which model your potential evaluator subscribes. Both groups will boast knowledge of and familiarity with Parental Alienation, and they will do so honestly, but their recommendations will vary dramatically, as will their outcomes.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Surviving the Family Court System
Family court is unique among its other variants (criminal, administrative, etc.) in that the rules of evidence may be applied variously in deference to what is best for the children. This has the effect of making any outcome in any Family Court vulnerable to manipulation and misrepresentation. In cases where Parental Alienation is present, this vulnerability is routinely exploited, making the parents status in this scenario especially precarious. For example, when the court is faced with an allegation that one parent has abused a child, and this allegation is not carefully critiqued, the system opens itself up to limitless distortion. I have personally witnessed countless examples of innocent parents being treated by the court as being abusive, when this was simply not the case. As any of these parents will attest, once this label has been acquired, it is very difficult to erase it in the eyes of the court. The abuse allegation may be ruled as being "unfounded," however the cloud of suspicion will probably remain, causing the court to hesitate to allow more time between that parent and that child. Any parents who have experienced this are nodding right now.
One of the most effective, yet still the least used strategies to correct this, is to "litigate the false allegation." By this, we mean that the unjustly accused parent must do more than merely show that they did not commit the abuse. They should then go on to affirmatively argue that the making of the false allegation of abuse by the other parent, is itself evidence of pathological parenting. They should then go on to show that this spurious misuse of the system is designed to actually remove the child from the accused parent for purposes of gaining advantage in the custody dispute. This "second step," the litigating of the false abuse allegation is rarely pursued however. The omission of this step often spells the difference between the truth being revealed, or it being obfuscated.
One of the most effective, yet still the least used strategies to correct this, is to "litigate the false allegation." By this, we mean that the unjustly accused parent must do more than merely show that they did not commit the abuse. They should then go on to affirmatively argue that the making of the false allegation of abuse by the other parent, is itself evidence of pathological parenting. They should then go on to show that this spurious misuse of the system is designed to actually remove the child from the accused parent for purposes of gaining advantage in the custody dispute. This "second step," the litigating of the false abuse allegation is rarely pursued however. The omission of this step often spells the difference between the truth being revealed, or it being obfuscated.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The Alienation of Children is Child Abuse
It is important to understand and recall that Parental Alienation is a form of child abuse. The manipulation of one’s children to the belief that their other parent does not love them, is the cruelest form of child abuse. Since it is the parent child- relationship that orients a child’s understanding of their own sense of self and their lovability, teaching a child that one of their parents does not love them, also teaches them that they are in some basic way, unlovable, or not worthy of love. While alienated children typically describe hatred or fear of the alienated parent, gently probing into the nuances of these negative feelings, virtually always reveals that these children believe that the Alienated Parent is self centered, not interested in their wellbeing, and unloving. They are taught, and come to believe that they are not loved by that parent. This is absolutely child abuse in its most pure form. Parental Alienation is child abuse.
Given this, it should not be surprising to realize that parents who perpetrate this form abuse, are also prone to other form of abuse. The literature clearly indicates that those prone to domestic violence, are prone to multiple forms of domestic violence. As we see an increased tendency for truly abusive parents to misuse the diagnosis of PA and PAS to explain why their children may not be close to them, or may be reticent to visit with them after marital separation, it perhaps should not be surprising to then see that when these parents are successful in mis-portraying the other parent as being an Alienating Parent, that they themselves then tend to become the true Alienating Parent. Adults prone to domestic violence, tend to be prone to multiple expressions of abuse. Once these abusive parents have their children more in their control that they ever had before, these children become extremely vulnerable to becoming quickly alienated from the parent whom they used to look to for protection. Under this scenario, these children often become severely alienated, and very quickly. As noted earlier on this blog, I believe that this is an ever increasing phenomenon.
Given this, it should not be surprising to realize that parents who perpetrate this form abuse, are also prone to other form of abuse. The literature clearly indicates that those prone to domestic violence, are prone to multiple forms of domestic violence. As we see an increased tendency for truly abusive parents to misuse the diagnosis of PA and PAS to explain why their children may not be close to them, or may be reticent to visit with them after marital separation, it perhaps should not be surprising to then see that when these parents are successful in mis-portraying the other parent as being an Alienating Parent, that they themselves then tend to become the true Alienating Parent. Adults prone to domestic violence, tend to be prone to multiple expressions of abuse. Once these abusive parents have their children more in their control that they ever had before, these children become extremely vulnerable to becoming quickly alienated from the parent whom they used to look to for protection. Under this scenario, these children often become severely alienated, and very quickly. As noted earlier on this blog, I believe that this is an ever increasing phenomenon.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Misapplication of Parental Alienation
As awareness of Parental Alienation and its effects on children increases, the possibility that it can be used improperly also increases.
There appears to be a growing phenomenon of improperly accusing, let us say, Parent A of being an Alienating Parent by the actual Abusive Parent, whom we shall refer to as Parent B. This spurious explanation is initially offered up as explanation as to why the children are hesitant to see Parent B, when, in actual fact, Parent B has been abusive to them or to the other parent. It is important to note here that the abusiveness of Parent B is well established. There are typically Orders of Protection and Police involvement that go beyond only accusations of abuse. The abuse is clear and not in dispute. This is the first phase.
This is then followed by the phase where the abusive parent puts pressure on the children to "act out" that their parental agenda of vilifying the other parent. This typically takes the form of the children beginning to be provocative and testy with that parent, to which that parent typically then eventually responds by becoming upset, and to some degree, "loosing it." This episode is then portrayed by the abusive parent as being emblematic behavior of the now estranged parent, and representative of his or her instability. The focus now shifts to the non-abusive parent, Parent A, who now is seen as being unstable, abusive, and in dire need of therapy. In the period of time that this sleight of had takes place, the reality of the abusive parent's (Parent B) abusive behavior, which has been clearly documented and recognized by the court, is now obfuscated by these more recent developments, and essentially forgotten.
The original non abusive parent (Parent A), who was a victim of the abuses of Parent B, has now been manipulated into appearing to be unstable and abusive. Parent B improperly uses an allegation of Parental Alienation to explain why the children are not as keen to see him or her. Here, the abusive Parent has blamed the other parent for the children's feelings, when the record clearly shows that his or her behavior was the problem. However, since the children are still emotionally connected even to abusive parents, this abusive parent manipulates this connection with the children to begin the actual process of alienating them from the other parent, the one accused of being an Alienating Parent.
Paradoxically then, the abusive parent becomes the alienating parent, and the now alienated parent is portrayed as being unstable, abusive, and unsafe to be around the children. As fantastic and unrealistic as this may seem, it is a phenomenon of increasing incidence.
There appears to be a growing phenomenon of improperly accusing, let us say, Parent A of being an Alienating Parent by the actual Abusive Parent, whom we shall refer to as Parent B. This spurious explanation is initially offered up as explanation as to why the children are hesitant to see Parent B, when, in actual fact, Parent B has been abusive to them or to the other parent. It is important to note here that the abusiveness of Parent B is well established. There are typically Orders of Protection and Police involvement that go beyond only accusations of abuse. The abuse is clear and not in dispute. This is the first phase.
This is then followed by the phase where the abusive parent puts pressure on the children to "act out" that their parental agenda of vilifying the other parent. This typically takes the form of the children beginning to be provocative and testy with that parent, to which that parent typically then eventually responds by becoming upset, and to some degree, "loosing it." This episode is then portrayed by the abusive parent as being emblematic behavior of the now estranged parent, and representative of his or her instability. The focus now shifts to the non-abusive parent, Parent A, who now is seen as being unstable, abusive, and in dire need of therapy. In the period of time that this sleight of had takes place, the reality of the abusive parent's (Parent B) abusive behavior, which has been clearly documented and recognized by the court, is now obfuscated by these more recent developments, and essentially forgotten.
The original non abusive parent (Parent A), who was a victim of the abuses of Parent B, has now been manipulated into appearing to be unstable and abusive. Parent B improperly uses an allegation of Parental Alienation to explain why the children are not as keen to see him or her. Here, the abusive Parent has blamed the other parent for the children's feelings, when the record clearly shows that his or her behavior was the problem. However, since the children are still emotionally connected even to abusive parents, this abusive parent manipulates this connection with the children to begin the actual process of alienating them from the other parent, the one accused of being an Alienating Parent.
Paradoxically then, the abusive parent becomes the alienating parent, and the now alienated parent is portrayed as being unstable, abusive, and unsafe to be around the children. As fantastic and unrealistic as this may seem, it is a phenomenon of increasing incidence.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome(PAS)
Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome
Parental Alienation Syndrome was first defined and described by Psychiatrist Richard Gardner, M.D. in his work with divorcing families with minor children in 1985. He began to notice a growing phenomenon where one parent would try to alienate the children from the other parent so that the children would ultimately reject that parent. When this alienation was successful, Dr. Gardner identified a cluster of symptoms that these children would begin to exhibit, which he described as the "Parental Alienation Syndrome". Since his original work in this area, there has been much further work and research done by Dr. Gardner as well as many other mental health professionals.
Since this phenomenon would occur in the context of divorce only, it is perhaps not surprising that it would generate a great deal of controversy. That is, it was essentially discovered, described and battled over in the acrimonious environment of the court.
The existence of Parental Alienation Syndrome has been debated in court in the context of litigation. It had until recently been argued that PAS had not been tested within the courts as being admissible as evidence. As noted earlier, this challenge has always been in the context of it being a litigation strategy. It is therefore of some significance that PAS was tested and did pass this important legal test in November of 2000, in Tampa, Florida. J. Michael Bone, Ph.D. was directly involved in this Frye Hearing as was Richard Gardner, M.D. along with Richard Warshack, Ph.D. The court ruled that PAS was accepted in the professional scientific community and did meet the Frye standard. Click here for more detailed information regarding this legal event.
Parental Alienation Syndrome was first defined and described by Psychiatrist Richard Gardner, M.D. in his work with divorcing families with minor children in 1985. He began to notice a growing phenomenon where one parent would try to alienate the children from the other parent so that the children would ultimately reject that parent. When this alienation was successful, Dr. Gardner identified a cluster of symptoms that these children would begin to exhibit, which he described as the "Parental Alienation Syndrome". Since his original work in this area, there has been much further work and research done by Dr. Gardner as well as many other mental health professionals.
Since this phenomenon would occur in the context of divorce only, it is perhaps not surprising that it would generate a great deal of controversy. That is, it was essentially discovered, described and battled over in the acrimonious environment of the court.
The existence of Parental Alienation Syndrome has been debated in court in the context of litigation. It had until recently been argued that PAS had not been tested within the courts as being admissible as evidence. As noted earlier, this challenge has always been in the context of it being a litigation strategy. It is therefore of some significance that PAS was tested and did pass this important legal test in November of 2000, in Tampa, Florida. J. Michael Bone, Ph.D. was directly involved in this Frye Hearing as was Richard Gardner, M.D. along with Richard Warshack, Ph.D. The court ruled that PAS was accepted in the professional scientific community and did meet the Frye standard. Click here for more detailed information regarding this legal event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)