"Parental alienation theories continue to be used in the family court systems... It is a convenient tool that attempts to explain basic human parental behaviors while making money for the court system, attorneys and Guardians Ad Litem, psychologists, and social workers... Remember also that psychology does not provide proof, nor does it predict... it supports popular opinion which waxes and wanes according to what society is focused on at the time. It can also help to guide or shape public opinion -- like religion. In that our society is misogynist, racist, and hostile to children, the application of psychology will reflect the same. This should not be surprising..." http://www.randijames.com/2011/03/how-to-apply-theory-of-parental.html

Is psychology science? Read "The Myth of Mental Illness" at http://arachnoid.com/psychology/myth.html

These were the words fired by Randall Todd Moore as he denied having "not one ounce of remorse" for kidnapping, sexually assaulting and killing his ex-wife. But was his ex-wife "alienating" the kids, as Moore alleged, or trying to protect them from danger? This case is clear, but as those working in domestic violence and child abuse realize, all too often clarity comes at a price... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-dawson/parental-alienation-and-d_b_811738....

"This is what Parental Alientation Syndrome (PAS) has wrought. You start with a garbage theory and the garbage applications just get more bizarre all the time.
                       "PAS theorists have continually argued that sexual abuse allegations regarding fathers are always "lies" made up by hysterical mothers to get their way in court. When the children back up the mother's claims, the kids are labeled as brainwashed and "alienated." [ note ] Though there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support PAS, that hasn't stopped the popularity of PAS with defense attorneys and fathers rights types, who generally ignore any real evidence.
                        "But of course, to make convoluted crap stick, you have to come up with stranger gyrations all the time. Stuff that utterly defies common sense. And this one takes the cake.
                       "Not only do we have an "unqualified assessor" who labeled this mother mentally ill while ignoring all evidence to support her allegations, we have a dimwit who actually believed the kids were "psychic" and reading Mom's mind when it came to the father's sexual abuse of the children..." http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2011/01/dump-experts-evaluator-accuses-kids-of.html

In Australia, "child protection expert Freda Briggs believes authorities are having mothers declared mentally ill when they complain their children are the subject of sexual abuse, because they are struggling to cope with an increasing number of victims.
                       "The UniSA Emeritus Professor and child protection expert, Freda Briggs, has asked Families Minister Jennifer Rankine to launch an inquiry into one case in which a woman's complaint was dismissed after an assessor found her two then-pre-school-aged children were "psychic" and had read the mother's mind when she thought about the father abusing them..." Other problems in one case included eviodentiary opinions by "police officer decided injuries to the older child were caused by constipation..." http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/expert-aghast-to-find-mum-was-declared-mentally-ill-while-reporting-child-abuse/story-e6frea83-1225981256959

[ Text file contains the last words of Bill Zeller ]

"Victims of terror do not present well in court. They are tense, emotional and understandably outraged. On the opposing side, tyrannical controllers can be calm and charming litigants, confident in the damage they have inflicted. Their lawyers, who are often accomplished bullies in their own right, tell astounding lies calculated to trigger a full display of symptoms in the victims.

"Psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner designed a stealth weapon in 1985 that he called 'Parental Alienation Syndrome.' A domestic-violence-denier, Gardner testified for hundreds of fathers and argued that mothers had 'alienated' their children against them. Gardner also wrote that sexual relations between parents and children were natural. He told filmmaker Garland Waller that children who report abuse by their fathers should be threatened with a beating. He committed suicide in 2003, but his ghost still haunts our courtrooms. Here are three examples from cases I have been following...

"In 2004, Warwick police charged a Family Court deputy sheriff with felony domestic violence when they found his girlfriend handcuffed in their kitchen with a broken jaw and eye socket. Already entrenched in litigation, the deputy sheriff was an often-unruly defendant in the same courtroom where he once kept order. He demanded custody of his ten-year-old daughter, who was terrified of him. 

"In the corridor during a break, David M. Tassoni, assistant to Chief Judge Jeremiah S. Jeremiah, Jr., told me he was searching for a psychologist who "understood parental alienation." Tassoni found Lori Meyerson, PhD, in a cramped country office... she recommended giving the father sole custody. General Magistrate John J. O'Brien, Jr., praised Meyerson's work...

"Tassoni told me he was working with Judge Bedrosian and a joint committee from the Court and the Bar Association on a training program to qualify guardians ad litem.  Their 2004 course and manual devoted an entire section to Gardner's theory of parental alienation.

"Attorney Lise M. Iwon, who is now president of the Rhode Island Bar Association, helped teach that course... Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch had failed to convene a grand jury. He considered the child too young to be believed... psychologist Bernice Kelly, PsyD... psychologist Peter J. Kosseff, PhD... " http://www.opednews.com/articles/Dr-Gardner-s-ghost-still-by-Anne-Grant-101219-843.html

http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/parental-alienation-richard-warshak/

Richard Warshak Responds To Critics - And The Countess Responds To Him

"If the mother has reacted to the abuse in a hysterical fashion, or used it as an excuse for a campaign of denigration of the father, then the therapist does well to try and 'sober her up'... Her hysterics... will contribute to the child's feeling that a heinous crime has been committed and will thereby lessen the likelihood of any kind of rapproachment with the father. One has to do everything possible to help her put the 'crime' in proper perspective. She has to be helped to appreciate that in most societies in the history of the world, [men having sex with children] was ubiquitous, and this is still the case." -- Richard A. Gardner, in True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse (1992), pp. 584-585

Parental alienation theory is about shutting up and censoring victims of child abuse. "Having a relationship with the father" is posited as more important than avoiding child rape. More quotes from Richard Gardner, Richard Warshak's mentor. Yoshimisu Huffington asks: how many cats, do you think, actually have harmed infants, versus homo sapien males? And yet we cats aren't allowed in the nursery! More: Do children "need" two parents? Before applying "treatment" for parental alienation, doesn't it have to be established -- rather than assumed -- that the specific child in question actually is suffering a harm that needs to be addressed?

Opportunistic? Money-motivated? In addition to the atrocity of the reconfabulated Rachel Foundation crap aka "Bridges", Richard Warshak markets a cheesy custody evaluator shortcut questionaire from his website at www. wpqonline.com.

"The Warshak Parenting Questionnaire 2nd Edition" or "WPQ" appears to have been originally designed for child therapy intake, but the thing appears to be marketed to custody evaluators as a time-saving tool. (Crazy, since there might be no way to verify who actually completes an on-line questionnaire.)

The website states "...for the past thirteen years, your colleagues throughout the country have turned to the WPQ-2 to improve the quality of their evaluations and document their work. It is a particularly valuable addition to social studies, custody evaluations, consultations, and mediation because it provides a cost-effective means of eliciting comprehensive data with no extra investment of your time."

Custody evaluators participating in an anonymous child custody listserve have commented as follows, regarding Warshak's shenanigans:

• "...We custody evaluators are appointed to do our own work, at least in interviewing and evaluating... I would think that part of my job would be to generate my OWN follow-up questions... don't know how any computerized questionnaire can do that... also a little troubled by the intent that evaluators "cut and paste"... interpretive language of any kind... into their reports... what "follow up" questions will pop up based on the parent's responses?... how would the evaluator-user justify, on the witness stand, why they chose to ask alienation questions... if neither parent has raised that as an allegation? ..." (California Ph.D., September 10, 2006).

• "...the section on "Differential Treatment of Parents" (about two-thirds through the sample report (at w w w. wpqonline.com), under "Symptoms of Possible Mental Health Problems") seems to invite alienation claims if parent was not thinking of such claims, and seems to suggest strongly how to support such a claim if parent is thinking of it. It seems to me to be way too suggestive/leading. In effect: Now, parent, would you like to consider making a claim of PAS? If so, have you considered claiming that your child does X? How about claiming that your child does Y? And don't forget Z, have you considered that as possibly supporting a PAS claim? (This is assuming that the questions posed to the parent closely parallel the topics covered in this section of the report, and I suppose I could be wrong in making that assumption.)" (Ohio Ph.D., February 22, 2007).

And here is a report on the science from real professor, who is, apparently, an example of those whom Warshak calls demonizers, extremists, fanatics and true believers (a buzzword out of the witchhunt crowd, i.e. the false acc - sex abuser defense lobby).

Several comments were made about the American Bar Association, the American Judges Association, the National District Attorney’s Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges debunking the use of “parental alienation” in child custody cases because of it’s well known use by abusers to take custody of children.  Of course, anyone who makes the kind of money that Warshak makes ($20,000 per patient per four days in “treatment”) doesn’t care who claimed what for what purpose, they just know they will make money.  He doesn’t care that children may be in the custody of someone who beat the other parent, probably in front of the children, or may have even been sexually abusing the children.  No, he doesn’t care, but the professional organizations know what the deal is.  They know that victims of abuse have lost their children to abusers, and corrupt individuals that support the use of this legal tactic should be shut down:

2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases

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.

Below, blather from Richard Warshak, the cahuna who pontificates at others about how they should speak about the abusive ex, spitting venomous labels on those who stand on the side of science, even comparing them to child molestors. Goodgod, can you just imagine how he would behave were he himself a party in a divorce and child custody case? Of course, it can't happen, since the man doesn't have children himself. He's a pontificating know-nothing applying experimental therapies on children. Haven't we had enough of this crap from psychology over the decades? Sure, we have HIS say-so about the terrific outcomes he claims to create (not exactly your objective neutral methodology.)

Is there a shred of evidence anywhere that any of this makes children grow up into happier, healthier, more successful people?  NO!  Warshak's whines, on the pro-parental alienation "PAD" (from the unsuccessful campaign to include "parental alienation disorder" in the DSM) website:

"...some people demonize me... mentality of a true believer... the brick wall of a closed mind... misguided ideas... they resemble people from earlier generations who refused to acknowledge the evidence of their senses... fanatics who attempt to alienate my audience... extremists... divorce poison... these people believe that the judge either was biased or was foolishly taken in... one website claims a conspiracy... when my wife reads these vicious and absurd accounts, she shakes her head in disbelief... 'Don't they know that you've devoted your career to the welfare of children?'...the drumbeat of misinformation... their zeal... their smears. They live for the battle... mother... mother... mother... mother... alienated... mother..."

In other words, these women are reacting in an hysterical fashion? Sounds like Richard Gardner. Warshak's point of view about women comes through loud and clear in his continual yammering about the so-called "alienated mother" case -- as if his critics are motivated, not by science, but as he is, by gender bias and opportunistic horseshit. The drivel, if you want to read it, is at padsupport.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/parental-alienation-impracticality-impressions-dr-richard-warshak-answers-critics/ Not a shred of rational argument in it. More on the "alienated mother case" at Randi James Blog: Warshak Can Diagnose Parental Alienation without even Interviewing the Child

Warshak's whore of the court blither also can be seen in this case in which Warshak testified, inanely, against the mother in favor of a male nonparent. Whoever pays...

http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2010/12/do-as-i-demand-or-the-kids-die.html

Over the past couple of years there has been a rash of dads murdering their exes and children (as reported on Dastardly Dads). The latest case making the news is giving feelings of doom for three missing children that I and other people I've talked to suspect with a sinking feeling are already dead. We now have the case of John Skelton, a dad who supposedly sent his three young sons off with a woman (who likely doesn't exist) and then attempted suicide. Mom, Tanya Skelton, is obviously beside herself since her sons have been missing since Thanksgiving. The father's rights group The Children's Rights Council has jumped onto this cases with an editorial designed strictly for self-promotion and profit. Father's rights advocate Jeffery Leving had excused the behavior of murderous dads in a 2009 editorial, blaming the murders on alleged bias against dads in custody cases and divorce. His propaganda is designed to deflect from the truly heinous natures of these kinds of murders, to give himself media attention, and to provide excuses for dads who murder their children.

The 18-year-old who negotiated the truce between mom and dad. Son's birthday pact with parents leads to ceasefire in bitter eight-year dispute. Richard Warshak injected himself and parental alienation into this case - and lost. He and his program won't make any money from this family.

Richard Warshak Dances Around Parental Alienation - Part Two
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2010/11/richard-warshak-dances-around-par...

"Tiffany Barney fought for four years to protect her daughter, claiming her ex-husband was sexually abusing the child." Notice how the judge initially refused to pay any attention -- as if the mother had claimed something like the father had let the child stay up too late -- and equates his claims with a severity equivalent to hers. After four years, and godknows how much emotional and financial damage to mother and child, the judge excuses her years of bad rulings with the equivalent of an "Oh well, I was fooled" and (incredibly) professes to believe that the father's original lawyer also was fooled. Video is from 2008.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/media/video/mothers_struggle.html

In light of Dr. Richard Warshak continuing to censor most comments that oppose him or question him in any way, discussion must continue on the many other websites that have been covering this issue that the Huffington Post continues to ignore.  Here is an interesting article to read, especially since I have been reading Warshak is denying any involvement in a "treatment" center.

Speaker’s Corner: Does the Warshak workshop work?

By Jan Weir | Law Times Publication Date: Monday, 19 April 2010

It can be put no better than the oft-reported quote of Dr. Sol Goldstein, who talked about the “scourge” of parental alienation in Canada.

Some commentators call it the “20/80” of the court, referring to the 20 per cent of the cases that take up 80 per cent of the time. There seems to be no effective solution.

Dr. Richard Gardner, a New York psychiatrist, proposed a theory in the early 1980s that some alienation was irrational in that the accepted parent had brainwashed the children to the extent that the cure was to deprogram them of their rejection of the other parent.

Enter Richard Warshak into the Ontario court system. He’s a psychologist from Texas who claims to have developed a four-day workshop at a cost of up to $20,000 to cure the irrational brainwashing type of alienation.

Only a handful of psychologists have training in the techniques. In some cases, the courts will order children into the custody of the rejected parent, who will then have them take the program. Sometimes, the court suspends contact with the accepted parent for a period of time.

One criticism of this theory is that it gives a tremendous amount of power to the health professional in that a misdiagnosis takes away the children’s right to object to certain parental behaviour and subjects them to an intimidating experience. The risk of that scenario increases when one parent is wealthy and the other is unable to retain an expert.

But how successful is the workshop? While it’s been around for 17 years, there hasn’t been an independent study to decide the criteria for evaluating success, monitor the cases, and compile the data.

The courts have developed rules of evidence on expert opinions because judges are intelligent amateurs who don’t want to pass judgment on the validity of scientific theories.  Thus, they are gatekeepers. For the first test of admissibility, they rely on the scientific community to determine whether the theory or technique is generally acceptable. There is no such evidence for the Warshak workshop.

Additionally, because there is a recognition that a novel theory or technique may not have been in existence long enough, the courts have developed four criteria to admit such evidence. The Warshak workshop doesn’t meet the criteria for novelty because it has been around for more than 17 years.

However, even if it were novel, the reliability of the evidence on its validity wouldn’t meet the four-part test. That’s because the first element is that it’s capable of being and in fact has been tested. Here, while the data is available for an independent test, none has taken place according to generally accepted scientific principles.

Warshak has recently published a study he did himself claiming the workshop is highly effective. But this work doesn’t meet generally accepted principles for a valid scientific study.

The guarantee of validity is independent confirmation or repeatability by other scientists. The history of science is replete with examples of very intelligent and respected scientists who have made claims that, after review by other experts, have proven unreliable.

There is enough data for short- and long-term evaluation of the Warshak workshop. One of the concerns is whether, even if the data confirms the claims, the workshop works for the right reasons.

The procedure may be so intimidating that it may frighten the children into submission. Some of them are now old enough to give feedback on such concerns.

I know of the results of just two orders from Ontario judges sending children to the Warshak workshop. One is J.K.L. v. N.C.S. The other is a case widely reported in the media in which an older brother sought to intervene to get custody of his brothers after an associate of Warshak sent them to a hospital psychiatric department alleging they had mental health issues.

The report in The Globe and Mail on the case noted that the psychiatrist at the hospital said there was nothing wrong with the boys.

Judges appear to be ignoring the Mohan general acceptance test out of desperation for a solution to this seemingly unsolvable problem. But will this prove justified?

Given that judges are making these orders and there is now local data, a study could keep track of these cases. It’s an important issue for which a research grant would likely be available.

Warshak may also reach into his altruism to make his techniques known to the health profession at large. Although it would entail a significant financial sacrifice, doing so would bring the benefit of these methods to people of more modest means and permit evaluation of them according to the usual cautionary measures of science.

The idea isn’t to deny that the workshop is effective. Warshak’s claims may in fact be correct. What’s missing is the proper scientific basis to support them and hence their admissibility in court.

There is no doubt in my mind that Warshak believes in his theory and techniques. However, as Ontario’s recent experience has shown, belief in a beneficial theory can be harmful. The only safe control on such good intentions is an independent review by the scientific community.

---

Jan Weir is a Toronto lawyer who was involved in S.G.B. v. S.J.L., a case in which a judge overturned an arbitrator’s award ordering participation in Warshak’s program. That matter is to go back to court for a new trial.

Health & Equality Minister, Leire Pajín, announced today her intention to suggest a change in the law at tomorrow's Council of Ministers meeting, which would give judges the power to stop abusive partners from having custody of their children.

Pajín made her announcement as part of today's "International Day against home Violence", in which she remembered the 64 women who have perished in Spain this year at the hands of their partners.

"We cannot allow those who are violent or who kill to have custody of their children", she stressed.

Current law provides for the removal of shared custody rights from the perpetrators of home violence, but does not regulate those cases where a mother dies as the result of her partner's violence, leaving custody in the hands of the Her dad.The changes proposed by Pajín today would also see the correct of the perpetrator to inherit his dead partner's property removed.

http://rightsformothers.com/2010/11/26/hola-its-time-to-move-to-spain/

http://pasisascam.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/dr-richard-warshak-still-censoring...

Richard Warshak Dances Around Parental Alienation - Part Two
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2010/11/richard-warshak-dances-around-par...

If "parental alienation" is merely a lay term that carries no special meaning, and can arise from all kinds of different things, then (1) it doesn't require "forensic expert" psychologists to identify in court, and (2) it cannot possibly be something that is identified and "treated" with the same protocols. When will the marketing by opportunistic PA$ promoter$ be seen for what it is.

(Threats, brainwashing, and control of children by abusers is not "parental alienation" but domestic violence by proxy.)

Claudine Dombrowski is the lead plaintiff in the IACHR case.

Attorney Dianne Post wrote a wonderful article for the Huffington Post on the IACHR case involving ten mothers and one child victim who is now an adult. Note on the original article, there are opposing (and frankly, mean-spirited comments from father’s rights folks…one even trashes me, even though I haven’t commented on the article) comments, lending credence to the supposition the Dr. Richard Warshak is deleting opposing comments, to censor the fact that “parental alienation” has been debunked by many organizations and is considered “junk science” by prominent psychologists.  He uses his debut on the Huffington Post to hawk his wares…his book and “expert testimony” service.  Parents tell sad stories on the post and he recommends his book to them.  Warshak is letting up a couple token comments now because of the criticism, but is still deleting a majority of them.

So here’s a good post about the reality in family courts, and families that have been destroyed by abusers using claims of “parental alienation” against their victims.  Ms. Post decided to submit the article after being disgusted with the censorship that was occurring on Warshak’s article.  Censorship not being practiced on her post.

Dianne Post

Attorney

Posted: November 16, 2010 03:18 PM

Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law

Ten mothers, one victimized child now an adult, and six organizations working in the field of child abuse and family law filed a petition on April 10, 2007, at the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C., against the United States for the pattern and practice of courts awarding custody or unsupervised visitation to child abusers and molesters. The petitioners come from Kansas, Georgia, California, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Illinois and Nevada.

Ten years earlier, on Mother’s Day, May 11, 1997, a group of mothers who lost custody of their children gathered on the steps of the U. S. Capitol in Washington, D. C. Entitled “Give Us Back Our Children,” the event was held to represent the increasing numbers of women who are losing custody of their children to batterers and child abusers. This event, co-sponsored by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the House of Ruth, My Sister’s Place, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), brought attention to the plight of women and children unfairly victimized by the legal system, and to dispel the myth that women always win custody of their children. That was 13 years ago. The situation today is even worse. The stories of these petitioners are not unique. They are the tip of the proverbial iceberg indicating a grave and growing injury to human rights.

Wendy Titelman is one of the petitioners. Her attorney, Richard Ducote, who has represented battered women for years, said:

After twenty years in family law courtrooms throughout the country, I confidently say that no woman, despite very abundant evidence that her child has been sexually molested by her ex-husband or that she has been repeatedly pummeled by the violent father of her child, can safely walk into any family court in the country and not face a grave risk of losing custody to the abuser for the sole reason that she dared to present the evidence to the judge and ask that the child be protected.

Sol Gothard, Judge of the Court of Appeals in Louisiana said:

There are very few times in law when you can state anything categorically, but I can certainly say that beyond any doubt whatsoever, the problem expressed by Wendy Titelman in this book is epidemic and widespread, and it has been this way for the forty-four years that I have been involved with the legal system.

Karen Anderson has been fighting for her children for 17 years. Her son Jeff Hoverson, now of age, has joined in the petition. He recounts that the day he was taken from his mother at 10 years of age was traumatizing:

So now I had no brothers, no pets, I was 3-4 hours from my home, and again… no mom. This is when I was damaged so severely emotionally… No one told me anything about my mom or why I was at my dad’s or why we were in San Francisco on a sidewalk. I asked but received no answers. I felt that if I wasn’t told anything that I was worthless to everyone. I was made into a possession rather than a child.

The facts of the individual cases are a catalog of proven domestic violence and child sexual molestation ignored by the courts. The mothers are labeled as mentally ill or having Parental Alienation Syndrome, though PAS has absolutely no scientific validity and is used in a very discriminatory way to remove children from mothers who try to protect the children and themselves from violence and abuse. Yet in these petitioners’ cases it is used over and over to punish the protective parent.
 
This problem has been brought to the attention of family court systems, states and the national government all to no avail. In 1990, Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. 20 years later, it continues unabated. Legislation has been passed. Judges have been educated. Still it continues. Thus petitioners are turning to international courts to protect their human rights and the rights and safety of their children.

While state courts are responsible for custody cases, the federal government is responsible to ensure that their judicial systems operate in accordance with the Organization of American States Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man. The specific articles the petitioners claim to have been violated are:

Article I. Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
The courts place the children directly in danger without regard to their right to life, liberty or security of person. In addition, often the arrangements made for visitation are unsafe to the mother as well.

Article II. All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.
The gender discrimination both in the courts in general and in custody cases in particular has been known, studied and proven for years. The gender bias studies in the 1980′s showed bias that has never been corrected. The studies of custody have shown that it is a complete myth that women get custody over men or that men are disfavored in family court. It is such a pervasive myth that years of litigation and proof has not shaken it — to the harm of the victims of violence.

Article IV. Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever.

Litigants, especially mothers, who report child abuse are punished with jail or the loss of custody of their children. The protective parents are in a Catch-22 situation. If they do not protect their children, they are charged with failure to protect and the child protection agencies take their children. If they do act to protect, the courts put the children directly into the arms of the abuser.

Article V. Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life.

Often the protective parents who report abuse are labeled mentally ill or diagnosed with such imaginative syndromes as parental alienation or munchhausen’s by proxy. Often they are ordered into counseling or in the case of one petitioner, taken to the mental hospital.

Article VI. Every person has the right to establish a family, the basic element of society, and to receive protection therefor.

By separating the protective parents from their children for no valid reason, the parent is denied the right to establish a family. Some of these petitioners have not seen their children for years. Every single petitioner was denied contact with their child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them.

Article VII. All women, during pregnancy and the nursing period, and all children have the right to special protection, care and aid.

Often battering begins during pregnancy, yet special protection is not afforded the mothers, even when they have an order of protection. Much research has proven that children of abusers are likely to be abused themselves and have a higher rate of sexual molest. Yet courts continue to refuse to protect the children. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in the DeSheney case that the state does not owe any right of protection to children even when they know of the abuse and have in fact placed that child in that home with the father. This is in plain violation of the Declaration.

Article XVIII. Every person may resort to the courts to ensure respect for his legal rights. There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights.

The lack of due process in family court is legion. Ex parte hearings and communications, decisions without hearings, refusal to admit the mother, refusal to admit evidence of violence is rampant in the cases and violates the most basic principles of due process. Little attention or time is given to these decisions that shape a child’s life forever.

Article XXIV. Every person has the right to submit respectful petitions to any competent authority, for reasons of either general or private interest, and the right to obtain a prompt decision thereon.

The gender bias studies of the 1980′s showed that courts are not competent when dealing with women. Unfortunately, things have not improved. In spite of training, legislation and lobbying, judges continue to ignore statutes that mandate no custody to abusers. The petitioners have tried to hold the judges accountable by appeal or disciplinary procedures, all to no avail.

Article XXV. No person may be deprived of his liberty except in the cases and according to the procedures established by pre-existing law.

The many children who are put directly into harms way by being placed with an abuser or molester are deprived of their liberty. When courts ignore evidence of violence, they are not following pre-existing law. It is commonplace for judges to completely ignore state statutes that mandate that custody will not go to a perpetrator thereby violating state law as well as putting children in danger.

Article XXX. It is the duty of every person to aid, support, educate and protect his minor children, and it is the duty of children to honor their parents always and to aid, support and protect them when they need it.

These petitioners have tried to protect their children. It is the courts that have prohibited them. The cost to both child and parent is overwhelming and devastating.

The Gonzales case, also filed at the InterAmerican Commission, illustrated in their hearing the failure of the American justice system to protect battered women and children. That case dealt with the failure of the police department. This case deals with legal abuse — the failure of the legal system, the courts, the guardians ad litem, the attorneys for the children, the state protective agencies to both follow the law and to protect the helpless children who face the horror of violence daily.

Unfortunately, the IACHR has not moved on the case. After more than three years, they have not even examined it or forwarded it to the U.S. government. How many children have to suffer before justice is done?

Claudine Dombrowski, after being beaten and raped by ex-husband Hal Richardson, one of many attacks by him, was accused of "parental alienation."

Prominent psychologists and psychiatrists have debunked the use of “parental alienation” in child custody cases.  So have many professional organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the American Judges Association, the National District Attorney’s Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, with the latter warning family court judges against accepting claims of “parental alienation” or “parental alienation syndrome” in child custody cases because of it’s well know use by abusers to gain child custody from their victims.  Notice in their warning (on pages 12 – 13 in their guide) there is no mention of abusive, evil fathers or battered, victimized mothers.   No, when the charge of gender wars or bias comes up, it is generally from the men’s rights or father’s rights activists, who often promote this junk science.

Recently there was a child custody case in Canada I like to refer to often.  This is a case in which Dr. Richard Warshak was involved in, where one of the parents made a claim of “parental alienation” against the other parent who had physical custody of their two teenaged boys.  Dr. Warshak had only spoke to the parent claiming “parental alienation” and not to the other parent.  He hadn’t even talked to the two boys when he made the recommendation to the court that the boys should come to his Texas “treatment” facility for reprogramming, at the cost of $40,000 for the four day program.  It was so ordered by the court, but was overturned by appeal because of the fact that Dr. Warshak hadn’t even talked to the boys beforehand.  It was a nice chance for him to pick up a quick $40,000 for what had been called “quack treatment” by one of Canada’s leading child psychologists, Dr. Peter Jaffe.  Oh…did I mention that the parent claiming “parental alienation” was the mother?

What about California father Jayraj Nair, who was accused of “parental alienation” by Dr. Janelle Burrill, who recently had her board certification revoked and is under investigation by the State of California?  Mr. Nair hasn’t seen his son in about a year and a half…which is often what happens in these “parental alienation” cases.  The child is the one who suffers the most in these situations, and the corrupt psychologists make lots of money.

In the view of domestic violence advocates and the professional organizations listed above, claims of “parental alienation” in child custody cases are not about gender, but about abusive claims that are typically leveled at the other parent which seek to strip that parent of custody, often being successful at cutting off contact totally between the accused parent and their children.  Most of the time, the heart of the matter leads to the court disregarding domestic violence and/or not listening to or believing the children in the case.  As a matter of fact, in Dr. William Bernet’s proposal to the committee in charge of updating the DSM-V, Dr. Bernet states that one of the criteria that may indicate “parental alienation disorder” is that a child is an “independent thinker.”  Really.  If a child has decided he is afraid of being with a parent, and has independently decided this on his own, he may have “parental alienation disorder.”  Bruises, ripped hymens, broken bones optional I guess.

But back to the gender war issue.  Robert Franklin, of Fathers & Families, published the article below about that Canadian case last year and I felt like hell had just frozen over.  Why was a men’s rights advocate suddenly questioning the use of “parental alienation” in this case which Dr. Richard Warshak was in?  Was it because it was a father that was on the receiving end?  They certainly did a 180 degree turnabout in their views of “parental alienation” in child custody cases.  Yet, I have not heard of any turnabouts from DV advocates or the professional organizations on their views of “parental alienation.”  Just where are the “gender war” claims coming from then?  Just look through the comments that Dr. Warshak has allowed to be posted under his Huffington Post article and you’ll get the idea.

Now for Robert Franklin’s article:

From Men’s Daily News [ mensnewsdaily-.com /glennsacks/2009/05/05/eight-year-custody-battle-ends-with-handshakes-and-some-good-questions/ ]:

Eight Year Custody Battle Ends With Handshakes and Some Good Questions

By Robert Franklin, Esq. | May 5, 2009

This is an interesting case out of Canada and it puts a wrinkle into the PAS debate that I think needs attention (The Globe and Mail, 4/27/09).

It’s a case I’ve written about before and that has been pretty high-profile in the Canadian press.  Basically, it involves a divorced couple with three sons, the oldest of whom is 18.  The parents fought so bitterly over the children with allegations of parental alienation on each side, that eventually the 18-year-old filed a motion to intervene in the case which requested that custody of his two younger brothers be awarded to him.

To my surprise, the court granted his motion, and lo and behold once it did, the parents started making nice with the boys and with each other.  I don’t know if the young man realizes it or not, but from here it looks like his successful intervention scared his parents into some semblance of reasonable behavior.  My guess is that they realized that their eight-year legal donnybrook could have ended with both of them losers.  P.F., the 18-year-old, said, “My dad came up and shook my mom’s hand.  That was something I hadn’t seen in a very long time.  It was generally a very happy situation.”

In all this, P.F. looks like the only responsible adult.  And in that capacity, I think we ought to listen to what he has to say about his experiences in family court.

First, he’s not a bit happy with the experts in the case.  He feels strongly that they had theories to peddle and they were going to do so regardless of the realities of the case.  They became advocates for PAS rather than impartial assessors of parental and adolescent behavior.

P.F. adds that children should be listened to in family courts.  In most states in the United States, they are, at least once they’ve reached a certain age.  In Texas, by the time a child reaches the age of 14, he/she can pretty much pick which parent to live with.  Absent unusual circumstances, the court will honor the child’s wishes regarding custody.  Maybe that’s not true in Canada.  Here’s an article that sketches the basics of what happens when a child expresses a preference for one parent over the other (The State, 4/28/09).

But the interesting wrinkle P.F. puts on the issue of PAS allegations is that once an expert gives evidence of PAS, the court tends to ignore what the child has to say, apparently believing alienation to be an established fact.  That places the judge in the difficult position of figuring out whether the child’s testimony is PAS-tainted or the real thing.

And how to solve that problem, I’m not sure.  My guess is that what is and is not true about PAS can be seen, particularly in young children, with a little education from psychologists and social workers.  But determining what is the legitimate wish of a child and what is the wish of an alienated child will be, in many cases, tough to do.