5.3.10

NCJFC Warns family court judges NOT to accept claims of "parental alienation syndrome" and "parental alienation" in court because of it's use by Abusers to Get Child Custody Away from Their Victims.

The American Judges Association,

The National District Attorney's Association,

 Volume 16 Number 6 Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 of 2  and

 Volume 16 Number 7 Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 2 of 2

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Rejects PAS ... have all debunked "PAS" and the latter has warned family court judges NOT to accept claims of "parental alienation syndrome" and "parental alienation" in court because of it's use by abusers to get child custody away from their victims.:

2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (pdf)

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.

Their is a crisis in our Family Courts; Abusers are getting custody of Children

More information:

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Posted by at