Parental Alienation Syndrome

http://ritualabuse.us/research/parental-alienation-syndrome/

Information on Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

“This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively.”

“PAS as developed and purveyed by Richard Gardner has neither a logical nor a scientific basis. It is rejected by responsible social scientists and lacks solid grounding in psychological theory or research.”

“Both Gardner (PAS’s originator) and NAMBLA claim that adult-child sex is biologically natural, not inherently harmful to the child, and that any resultant harm is caused by social stigma rather than the sexual contact itself.”

“While Gardner claimed that “repeat offenders must be removed from society,” he advocated that they only be imprisoned after treatment has failed, advocating that they not be imprisoned with “hardened criminals,” or be subjected to lengthy sentences. As a political advocate, Gardner lobbied to abolish mandated reporting of child abuse, to abolish immunity for reporters of child abuse, and for the creation of federally funded programs to assist individuals claiming to be falsely accused.”

The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy Jennifer Hoult – Children’s Legal Rights Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006  Abstract:  Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome (“PAS”). Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS’s admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny. This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS’s evidentiary admissibility. As a novel scientific theory, PAS’s admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science. This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively. The article further analyzes PAS’s admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS’s scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards. The article also analyzes the writings of PAS’s originator, child psychiatrist Richard Gardner – including twenty-three peer-reviewed articles and fifty legal decisions he cited in support of his claim that PAS is scientifically valid and legally admissible – finding that these materials support neither PAS’s existence, nor its legal admissibility. Finally, the article examines the policy issues raised by PAS’s admissibility through an analysis of PAS’s roots in Gardner’s theory of human sexuality, a theory that views adult-child sexual contact as benign and beneficial to the reproduction of the species.

http://ssrn.com/abstract=910267
paper available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=642440

from the paper : 1. American Precedent Holds PAS Inadmissible - Because unreliable scientific claims pose a unique risk of undue influence and prejudice in the courtroom, the evidentiary admissibility of novel scientific material is governed by gate-keeping rules that are intended to ensure that such testimony meets adequate standards of reliability. As a novel scientific theory, PAS’s admissibility is governed by these gate-keeping rules. Gardner published the claim that fifty American decisions set precedent holding PAS admissible under the relevant evidentiary rules. A closer examination reveals this claim to be unfounded; current U.S. precedent holds PAS inadmissible. By July 19, 2005, sixty-four precedent bearing cases referenced PAS. Only two of these decisions, both originating in criminal courts in New York State, set precedent on the issue of PAS’s evidentiary admissibility; both held PAS inadmissible….

A. PAS Is Not a Medical Syndrome – A medical “syndrome” defines a “distinct” correlation between a set of symptoms and a particular pathology. Determining whether PAS is a valid medical syndrome requires an assessment of whether it is an existing pathology and whether its diagnostic criteria correlate accurately with that pathology….Both Gardner and NAMBLA claim that adult-child sex is biologically natural, not inherently harmful to the child, and that any resultant harm is caused by social stigma rather than the sexual contact itself. Gardner claimed the sole “determinant as to whether these experiences [i.e. a sexual encounter between an adult and a child] will be traumatic is the social attitude towards these encounters” and stated: [M]any societies have been unjustifiably punitive to those who exhibit these sexual paraphilic variations [e.g. pedophiles, rapists, etc.] and have not been giving proper respect to the genetic factors that may very well be operative. Such considerations may result in greater tolerance for those who exhibit these atypical sexual proclivities. My hope is that this theory will play a role (admittedly small) in bringing about greater sympathy and respect for individuals who exhibit these variations of sexual behavior. [Further,] they do play a role in species survival. While Gardner claimed that “repeat offenders must be removed from society,” he advocated that they only be imprisoned after treatment has failed, advocating that they not be imprisoned with “hardened criminals,” or be subjected to lengthy sentences. As a political advocate, Gardner lobbied to abolish mandated reporting of child abuse, to abolish immunity for reporters of child abuse, and for the creation of federally funded programs to assist individuals claiming to be falsely accused.

Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases Carol S. Bruch  University of California, Davis 35 Family Law Quarterly 527 (2001)  Abstract:   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 by Richard Gardner, M.D. that became widely used despite its lack of scientific foundations. The discussion highlights theoretical and practical problems with PAS, provides a similar review of more recent proposals labeled “Parental Alienation” (PA), and concludes with recommendations for lawyers and judges who must evaluate these and similar developments.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=298110&rec=1&srcabs=910267
paper available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=228611

from the paper:
C. The Flaws in PAS Theory – The deficiencies in PAS theory are multiple. Some have already been identified in social science literature and child custody judicial opinions; still others are now emerging. First, Gardner confounds a child’s developmentally related reaction to divorce and high parental conflict (including violence) with psychosis. In doing so, he fails to recognize parents’ and children’s angry, often inappropriate, and totally predictable behavior following separation. This error leads him to claim that PAS constitutes a frequent example of folie à deux or folie à trois, Shared Psychotic Disorders that the American Psychiatric Association and scholarly studies report occur only rarely. His assertion that these disorders occur primarily in young children is also contrary to the literature, probably also due to a misreading of typical developmental responses to divorce on the part of young children. Second, possibly as a consequence of these errors and his tail-of-the-elephant view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship. Taken together, these assertions have the practical effect of impugning all abuse allegations, allegations which Gardner asserts are usually false in the divorce context. Here, too, Gardner cites no evidence in support of his personal view, and the relevant literature reports the contrary—that such allegations are usually well founded. Third, in this fashion, PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behavior of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child. Indeed, for Gardner, the concerned custodial parent’s steps to obtain professional assistance in diagnosing, treating, and protecting the child constitute evidence of false allegations. Worse yet, if therapists agree that danger exists, Gardner asserts that they are almost always man-hating women who have entered into a folie à trois with the complaining child and concerned parent. Indeed, he warns judges not to take abuse allegations seriously in the divorce court setting in high conflict cases (severe PAS cases). Neither Gardner nor those who accept his views acknowledge the logical difficulties when Gardner asserts that abuse allegations which are believed by therapists constitute evidence of PA by the protective parent. Fourth, Gardner believes that, particularly in serious cases, the relationship of an alienated child with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged, probably ending for all time, unless immediate, drastic measures (custody transfer, isolation from the loved parent, and deprogramming) are taken. Here, too, reliable sources reveal that his theory is exaggerated, with all but unusual cases (for example, those appearing in violent families) resolving themselves as the children mature. Fifth, as these sources suggest, Gardner’s proposed remedy for extreme cases is unsupported and endangers children. In his admitted decision to err on the side of under-identifying abusers, Gardner appears to have overlooked the policy differences between criminal law and child custody law and also to have misunderstood the distinction between the burdens of proof in criminal and civil cases in the United States. To the extent that PAS results in placing children with a parent who is, in fact, abusive, the youngsters will be bereft of contact with the parent who might help them. Parent groups and investigative reporting describe, for example, numerous cases in which trial courts have transferred children’s custody to known or likely abusers and custodial parents have been denied contact with the children they have been trying to protect. In less extreme cases, too, children are likely to suffer from such a sudden dislocation in their home life and relationship with the parent they trust. Even therapists who accept PAS theory have advised against custody transfers to no avail in some reported cases in which it seems judges have implemented Gardner’s views on their own initiative….PAS as developed and purveyed by Richard Gardner has neither a logical nor a scientific basis. It is rejected by responsible social scientists and lacks solid grounding in psychological theory or research. PA, although more refined in its understanding of child-parent difficulties, entails intrusive, coercive, unsubstantiated remedies of its own. Lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals who deal with child custody issues should think carefully and respond judiciously when claims based on either theory are advanced.

Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force On Violence And The Family – ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN FAMILY VIOLENCE Issue 5 WHEN PARENTS SEPARATE AFTER AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, SHOULDN’T FATHERS HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS MOTHERS TO BE GRANTED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF AND VISITATION RIGHTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN? Tensions exist between children’s need for contact with their father and their need to be protected from the physical, sexual and psychological abuse that is common in families where there has been other forms of violence such as woman abuse.  Although most people believe that fathers should have equal access to their children after the termination of a relationship between the parents, the equal-access option is based on the assumption that the fathers will act in their children’s best interests. However, that is a naive assumption in situations where family violence has occurred. Fathers who batter their children’s mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children, too. In many of these families, prior to separation, the men were not actively involved in the raising of their children. To gain control after the marital separation, the fathers fight for the right to be involved. Often children who have been exposed to violence in the family are frightened to confront their father’s negative or abusive behavior, and mothers cannot protect them. Sometimes the father tries to alienate the child from the mother by using money and other enticements, negative comments, or restricted access to the telephone during visitation with him. Other times, fathers may threaten or actually kidnap the child to punish th