24.9.09

Attention Barbara Kay of Canada: You Are Dangerous…I Hope You’ve Opened Your Eyes in the Past Year

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.

Permalink

RightsForMothers.com

 
Attention Barbara Kay of Canada: You Are Dangerous…I Hope You’ve Opened Your Eyes in the Past Year

Filed under: Activism, Barbara Kay, Best interest of the child, Canada, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody Battle, Child Custody Issues, Child Custody Mediation,Child Custody for mothers, Child Pornography, Child Rape, Child Support, Child custody for fathers, Children and Domestic Violence, Children who witness abuse, Children's rights, Civil rights, Colton Saunders, Corrupt bastards, Custody Evaluators, Custody for dads, Custody for moms, Divorce, Domestic Abuse, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Courts, Family Rights, Fatherhood groups, Fathers Rights, Fathers who murder their children, Fathers who rape their children, Females who hate females, Globe and Mail, Hate Crimes, Human Rights, Husbands who murder wives, Intimate Partner Assault, Kurt Makin, Legal abuse, Maternal Deprivation, Meara McIntosh, Mother's Rights, Murder, Murder - Suicide, Murdered Mothers, Non-custodial Mothers, Noncustodial Mothers, Rich Saunders, Scientific studies, Sociopaths, Violence against women, custody evaluations, fathers fighting for custody — justice4mothers @ 8:05 am

barbarakayHey Barbara Kay, I sincerely hope you’ve opened your eyes about violence against women and children in the past year.    (Are you really Mike Murphy in drag?)   Your actions of “coming to the rescue of all men with allegations against them” is dangerous, and I wonder how you’d react if you were raped going out to your car one night.  Throw in a severe beating, and let him urinate all over you after he is done with raping you (this happened to my cousin), and let’s see how you feel.  And father’s rights loser Paul Clements can tell you that you lied about being raped.

Try telling this to Meara McIntosh of Alberta.  She tried telling the authorities and the family court of the violent nature of her ex, Rich Saunders of Drumheller, AB.  Nobody believed her because of father’s rights pundits like you, spewing your drivel about false allegations from women.  Rich took little dear 3 year old Colton for a weekend visit last year after Meara was court ordered to turn the child over for the visit.  Rich killed little Colton and himself that weekend.  Now, with Colton buried  in his beloved Halloween costume, Meara couldn’t even afford to get a headstone for his grave (and he still needs one).  Maybe instead we can make November a fundraising month for buying headstones for all the victims of domestic violence.  Here are a few Canadians we can start with:

Theresa Thomas, a 58 year old from Vancouver, was killed by her husband on August 4, 2009.
Joan Paget, from Alberta, along with her daughter, Jolene, and her nine year old granddaughter, Misty, were killed by Joan’s husband on July 26, 2009.
Kristel Duval, 25 year old from Montreal, was killed by her husband on July 6, 2009.
Selamawit Negasi, 46 year old from Edmonton, a mother of 3 children, was killed by her husband July 5, 2009.
Brenda Blondell, 59 year old from British Columbia, was killed by her husband on June 22, 2009.
Maria Nzokilandevi, 53 year old from Ontario, mother of 3 children, was killed by her husband on June 12, 2009.
Michelle Simone, a 45 year old from Ontario, was killed by her husband on June 7, 2009.
Kerry Walters, a 25 year old from Ottawa and her 11 month old baby girl, Starla, were killed by Kerry’s husband on May 16, 2009.
Lorna Kate Redhead of Shamattawa, a 42 year old from Manitoba, was killed by her husband on May 16, 2009.
Gail Saltel, a 47 year old from Alberta and her 17 year old daughter, Erika, were killed by Gail’s husband on May 4, 2009.
Jessica Martel, 26 year old from Edmonton, a mother of 3 children, was killed by her husband on April 29, 2009.
Tubi Kawaja, 35 year old from Calgary, mother of a 3 year old boy, was killed by her husband on April 4, 2009.
Pamela Olara, 32 year old from Toronto, a mother of 4 children, was killed by her husband on April 2, 2009.
Jinane Ghannoum, 38 year old from Montreal, a mother of 3 children, was killed by her husband on March 24, 2009.
Kuldeep Kaur Badyal, 32 year old from Vancouver, a mother of 2 children, was killed by her husband on March 5, 2009.
Sherry Martin, 52 year old from Ontario, was killed by her husband on February 24, 2009.
Deborah Volker, 44 year old from Alberta, a mother of 3 children, was killed by her husband on February 23, 2009.
Shelley Richards, 56 year old from British Colombia was killed by her husband on February 10, 2009.

From a study cited by the National District Attorney’s Association in the United States, which I am sure they are more qualified than you to speak on this matter:

To the contrary, the available research suggests that false allegation rates are not significantly high.  For example, a 1990 study by Thoennes and Tjaden evaluated 9,000 divorces in 12 states7 and found that sexual abuse allegations were made in less than 2 percent of the contested divorces involving child custody.  Within this group, it appears false allegations occurred in approximately 5% to 8% of cases.8 This study is one of the most comprehensive and least subject to bias and sampling problems, since its sample is so large and representative of the population of those divorcing with custody and visitation disputes.9

7 Thoennes & Tjaden, The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse Allegation in Custody/Visitation Disputes, Child Abuse and Neglect 1990, 14:151-163.
8 Id.
9 Kathleen Coulborn Faller, David L. Corwin & Erna Olafson, Literature Review: Research on False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Divorce, APSAC Advisor 1993, 6(3), page 9.

Not all women are truthful, as shown in the study above, but a vast majority are.  Not all guys are bad…there are many good fathers out there.  But to blanket-protect many abusers that are dangerous to the lives of women and children is just WRONG!  Shame on you, Barbara Kay!


For what it is worth (and it isn’t that much), here is her horrifying opinion last year from the National Post:

Barbara Kay, October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month; How about making November false allegations awareness month

Posted: October 06, 2008, 9:11 PM by Jonathan Kay

Barbara Kay

Domestic Violence Awareness Month was first observed in October, 1987 and is celebrated on the first Monday in October. That’s today, October 6. Fittingly enough, this morning’s Globe and Mail carries an editorial on the sometimes tragic effects when innocent men are charged with false allegations of sexual abuse.

The editorial recounts the story of a young father who was savagely beaten to death with a baseball bat by a young man who took the word of two girls, aged 13 and 15, when they claimed the victim had “touched them inappropriately.” The girls had lied and clearly incited their male “protector” to violence, but they were not charged with any crime. Nor was an 18-year old woman who accompanied the murderer and presumably, at the very least, approved of his actions. Perhaps she even egged him on. She was only charged with “breaking and entering.” The editorial indignantly concludes that “the authorities need to punish” those whose false accusation are at the root of such incidents.

The Globe editorialists’ indignation suggests a certain naiveté about the prevalence of this practice. They would profit from spending a few days in family court, where, in the interest of tipping custody battles in their own interest, women’s false allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children against their former partners are so rife – and virtually never punished – that it is apparently the best-kept secret crime in the western world. Oh, perhaps these men are not beaten up with baseball bats, but they do lose their homes, their children, often their jobs and friends, spend time in jail, are rarely given the benefit of the doubt – and many of them kill themselves from despair.

In 2000, it was reported that the FBI’s DNA testing over a three year period had exonerated more than 30% of their 4,000-plus sexual assault suspects. Going further back, in the FBI’s Behavioural Science Unit’s 1983 study of False Allegations, a total of 220 out of 556 rape investigations – 40% – turned out to be false. Over a quarter turned out to be actual hoaxes (remember the infamous Tawana Brawley, who at 15 falsely accused a number of white men of a marathon three-day gang rape, some of them police officers? At least she got successfully sued for defamation, but that was small potatoes for the havoc she wreaked in those men’s lives). About 4,000 allegations of rape a year are levelled in Manhattan. About half never happened. Police officials in New Zealand state that 64% of rape reports are false.

False reports of child abuse are even more prevalent. A 1999 National Post article reported on a study by two law professors from Queen’s University: “The academics looked at 196 abuse allegations involving separated parents. Of these, 46 cases resulted in judgments that abuse did occur. Of the 150 unproven cases, the trial judges believed the allegations were intentionally false (either a parent or child made them up) 45 times. Thus it appears there are as many cases of false accusations of child abuse as there are provable, true incidents.

After lifting the veil on the prevalence of false claims, the two law professors then detail[ed] the costs – emotional, financial and legal – of such accusations. Since mothers make the preponderance of abuse claims – true and false – it is fathers who bear the bulk of this burden. Further, it is important to remember that even if the charges are found to be baseless in criminal court, they can subsequently re-appear in family court. This means the father may never escape the stigma of being falsely accused of child abuse. And just one instance of a mother being charged with making false accusations was reported in the study, even though the data suggests one quarter of child abuse charges are likely to be deliberately invented.”

All allegations of sexual abuse or domestic violence should be routed immediately to criminal court and the burden placed on the accuser to prove (usually) her case. Real punishment should follow on false accusations of abuse of any kind. When women get away scot free with ruining men’s lives – or provoking tragedies like those detailed in this editorial – it is inevitable that the message trickles down to society at large that false allegations against men by women and girls are tolerated and even triviliazed. I don’t think those girls thought they were doing anything “wrong,” certainly not committing a crime. I  daresay they would not have been so insouciant about accusing the unfortunate young man if they were aware that false allegations result in serious consequences.

I would love to see the Globe and Mail follow up their editorial with an in-depth story on the state of false allegations in Canada today. As a kind of ironic “homage” to domestic violence month.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.

Permalink

Topeka, Kansas, Court Whores; M.Jill Dykes GAL, Odyssey and Don Hoffman Atty. for the PERP Halleck Richardson- wife beater and child abuser, hydroponic Marijuana grower (ohhhh …and snitch) oopps is the cat out of bag ..?

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] I will not SHUT UP , GIVE UP and I WONT go away!!.

Permalink

Hal Richardson – wife beater- child abuser- More coming on the state seeds and gardening crew in Topuka KanSUCKS  later ( snitches get away with murder ya know) So—secrets are all already on line and will be posted daily- new and evolving Soap Opera of the State whores and their snicth allies- stay tuned on that one)

Odyssey Group of Topeka KS (a Private for Profit by Child Abuse Agency)  has aligned with the GAL Court Whore  M. Jill Dykes and they have been tag teaming… But-

As is Karma baby!! it is coming back around ( thx people who DONT LIKE SNITCHES- for all their valuable info) and on the judiciary side Thanks to Tuck Duncan Lawyer assigned to my case for my direct Contempt hearing in April –Yes,  I am Guilty” I have Contempt for the Courts and the Court whores-

this is good

 

(side note- as well my address has been compromised) BUT the good is that a National apartment leasing company has waived all and will maintain my confidentiality- All I have to do is make it through to just after the 1st of the month!) Freaking easy as pie Toto!!!

 I WILL NOT SHUT UP, GIVE UP and I WILL NOT GO AWAY! (and I WILL expose the whores of the Court in Shawnee County KanSUCKS! (think they will get the memo yet ?)

2009 September 22 -Tuck to Hoffman -demand for visits now aint that the shit..?

[scribd id=20179061 key=key-26r3aoo2f41spd4a2p1e]

2009 September 22 -tuck to Hoffman -demand for visits

 

Court Appointed Child Abuser M. Jill Dykes

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.876400&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

 

 

Gunpowder and Lead Domestic Violence in Custody Cases

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.876390&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] I will not SHUT UP , GIVE UP and I WONT go away!!.

Permalink

From “Failure to Report”: Mother Gets Custody of Child Back Who Was Chased by Father With Chainsaw

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Battered Mothers Rights - A Human Rights Issue.

Permalink

From “Failure to Report”: Mother Gets Custody of Child Back Who Was Chased by Father With Chainsaw

Filed under: Activism, Best interest of the child, Child Abuse, Child Custody, Child Custody Battle, Child Custody Issues, Child Custody Mediation, Child Custody for mothers,Child Support, Child custody for fathers, Children and Domestic Violence, Children's rights, Civil rights, Corrupt bastards, Custody for dads, Custody for moms, Domestic Abuse, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Family Court Reform, Family Courts, Family Rights, Fathers Rights, Mother's Rights, Texas — justice4mothers @ 8:35 pm

Great news!  I was hoping someone would step in and save this child that was in the “Failure to Report” corner of Miss J’s post!

Mother awarded custody of child authorities say was beaten by father

September 23, 2009 6:51 PM

Scott Lawrence

A Jasper County judge has given Child Protective Services and a mother joint custody of a five-year-old boy investigators say was beaten so severely by his father, the child is still in a Houston hospital.

Investigators say the boy’s father chased him around the yard with a chain saw last month and beat the youngster.

The child’s father, John Cornelius, 24, Cornelius’ girlfriend, Jessie Waddell, 27, and her mother, Wanda Macks, 54, are charged with injury to a child. The two women are also charged with failure to report his injuries.

The child’s biological mother is from East Texas.

The judge ruled Wednesday that the mother will have joint managing custody with CPS.

The agency will visit the child’s home and make sure the little boy is taken care of once he’s released from Texas Children’s Hospital.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Battered Mothers Rights - A Human Rights Issue.

Permalink

Parental Alienation Syndrome Debunked by the National District Attorney’s Association – Part Two

Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Battered Mothers Rights - A Human Rights Issue.

Permalink

Parental Alienation Syndrome Debunked by the National District Attorney’s Association – Part Two

Filed under: Child Custody, Child Custody Battle, Child Custody Issues, Child custody for fathers, Domestic Abuse, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Dr. Richard Gardner, Family Court Reform, Family Courts, Family Rights, Getting Screwed by the Whores of the Court, Help for Victims of Domestic Violence, Legal abuse, Non-custodial Mothers, Noncustodial Mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, fathers fighting for custody, parental alienation — justice4mothers @ 3:46 am

This is Part Two of a Two Part Series from the National District Attorney’s Association and the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI). 

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know

By Hope Fields1 & Erika Rivera Ragland2

Introduction

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) has created obstacles for child abuse prosecutors. It is crucial for child abuse prosecutors to understand the theory of PAS, and know how to best challenge its legitimacy in court. Part 1 of this article addressed the PAS theory and its inherent flaws.3 We now turn to the courts’ approaches to PAS, and propose arguments and methods to suppress this unreliable evidence.

Case Law Status

PAS has been received differently by criminal and civil courts. However, defendants draw from both civil and criminal opinions in crafting arguments for admitting PAS as scientific evidence in child abuse cases. Therefore, it is important for prosecutors to be aware of both criminal and civil law when preparing a suppression argument. PAS has been addressed in a few criminal cases and approximately fifty civil cases in courts of record.

Criminal Case Law4

In 1995, the Ohio Court of Appeals allowed evidence of PAS in a sexual abuse case.5 The defendant was convicted by the trial court of three counts of rape and one of sexual battery, all against his own children. The trial court allowed the defendant to present an expert who testified about PAS and the potential effects it can have in alienating children involved in custody battles. It is unclear from the court’s opinion whether the prosecution ever objected to presentation of this evidence, or to what extent the PAS evidence was used by the defense. The court did not discuss the admissibility of PAS evidence in its decision.

New York courts have consistently refused to admit evidence of PAS in criminal cases. In People v. Loomis6, the defendant, who faced charges of sexual abuse, moved the court to have the victims and their mother examined by Dr. Richard Gardner, the doctor who created and coined PAS, to determine if allegations of abuse were fabricated. The court denied defendant’s motion, holding that

New York practice does not allow experts to offer an opinion on the ultimate issue of fact as to whether sexual abuse occurred. The issue is strictly reserved to the trier of fact… The defendant’s expert purports to make such a determination by determining if a particular accusation has the criteria of a truthful or a false accusation.

    In a later case, another New York court refused to admit PAS evidence.7 The court held that PAS failed to meet the Frye standard because defendant failed to show that it was generally accepted in relevant scientific communities.

    California is the only other state to have discussed the admissibility of PAS in a criminal context. In an unpublished opinion earlier this year, the California Court of Appeals held that the defendant, convicted of sexual assault and lewd and lascivious acts on a child, had not been deprived of his due process rights by the trial court’s refusal to allow his expert to testify regarding PAS.8 Among the reasons for affirming the trial court’s decision was the determination that an understanding of the PAS theory was not beyond common experience and that PAS evidence is not scientific enough to meet the Kelly-Frye evidentiary standard.

    Civil Case Law

    Evidence of Parental Alienation Syndrome is admitted more frequently in civil cases than in criminal court. PAS evidence has been admitted in cases involving custody determinations and is usually introduced in an attempt to show that one parent, in denigrating the other parent in the presence of the child, has caused that child to express distaste and/or hatred for that other parent.9

    States’ approaches to PAS evidence vary. A few states have allowed PAS evidence to be admitted in civil custody cases.10 Other courts, when confronted with PAS, have discussed it or allowed some evidence of it while emphasizing that such discussion did not comprise an evaluation of the legitimacy of PAS theory.11

    Challenging PAS Evidence

    Daubert12 and Frye13 are the most prominent cases dealing with admissibility of scientific evidence and expert testimony. While different jurisdictions employ different admissibility standards, there are a number of factors that can contribute relevant information to any admissibility evaluation. First, evidence of a scientific theory is more likely to be admitted in court if the techniques underlying that theory have been tested and if an error rate has been determined. The theory of PAS does not employ any assessable technique but rather, as stated in the Part 1 of this article, it is based upon anecdotal evidence that was personally observed and reported by Dr. Gardner. As a result, the accuracy of PAS theory has not been rigorously studied and verified. Second, the reliability of scientific evidence is more easily evaluated when it has been subject to peer review. As previously indicated, Gardner published his own work and his writings were not frequently subjected to scientific peer reviews.

    Prosecutors should diligently question any case law or article that is cited as supporting PAS theory. Some Web sites that discuss PAS refer to case law as supporting the reliability of PAS theory, but the opinions in these cited cases are often not adequately explained or they prove to be less supportive of PAS theory than argued. Prosecutors reviewing literature that is referenced as positive on PAS should scrutinize it carefully.14

    Procedural Arguments

    The strongest procedural argument against admission of PAS evidence vis a vis expert testimony is that it invades the province of the jury. Most states do not allow experts “to offer an opinion on the ultimate issue of fact as to whether the sexual abuse has occurred.”15 In those states, prosecutors should argue that allowing a PAS expert to testify that the allegations arose out of a sour relationship between parents permits that expert to testify as to the ultimate issue of the case.

    Prosecutors in jurisdictions that have adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence can argue for exclusion of PAS evidence under two rules. First, under rule 104(a), a trial judge must make “a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid.”16 PAS is not based on an easily articulable methodology that can be assessed for scientific validity and, consequently, prosecutors should argue that it fails even to pass the preliminary assessment for validity.

    Second, rule 403 states that evidence should be excluded when the probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.17 There is a possibility that the jury will see the court’s acceptance of defendant’s PAS expert as a determination that the testimony presented by the expert represents some scientific truth. Prosecutors should argue that it is within the common experience of jurors to contemplate the possibility that the non-accused parent planted ideas in the child’s head. Qualifying an expert to testify about PAS creates the risk that the jury will place too much emphasis and reliance on PAS evidence.

    Substantive Arguments

    A syndrome is a group of symptoms that appear to occur together.18 However, the cause of the symptoms is “often unknown or poorly understood,” while the cause of a disease, by contrast, is usually known.19 It is possible for a syndrome to indicate a strong relationship between a cause and a set of symptoms, but each syndrome falls in a different place along the continuum of certainty. The continuum is a concept that explains the strength and reliability of the supposed relationship.20

    Some syndromes are nondiagnostic, which means that they do not point to particular causes. PAS is a nondiagnostic syndrome.21 Thus, while an expert can argue the legitimacy of the theories underlying PAS, the expert is not able to point to a particular cause of the syndrome with certainty. Even if courts reject arguments regarding unreliability, prosecutors should remain acutely aware of how the evidence is being presented. If the expert is offering an opinion regarding the cause of the “syndrome,” prosecutors should object to the improper use of the evidence.

    Quick Tips for Challenging PAS Evidence

    There are many things that prosecutors can do to challenge PAS evidence in child abuse cases:

  • Challenge under Daubert/Frye. Argue that PAS evidence does not meet the evidentiary standard in your jurisdiction.

  • Know statistics and studies. Statistics about false reporting are available through the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse (NCPCA) or from the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information at http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov.

  • Know psychological dynamics of child abuse. Arm yourself with information about child abuse disclosures. Learn the psychological process of disclosure, the significance in the timing of disclosures, recantation, and proper procedures for conducting forensic interviews.22

  • Share information. Share your motions, briefs, and transcripts with other prosecutors. Create central files in the office so other prosecutors do not have to reinvent the wheel.

  • Write the APA. Send a letter to the American Psychiatric Association23 to discourage inclusion of PAS in the DSM-V.

  • Prepare your experts. Meet with your experts before trial to prepare them for the defense expert and what you anticipate his or her testimony will be.

  • Contact the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse (NCPCA). Call or E-mail the NCPCA with questions about child abuse or expert testimony.

    • Conclusion

      PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children. Prosecutors should educate themselves about PAS and be prepared to argue against its admission in court. In cases where PAS testimony is admitted, it is a prosecutor’s responsibility to educate the judge and jury about the shortfalls of this theory. As more criminal courts refuse to admit PAS evidence, more protection will be afforded to victims of sexual abuse in our court system.

      1 Staff Attorney, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.

      2 Staff Attorney, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.

      3 See Ragland, Erika and Fields, Hope, Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know, Update, Vol. 16, No. 5, Nov. 2003.

      4 The earliest criminal opinion that addressed PAS was handed down in Wyoming in 1994. In McCoy v. State, defendant was convicted of sexual assault and taking indecent liberties with a minor. During the trial, the state called an expert to testify about PAS. The state’s expert provided an overall explanation of PAS and concluded that the allegations of sexual assault were not fabricated, based on his sessions with the sexual abuse victim as well as the theory of PAS. The defendant appealed, claiming ineffective assistance and arguing that his attorney should have called his own PAS witness. The court disagreed and affirmed the convictions on all counts. This case is unusual in that the prosecutor, rather than the defendant, introduced the PAS evidence. However, practitioners should be aware of this decision.

      5 State v. Koelling, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 1056.

      6 658 N.Y.S.2d 787 (1997).

      7 People v. Fortin, 289 A.D.2d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001).

      8 People v. Sullivan, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3316.

      9 In reviewing civil case law dealing with PAS, it is important to recognize that there exists a theory that is similar to, but distinguishable from, PAS. Parental Alienation is a related theory that focuses on parental behavior that could lead to some change in the child’s relationship with the other parent. PAS is distinguishable in that it focuses on the behavior of the child in denigrating the other parent without justification. Darnall, Douglas. Parental Alienation: Not In the Best Interest of the Children. 75 N. Dak. L. Rev. 323 (1999).

      10 See generally, Pearson v. Pearson, 5 P.3d 239 (Alaska 2000) (PAS evidence admitted by trial court); Chambers v. Chambers, 2000 Ark. App. LEXIS 476; Kirk v. Kirk, 759 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001); In re Marriage of Rosenfeld, 524 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994); White v. Kimrey, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 1411; Barton v. Hirschberg, 137 Md. App. 1 (2001); In re S.G., 2003 Ohio 161; Cabot v. Cabot, 166 Vt. 485 (1997); In re Marriage of Shen, 2002 Wash. App. LEXIS 1075; Conde v. Krueger, 2003 Wisc. App. LEXIS 638.

      11 See C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 2003 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 100 (while PAS admitted at trial, appellate court indicated that it may have been inadmissible under Frye); Perlow v. Berg-Perlow, 816 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002) (objection to admission of PAS in lower court not preserved for appeal); In Interest of T.M.W., 553 So. 2d 260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (PAS discussed by court, but not accepted as a diagnostic tool); Perez v. DeBates, 2003 Ill. App. LEXIS 879 (court changed language describing behavior to avoid idea of PAS); Ellis v. Ellis, 840 So. 2d 806 (Miss. 2003)(PAS evidence admitted only with a limited definition); J.F. v. L.F., 694 N.Y.S.2d 592 (1999)(court held that while NY family courts discuss PAS in terms of whether a child was programmed to disfavor one parent, courts do not discuss the acceptability of PAS as a theory).

      12 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

      13 Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).

      14 Articles on PAS that have been published in peer reviewed journals are listed on the website of Creative Therapeutics, the publisher of many texts on PAS by Dr. Gardner, at www.rgardner.com/refs/pas_peerreviewarticles.html.

      15 See, e.g., People v. Loomis, 658 N.Y.S.2d 787, 789 (1997).

      16 Daubert.

      17 Fed. R. Evid. 403

      18 Myers, John E. B. Evidence in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases, Third Edition, Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1997.

      19 Id. at 542.

      20 Id. at 544.

      21 Id. at 548.

      22 Inquire with the Center about Finding Words, an intensive, week-long training for Multi-Disciplinary Teams addressing these and other issues related to interacting with children in sex abuse cases. Finding Words is offered nationally once per year, and periodically throughout the year in states that have developed their own Finding Words course.

      23 The American Psychiatric Association can be reached at 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3901, or via e-mail atapa@psych.org.

      Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Battered Mothers Rights - A Human Rights Issue.

      Permalink

      Parental Alienation Syndrome Debunked by the National District Attorney’s Association – Part One

      Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Battered Mothers Rights - A Human Rights Issue.

      Permalink

      Parental Alienation Syndrome Debunked by the National District Attorney’s Association – Part One

      Filed under: Activism, Child Custody, Child Custody Battle, Child Custody Issues, Child custody for fathers, Domestic Abuse, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, Parental Alienation Syndrome, parental alienation — justice4mothers @ 7:39 pm

      This is Part One of a Two Part Series from the National District Attorney’s Association and the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI).  Part Two will run tomorrow morning.

      Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know

      By Erika Rivera Ragland1 & Hope Fields2

      Introduction

      The late Dr. Richard Gardner, a clinical professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, coined Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) in 1985, after noticing a “disorder” among patients within his private practice. The “disorder” involves one parent alienating the child against the other parent typically in the context of a child-custody dispute. Dr. Gardner defined PAS as follows:

      [t]he parental alienation syndrome is a childhood disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. When true parental abuse and/or neglect is present, the child’s animosity may be justified and so the parental alienation syndrome explanation for the child’s hostility is not applicable.3

      Absent from this definition is specific reference to sexual abuse allegations, but these are often the “denigration” to which Dr. Gardner referred in his definition. In this context, PAS becomes a litigation tool for the accused parent to discredit the validity of the child’s sex abuse allegations by mounting an attack against the “inducing parent.”

      Although PAS may be hailed as a “syndrome” (a group of symptoms that occur together and constitute a recognizable abnormality), in fact it is the product of anecdotal evidence gathered from Dr. Gardner’s own practice.4 The purpose of this article is to briefly discuss the major premises upon which PAS is based, and to identify key weaknesses. Part 2 of this Update considers case law and strategies for meeting PAS defenses.

      PAS is based primarily upon two notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical research.

      1. PAS Presupposes a High Rate of False Accusations in Custody Cases

      The theory of PAS is based in part on the notion that, within custody disputes, there is a high incidence of false abuse allegations. Dr. Gardner theorized that allegations arising within the context of a custody dispute have a “high likelihood of being false,”5 and went so far as to state that he believed “the vast majority of allegations in this category [divorce cases with custody disputes] are false.” 6 To the contrary, the available research suggests that false allegation rates are not significantly high. For example, a 1990 study by Thoennes and Tjaden evaluated 9,000 divorces in 12 states7 and found that sexual abuse allegations were made in less than 2 percent of the contested divorces involving child custody. Within this group, it appears false allegations occurred in approximately 5% to 8% of cases.8 This study is one of the most comprehensive and least subject to bias and sampling problems, since its sample is so large and representative of the population of those divorcing with custody and visitation disputes.9

      2. PAS Presumes a Disadvantage to Women in Child Custody Determinations

      Another underlying principle of PAS is that women more often than men resort to making false allegations of abuse in disputed custody proceedings. The theory is that mothers encourage false accusations in order to obtain financial or strategic advantage during custody determinations. 10 The reasoning behind this theory seems to be that, in most jurisdictions, custody determination standards have changed from the “tender years” presumption—a standard which favored women obtaining custody of young children—to the “best interests of the child.”11

      This hypothesis ignores the fact that most sex offenders are indeed men.12 It also fails to account for the possibility that the divorce process might liberate an abused child from the heavy burden associated with keeping a secret like sexual abuse,13 or that post-divorce living conditions or circumstances might render a child vulnerable to sexual abuse.14

      Although the tender year’s presumption which favored women is largely gone, women are not disadvantaged under the new standard. The “best interests” standard removes gender presumptions altogether from custody determinations.15 It should be noted that some legal scholars suspect a gender bias within PAS theory itself.16

      Other Weaknesses: Lack of Peer Review and Recognition by DSM-IV

      Dr. Gardner mostly self-published and thus did not generally subject his theory to the peer review process.17 Moreover, PAS is not recognized by any professional associations,18 including the American Psychiatric Association. PAS is also not included within the DSM-IV.

      It is also worth noting that Dr. Gardner often expressed disdain for child abuse professionals, labeling them “validators,” theorizing that greed and desire for increased business prompted some sexual abuse allegations, and speculating that parents and professionals alike made some false allegations because “all of us have some pedophilia within us.”19

      Conclusion

      At best, PAS is a nondiagnostic “syndrome” that only explains the behavior of the child and the mother when there is a known false allegation.20 It is a courtroom diagnosis befitting adversaries involved in legal sparring. It is not capable of lending itself to hard data or inclusion in the forthcoming DSM-V.

      In short, PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law.

      Prosecutors and other child abuse professionals should educate themselves, their colleagues and clients when confronting PAS in the legal realm. Part 2 of this newsletter will address the case law on this subject. For more in-depth and comprehensive treatment of these issues, contact the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.

      1 Staff Attorney, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.

      2 Staff Attorney, American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse.

      3 Richard A. Gardner, M.D., “Does the DSM-IV Have Equivalents for the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Diagnosis?” American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(1):1-21; also available, http://www.rgardner.com/refs/ar12.html.

      4 Richard A. Gardner, M.D., The Parental Alienation Syndrome, at 59 (1992) (noting in the introduction of this book that he termed the disorder PAS after seeing children in his practice whom he believed were “brainwashed by one parent against the other”).

      5 Gardner, 1991, p. 4.

      6 See Kathleen Coulborn Faller, The Parental Alienation Syndrome: What is it and What Data Support it? Child Maltreatment, Vol. 3, No. 2, May 1998.

      7 Thoennes & Tjaden, The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse Allegation in Custody/Visitation Disputes, Child Abuse and Neglect 1990, 14:151-163.

      8 Id.

      9 Kathleen Coulborn Faller, David L. Corwin & Erna Olafson, Literature Review: Research on False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Divorce, APSAC Advisor 1993, 6(3), page 9.

      10 Richard Gardner, M.D., The Parental Alienation Syndrome, p. 62, 1992.

      11 Richard Gardner, M.D., The Parental Alienation Syndrome, p. 61-62, 1992.

      12 Faller, Corwin & Olafson, supra note 9, at 10.

      13 See Meredith Sherman Fahn, Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Disputes: Getting to the Truth of the Matter, Family Law Quarterly, Vol. XXV, No. 2, Summer 1991, page 203 (quoting Sink, Studies of True and False Allegations: A Critical Review, Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases 37, 38 (American Bar Association) (E. Nicholson ed. 1988)). For more information regarding the dynamics of sexual abuse, contact the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse for materials regarding Dr. Roland Summit’s “Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome.”

      14 Id. See also Robin Fretwell Wilson, Children at Risk: The Sexual Exploitation of Female Children After Divorce, 86 Cornell L. Rev. 251, 262-263 (2001).

      15 See Ex Parte Devine, 398 So.2d 686 (Ala. 1981) (discussing the origin of the tender years presumption and its constitutional infirmities; ultimately abandoning it in favor of the best interests of the child standard).

      16 See, e.g., Cheri L. Wood, The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability, 27 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1367, 1372-73 (1994); Kathleen Niggemyer, Comment, Conceiving the Lawyer as Creative Problem Solver: Parental Alienation Syndrome is Open Heart Surgery: It Needs More than a Band-Aid to Fix It, 34 Cal. W. L. Rev. 567, 576 (1998); Priscilla Read Chenoweth, Don’t Blame the Messenger in Child Sex Abuse Cases, N.J. L.J., April 19, 1993, at 17 (finding that “Gardner’s extravagant and conclusory language, and his obvious bias against women, should be enough to give any judge or lawyer pause before accepting his invitation to disbelieve and even punish the messenger [i.e., the parent reporting abuse by the other parent].” See also Marie Laing, For the Sake of the Children: Preventing Reckless New Laws, 16 Can. J. Fam. L. 229, 274 (1999) (concluding, “much of Gardner’s writing is strongly anti-woman. He states that the claims of women who refuse joint mediation due to violence are somewhere ‘between fabrication and delusion’”). For direct quotes from Dr. Gardner, refer to his 1992 book, The Parental Alienation Syndrome, p. 122.

      17 See Cheri L. Wood, supra, note 16.

      18 Id.

      19 Gardner (1991), page 26. He wrote, “Each time the accusers make an accusation, they are likely to be forming an internal visual image of the sexual encounter. With each mental replay, the accusers gratify the desire to be engaging in the activities that the perpetrators are involved in in the visual imagery.” See also Faller, supra note 6, at 104-105.

      20 See Faller, supra note 6, at 111.

      Leave a Comment

      March 28, 2009

      WARNING: Don’t Fall For Discredited “Parental Alienation Day”

      Filed under: Child custody for fathers, Children's rights, Corrupt bastards, Dr. Richard Gardner, Family Courts, Governors, Help for Victims of Domestic Violence, Legal abuse,Maternal Deprivation, Mother Child Relationship, Motherhood, Noncustodial Mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Protect yourself from FR groups, Psychologists, fathers fighting for custody — justice4mothers @ 1:42 pm

      image002

      For Immediate Release

      Contact: John Hrabe

      (562) 276-5898                                              

      March 27, 2009      

      (Houston, TX) – Justice for Children, one of the country’s leading child advocacy organizations, issued a warning to all 50 Governors and state legislatures against the latest attempt to legitimize a dangerous pseudoscientific theory by designating April 25th as “Parental Alienation Syndrome Awareness Day.” Judges, prosecutors, psychologists and child advocates agree that parental alienation syndrome is “junk science” that abusive parents commonly use to shift attention away from their abuse. 

      “Parental alienation syndrome has been debunked, disproven and discredited by every major group and association involved with child abuse cases,” said Tom Burton, General Counsel of Justice for Children. “Even with nearly unanimous agreement, defense attorneys continue to propagate this bogus theory in order to protect abusive parents.”

      Seventeen US states have issued proclamations honoring April 25th as “Parental Alienation Awareness Day.” This year, PAS radicals have targeted Texas Governor Rick Perry with an online petition. Child advocates like Justice for Children warn that such honorary proclamations give dangerous legal legitimacy to this debunked pseudoscientific theory.

      The Children’s Protection Alliance shares on its website the story of Alanna Krause, one child affected by this bogus theory.

      “Finally, one day my father threw me into a stone wall at school and a teacher called Child Protective Services. He’s never said as much, but my father panicked. He had worked so hard to build a delicate set of lies and twisted truths to present himself as the well-meaning parent whose “unstable” ex-wife had given his troubled daughter “alienating parent syndrome,” resulting in abuse “delusions.” The truth was his worst fear.”

      The public can learn more about parental alienation syndrome from the attached fact sheet or by visiting the Justice for Children website atwww.justiceforchildren.org.

      For over two decades, Justice for Children has been the country’s leading voice for abused and neglected children. JFC provides free legal support for abused children, sponsors legislation to increase children’s right, and exposes the systemic failures of bureaucratic child welfare agencies.

      Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Battered Mothers Rights - A Human Rights Issue.

      Permalink