Court Bans Divorce Mom’s Partner from Sleeping Over

Posted by JeanneSager at 4:15 PM on December 29, 2008

Proving once again that what’s good for the gander isn’t necessarily going to be allowed by homophobic family court judges for the goose, a divorced mum from Tennessee has been informed she can’t allow her lesbian partner to sleep over on the same nights as her kids. 

Her ex-husband, meanwhile, has remarried and his wife sleeps over – well, lives – with him every night. 

Angel Chandler and Joseph Barker have been divorced for ten years, and shared custody of their two kids (now thirteen and fifteen) that whole time. They’ve both entered new relationships too, Barker remarrying five years ago while Chandler has maintained a monogamous relationship with a woman since 1999. But when they went to court late last year to modify the custody arrangements, the State of Tennessee sent both parents and both kids for psychological work-ups. 

The evaluation determined Chandler’s partner was a positive influence on her two kids. The court ignored it. A “paramour” restriction was added to the custody arrangements earlier this year, restricting Chandler’s partner from being in their home on the nights when the kids were with Mum. Because after nine years, suddenly a set of teenagers are going to be shocked to find out Mom’s a lesbian? 

The women are now living in a duplex, side by side, so they can abide by court rules and still be together – sort of. The ACLU has stepped into the fray, filing a brief this week that urges the court to remove the paramour restriction, calling it unconstitutional for interfering with Chandler’s abilities to raise her children as she sees fit. 

If the court really wants to do what’s best for the kids, how about allowing two sets of parents to get on with their lives in loving relationships and letting those kids see examples on both sides of happy, committed, successful couples? 

Child abuse and child custody

Source:http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html

 

---

---

Child abuse and child custody

---

Posted: March 09, 1999
1:00 am Eastern

By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

On June 25, 1996, noting that “criminals have more rights than victims,” Bill Clinton called for a “Victim’s Right’s Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution. Fifteen years prior, Ronald Reagan prefaced the 1981 California DoJ Crime Victims Handbook saying, “For most of the past thirty years … justice has been unreasonably tilted in favor of criminals and against their innocent victims … a tragic era … when victims were forgotten and crimes were ignored.”

This “tragic era” of U.S. justice was working overtime March 1, at 8 p.m., at the Texas Senate, where Bill 208 was on the fast track for passage. The bill, purported as a tool to further protect battered women and children, would actually permit criminal abusers — yes, violent offenders and incest abusers — to receive sole legal custody of the children they desert, batter and sexually violate. Elizabeth Richards, director of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice, believes this bill is circulating nationwide. She explains: “The divorce data show that most normal, loving, dads want to share their children, with mom the main caregiver. But, especially once the state began attaching the incomes of ‘deadbeat dads’ for child support, many such deserters, even convicted child abusers, took revenge by demanding, and getting, sole custody. The jurisdiction of irresponsible judges is now being extended into legislation.”

Jan Barstow, director of the Texas Women’s and Children’s Coalition asked that I appear as an expert witness, testifying against “Family Violence Bill No. 208,” sponsored by Sen. Mike Moncrief (D-Dallas-Ft. Worth). Reviewing the bill, it seemed impossible for children to be so brazenly harmed by the American justice system. But, you decide. Read the contested section of Bill No. 208. Then, I will discuss several words which turn a purportedly child-friendly law into a child-abusers law. The relevant portion of the bill addresses: “past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse or a child.”

(c) The court shall not appoint as sole managing conservator a party who has a history of committing family violence as defined by Section 71.004 unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) the party has successfully completed a battering intervention and prevention program as provided by Section 85.022 or, if such a program is not available, has successfully completed a course of treatment pursuant to Section 153.010;

(2) the party is not currently abusing alcohol or a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code; and

(3) appointing the other party as sole managing conservator would endanger the physical or emotional welfare of the child.

First, note the term “party” equalizes victim and abuser as mere parties in a controversy, rather than a parent protecting a child from one with a “history” of sexual or physical violence against the “parent, a spouse or a child” victims. “Party” annuls decades of effort by Victims’ Rights advocates to standardize terms in the family violence literature which establish “fault” in domestic crimes. For example, the seminal 128 page Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence, Final Report (September 1984) describes “victims” and “abusers,” not the parties in family violence crimes.

Next, look at other key words and phrases. The bill says “sole” child custody will be denied an abuser with a “history of committing family violence … unless” the “preponderance of evidence” finds an abuser “successfully completed a course of treatment,” and is not “currently abusing” drugs and alcohol (what of “joint” custody?).

The “unless” disclaimer grants abusers with a history of “physical or sexual abuse” sole child custody if abusers (a) pass a violence course (b) appear “currently” to not be “abusing” alcohol and/or illicit drugs, if (c) the protecting parent “would endanger the physical or emotional welfare of the child.” The first problem: no credible data exist showing a “course of treatment” (allegedly six to twelve weeks) succeeds in permanently pacifying violent abusers, while the professional literature on child molestation confirms there is no known cure for pedophiles.

On point, Jan Barstow, testifying on the bill said, “Wording about abusers attending court-assigned classes doesn’t consider the extreme denial and need for control that is part of an abuser’s character. This becomes a revolving door in which the offender abuses, submits to a protective order including assignment to classes, and is legally eligible for sole custody six weeks later.”

The second problem: the bill says abusers cannot be “currently abusing” alcohol and drugs, later adding they should “abstain” from consumption. However, Moncrief should know, as a practical matter, that incest commonly takes place while the offender is “under the influence” and the data also confirm that drug and alcohol abuse are commonly addictive behaviors unresponsive to cures. Alcohol use is verified too late as it is rapidly excreted in urine and it is impossible to prove the use of many addictive chemicals without court-ordered daily testing and monitoring.

Finally, if a judge decides the protective parent might “endanger the physical or emotional welfare of the child,” the bill grants sole child custody, not joint custody, to the criminal abuser. The bill does not require that the protecting parent be similarly convicted of endangering the child, “child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse,” no evidential requirements, no trial, no confessions of abuse are mandatory before wresting child from the protecting parent and awarding sole custody to the child’s abuser. At best, the bill assumes endangering children at the hands of a proven abuser is a better plan than placing such betrayed children in a carefully monitored orphanage. Protecting parents would best be tried in a court of law, since the justice system is awarding their battered and abused children to convicted child molesters.

Barstow adds “current and proposed wording enables defense attorneys to accuse parents of emotional abuse when they seek protection for an abused child. The very act of seeking a protective order or raising concerns about abuse exposes the protective parent to charges of ‘alienating the child from the father’ (emotional abuse) and ‘false allegations’ (emotional abuse), removing the child from the protective parent and placing them in the sole care of the offender. The penalty for emotional abuse in the Texas family code is losing custody or total parenting rights.”

Barstow cites judicial training as misguided, commonly “relying upon such child custody experts” as Dr. Richard Gardner, whose “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) trivializes pedophilia and incest. Gardner writes, “If the mother has reacted to the [incestuous] 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 ‘sober her up.'” Barstow asserts that under threat of PAS mothers are indeed being “sobered up.” Mothers reporting incest become “guilty” of PAS (denigrating and alienating the father). That is, “emotional abuse” of the child.

Thus, women nationwide who follow the law and seek protective custody orders from the state after battery or child sexual abuse, are increasingly labeled the “emotionally” harmful “party.” One such PAS mom writes, “I am only allowed to see her 4 hours a month, I am being charged $100.00 an hour to visit my own daughter … and I pay $600.00 a month child support [to the incest offender]. I cannot believe that this can happen in America.”

Richards also claims to have fully documented the fact that such fathers have organized “fathers groups such as Children’s Rights Council, National Congress for Fathers and Children, and Fathers for Equal Rights, who carry out “covert” federal custody programs intentionally designed to give them litigation advantages against mothers, eliminating most or all visitation contact between the mother and the children.” In “the best interests of the child” a full federal inquiry is required to establish the truth of falsity of such serious charges.

She and other women have testified under oath to the forced removal of their babies and children, based on the bogus PAS, suggesting few judges have read the report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence: “Judges should treat incest and molestation as serious criminal offenses. … Incarceration, whether in hospitals, treatment centers or prisons, is absolutely essential to the protection of the nation’s children. The only true protection for children from a pedophile is incapacitation of the offender.” Yet, this bill would grant sole custody, sole power over their vulnerable children to criminals who take a class and say they don’t use drugs.

It should be mentioned that the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence found pornography involved in battery as well as a common stimulant for incest and child sex abuse. While Bill 208 would allow sole child custody to incest offenders, pornography users are not (like batterers) required to attend courses to stop them from “currently abusing” pornography. Yet, the Task Force State Legislative Recommendation 5 requires that “States should enact legislation to enable … access to sexual assault, child molestation or pornography arrest or conviction records” in order to remove all such persons from “contact with children.”

Senate Bill No. 208 would create a kind of “no fault” battery and “no fault” child sex abuse, akin to the judicially enacted “no fault divorce” laws which have driven hundreds of thousands of full-time homemakers and their children into poverty. Indeed, the justice system has been stripping away protections for law abiding American citizens since the early 1950s, when Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) changed what has been called “the stream of law.”

Although Sen. Moncreif temporarily withdrew his bill following the March 1 public testimonies, it appears it has been brushed off and is ready to sail through, looking like a national “model” for all the world. Ever since Indiana University’s zoologist, Kinsey, compromised our child protection laws by classifying children as the “partners” of their rapists in his phony sex studies, attempts at leveling abusers and victims via language has been a common ploy in shifting laws to favor criminals. The malevolent turn of events in current child custody courts and legislation is one more disgraceful consequence of a corrupted science swaying law and public policy.

---

Dr. Judith Reisman is president of the Institute for Media Education and is the author of “Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences.” More is available at Reisman’s website.

Mothers on the Run: Ann Louise Vallette – The facts without the Fiction

_{Why would a mother take her children out of school, risk jail and rip her sons away from everything they know?}

Despite the misrepresentation from the media, it does not take a genius to see what is really going on…

Here are some facts about Australians system that the family court and fathers groups don’t want you to know:

• If your child is being abused and you don’t have a high amount of evidence to support it, the Family Court will send your children to the abuser.
• Parent Alienation Syndrome developed by DR Richard Gardner was largely debunked by the scientific community as he suggested that even in substantiated cases of child sexual abuse, the child should be sent to the abuser and denied contact to the protective parent. 
• _{False  allegations of child abuse in the family court are as low as 2%}
• _{For years the family court has been systematically ignoring substantiated child abuse anddomestic violence.}
• _{Family violence and child sexual abuse are underreported.}
• _{Australia is one of the highest rate male dominated police force in the world.} 
• _{Since the “no fault divorce”, it is mainly mothers who are running with their children}
• _{Since the shared parenting bill, homicides increased by 14% in 2006.}
• _{There is no domestic violence homicide review team in Australia.}
• _{Most mothers run with their children because of family violence and child abuse.}

In the article “Father pleads for help to find abducted sons by Carol Nadar”, “Revealed: The faces behind  international Search by Carol Nadar”  and “Missing in Sweden, Melbourne fathers dash to find sons By Carol Nadar” it contains the following facts:

 

_{1.        Two boys aged 9 and 11 last spoke to the father on 4th October 2008}

 

_{2.        The plane was booked for October 9th 2008 to return the boys, but they did not board the plane.}

_{3.        Court Order required her to return them to Melbourne by 11 October 2008}

_{4.        The couple married in Sweden.}

_{5.        Ann Louise Vallette gave birth to her sons in Sweden and the couple resided there for 12 years.}

_{6.        Divorce battle has been going on for five years.}

_{7.        Proceedings have occurred in both Sweden and Australia.}

_{8.        In Sweden, the father was granted custody of the children whilst the mother was granted access of two visits per year.}

_{9.        The father claims the mother may harm the children because she raised protective concerns about child sexual abuse.}

_{10.     There are no statements of the mother having a criminal history, drug abuse or suffering from mental health issues.  Such statements would have been made as the articles are in the context of a plea to the public to pursue this women and the boys.}

_{11.     The mother has raised concerns about sexual abuse on numerous occasions and the police failed to substantiate her concerns.}

_{12.     No statements are made that evidence suggested the boys were not sexually abused.}

_{13.     The Father had stopped access after two visits and claimed he could no longer afford them.}

_{14.     The mother had to pursue the Hague convention just to obtain access to the boys and this was granted.}

_{15.     Family Consultant sides with the Father in denying the mother access to her sons by raising concerns that she would keep them in Sweden and claims that the boys preferred to live with the father but wanted to see their mother.}

_{16.     No statements were made as to why the reversal of custody was made to the father other than her concerns about child sexual abuse.}

_{17.     Father issues recovery order that Denys the children’s access to basic needs such as health, education and social access.}

_{18.     Despite the father originally contravening the order initially, the Swedish Police are planning to jail the mother and the Australian Family Court plan to punish the boys by denying all contact to their mother.}    

_{19.     George Pessor, who is also an IT consultant claims that he is bankrupt and appeals to the public for money to persue children that he has allegedly sexually abused.  He justifies this need to pay for a private investigator and counseling for the trauma that he inflicted by issuing a recovery order.} 

_{20.     Family Court of Australia issues media release.}

We have run a petition to appeal to the hague convention to leave Ann Louise Vallete alone. We received a the following message(what I find revealing is highlighted in red):    

 

To Whom ever wrote the article about the two missing boys Frank and Andre Valette:

I am the boys cousin, let me tell you right now that the Mother is a screw ball….. She suffers Bipolar. She accused the Father, My Mother, My Sister, Me, Countless foster homes ( as the kids were moved from home to home every time their was an allegation made by Ann Louise ) and even the Police department in Sweden for child abuse….. It is clear to me that it is Ann Louise that has perhaps been abused herself as a child, and is now suffering post traumatic stress disorder. Believe me, the kids are NOT safe with the mother, I have stayed with Ann Louise and her family in Sweden, and I can tell you from FIRST HAND experience that she needs mental help right NOW. If you read the actual court case reports over the last 5 years you would be absolutely shocked, and any normal sane person would be able to tell that Ann Louise is mental within the first few sentences of her allegations. 

On this particular matter you have no frame of reference and should keep your opinions to yourself. This case has nothing to do with Man Vs Woman, so get over it….. Its about the safety of the kids, and right now I really am worried about them. They haven’t even contacted their best friends in over two months, as the mother forbids them to use the phone or internet to communicate, because she knows dam well that they will try and seek help…. Take this bullshit petition off, you have no clue as to the origins of this case…….

George Pesor himself signed the petition stating the following:

I am Frank and Andre’s father.

It is astounding that people on this forum are prepared to make statements based on the very little insight they have into this matter.

This matter has been investigated on many occasions by Courts, Police, Social Welfare Authorities, Interpol,prosecutor in both Sweden and Australia on numerous occasions since Jan2003.

Remember that the Ann-Louise is judged by both Jurisdictions as an unfit parent.

The children’s best interests are the issue not the parent’s.

Remember, there are No statements that say in the news that she is an unfit parent or that she has been officially diagnosed with a mental health condition and if she was, don’t you think they would have included that in the appeal?

Parental Alienation behavior was initially identified in the study of sex offenders that revealed during the process of grooming, sex offenders would alienate the child from the mother and isolate the victim from other potential stakeholders that would inform authorities.  

One of the classic statements made by abusers of all types is, “She/He is crazy”.  This then completely isolates and undermines the victim keeping them locked in the abuse cycle.   

How successful an abuser is based upon their powers of persuasion.  Research on Corporate psychopaths, reveals that most organizations did not acknowledge the behavior until after the damage had exceeded to extremes.  DR Richard Gardner who wrote many books that convinced the family law community that child sexual abuse was not harmful to children and what was harmful was protecting children from it.  

Alfred Kinsey convinced the psychological community based on cruel experiments with babies and children that babies have orgasms based on violent screaming.  There are still supporters today that will not only tell you that false allegations of child sexual abuse is prevalent, but that we need to be more accepting of pedophiles as we do homosexuals.  This has been one of the major barriers for people of from same sex communities as they have had to struggle with being labelled as part of the same group no thanks to groups that promote pedophilia amongst other extremists.  

Meanwhile, the family law community has really gone insane in their witch hunts against  protective mothers and child abuse victims.  Despite recent reports

that Parental Alienation Syndrome is not being used by the courts, this is obviously not the case.  

So far we have 28 signatures and one included the father who took out the recovery order.  Ladies and gentleman, I know we all have our own stuff going on and its really hard, but as people who know what is actually going on compared to the brainwashed mainstream(Thanks to the abuse supporters who spread their propaganda – you know who you are),  it only takes one small moment of your lifetime to acknowledge Ann Valletts boys and potentially save some lives.  So please add your signature here and a big thank you to those who have already.  

 

Australian Family Court reports about Child Abuse 2002 – 2008

 

 

Has the Family Court System Improved?  

You Be the Judge..

June 2002

Research has debunked the myth that allegations of child abuse aired in the context of a Family Court battle are likely to be vindictive or false. There are three studies that leave no doubt about the validity of child abuse allegations made in Family Court cases. Two of the studies are by Thea Brown, of Monash University, and another by Marie Hume, of the Family Court in Adelaide. They have shown that false, frivolous or vindictive allegations accounted for 2 to 10 per cent of cases.

July 2002

At least two children have died in recent years as a result of a failure in New South Wales’ child protection system. This has come about because the Department of Community Services (DOCS) has “buck-passed” its responsibilities to the Family Court. In addition, documents show that DOCS had also failed to investigate allegations of child abuse because parents were involved in custody and access disputes before the court. However, the court is unable to investigate child abuse allegations and must rely on reports from DOCS.

November 2002

Patrick Parkinson: Children have died in situations where the parents were involved in family law disputes and where State departments did not pick up on that risk. These are the situations where kids fall through the cracks, and they’re falling through the cracks all over Australia. This is the biggest problem nationally in family law, this is a national problem.

October 2003

At present, child-protection issues come before the nation’s children’s courts, which are governed by state and territory laws, and the federal Family Court of Australia. The separate but overlapping systems have often been criticised either for duplicating services or for allowing children at risk to fall through the gaps. One of the Family Law Council’s concerns was that child abuse claims made in the Family Court were left to parents to prove or disprove on their own, which could have harmful consequences for the children in their care.

October 2004

So close, and so fragile, in fact, that Emily felt the blood drain from her body. Could this be true? Was her three-year-old son “Nathan” saying that his genitals were sore because his father had interfered with him?  “What does your father do to you?” she asked. The boy dropped his pants and fondled his penis. Emily felt physically sick.  What followed was a marathon of claims and court appearances. But when it was over, Nathan’s father would not be charged. His son, however, would, as a teenager, become suicidal. For more than four years, despite claims of sex abuse, Nathan was handed to his father for access visits.  This is the hidden story of child exploitation. While we rightly fret about child pornography, a mismatched court and welfare system inadvertently allows abusing parents to go on abusing.  As leading domestic violence expert Professor Thea Brown, from the social work department at Monash University, says: “It is true, there are cases where an abused child is handed back to an abusing parent.”  Joe Tucci from the Australian Childhood Foundation agrees. “We have situations where the child is handed over to the perpetrator,” he says.  Karen Flanagan, the acting national director of Child Wise and former head of Victoria’s Children’s Protection Society, says despite recent improvements in the operation of the Family Court, “kids are still being sent to stay with alleged perpetrators”.  According to Frida Briggs, emeritus professor of child development at the University of South Australia, who sat in on the case, the girl, now aged nine, remains with the father. The mother lost custody after refusing to allow the father access. “Mothers have been jailed for refusing to hand over child abuse victims to their abusers for unsupervised contact,” Professor Briggs says.

And then This:

Mr McDonald, a former director of the Family Court counselling service in Townsville, said: “Certainly, lawyers use it, and a number of ‘court experts’ believe in the notion.”  He knew of ongoing cases where PAS had played a crucial role in custody being awarded to a parent accused of child sexual abuse.

December 2005

This is clearly problematic for victims of family violence (mostly women) and for custodial parents (mostly mothers) of children at risk of abuse. No guidelines or criteria are prescribed and it appears that there must be actual violence or abuse before an exemption would be granted. Further, a court would have the power to make a costs order against a party or parent who has falsely alleged violence or child abuse to avoid compulsory dispute resolution. This threat of costs and delay creates another barrier to disclosure, ignores the prevalence of family violence and sanitises the criminality of child abuse.

September 2006

 

A Family Court judge was then asked by Prof Freda Briggs why so many fathers in recent years had been awarded custody of children they had been accused of sexually abusing.  We were told the justification often presented to the Family Court was that the mother was hostile to her former partner.  They are considered to be acting against the best interests of the child and lose custody.

February 2007

“The Family Court has no capacity to ensure that supervision and protection of children occur,” said Dr Wood, who is also director of pediatric health services at Brisbane’s Mater Children’s Hospital.  “The court ignores all the knowledge we have about people who indulge in child pornography – that given an opportunity, there is a significant risk of children in their care being abused, and the court ignores the fact that pornography, by definition, is child abuse.  “In my opinion, there is abundant evidence that the Family Court is not qualified to decide on issues of custody of children where there has been abuse.”

Then This

Yes, very frequently, affecting both mothers and fathers, whoever is the custodial parent, is the one who is accused of manufacturing, in fact if a child is alleging abuse, the protective parent who tries to do something for the child is the one who is accused. You see, the caring parent is in a dilemma, because if that parent does nothing, and the child is saying, ‘Hey, I’ve been abused’, child protection services can come in and remove the child and put the child in foster care as a care and protection case. On the other hand, if the caring parent goes to the Family Court and tries to protect the child by seeking changes to the arrangements, perhaps banning visits, or more often asking for visits to be supervised, there is a strong risk that that child will be removed from the caring parents and handed to the abuser, on the basis that it is the parent who is the problem, therefore, the parents is imagining the abuse when it’s not happening, therefore the parent is emotionally damaging the child. And so far from being the protector, this parents is deemed to be the bad person.

 

May 2007

FAMILY violence or child abuse is alleged by one partner in more than half the parenting disputes coming before the courts, yet final custody orders are largely unaffected by such claims.  The level of violence or abuse is often rated “severe”, but it remains unusual for the Family Court or Federal Magistrates Court to deny contact between a child and the alleged perpetrator.

 

June 2007

 

Women’s Refuge fears an international kidnapping treaty could be putting the lives of some New Zealand children at risk.  The Hague Convention is aimed at ensuring children wrongfully taken by one parent are returned to their country of residence so custody disputes can be settled out.  Women’s Refuge claims judges sticking to the letter of international law are putting women’s and children’s lives in danger.

July 2007

A family court lawyer is calling for changes to the way international custody cases are resolved after two young children were forcibly taken from their mother.  Alexis Hart is criticizing the Family Court for issuing a warrant to remove the children from their mother and fly them back to Australia without her.  The children are now with the father’s family and there are concerns he will have contact with them despite a protection order preventing that.

 

 

 

October 2007

The report said earlier research had found that many professionals believed that child-abuse allegations made during family breakdown were not to be taken seriously because they were just another weapon manufactured for use in the marital dispute. 

 

 

November 2007

 

A SEVEN months pregnant mother has been jailed by the Family Court and faces the prospect of giving birth behind bars.The woman, 32, was at the centre of a nationwide alert after snatching her five-year-old daughter and going into hiding for 16 months after the father defied court orders over medical treatment for the girl.  More mothers than fathers breach court orders. A Family Law Council study from 1998 found nearly 70 per cent of those who breach court orders are women.  Because the mother claimed her ex-husband was sexually assaulting the girl, the Family Court ordered the girl should only visit a doctor agreed to by both parents.

 

 

 

April 2008

CHILD custody determinations in scores of Family Court decisions could be challenged following a ruling debunking parental alienation syndrome, a controversial diagnosis of the effects on a child when one parent denigrates the other.

The Psychologists Board of Queensland last month disciplined prominent Brisbane clinical psychologist William Wrigley, saying he had acted unprofessionally in giving evidence about parental alienation syndrome to the court.

An investigation found that Dr Wrigley’s evidence three years ago, which had led to a mother losing custody of her two children, constituted “professional conduct that demonstrates incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care”.

The Australian understands that Dr Wrigley has identified the syndrome as a factor in other cases to the Family Court. So have psychologists and psychiatrists throughout Australia.

 

 

May 2008

Dr Tucci said child abuse had also become more complex to deal with, with children’s welfare often taking a back seat to legal matters. 

 

“For example, we’re getting Family Court orders to say children cannot attend counselling because a dad has made a case that mum’s trying to poison a child’s mind, when in reality the child has been a victim of child abuse,” he said. 

 

 

July 2008

THERE have been some monumental improvements to the family law system over the past two years, but experts are still worried about the courts’ capacity to identify and protect the most vulnerable women and children.

“There are horror stories coming out every day of children whose lives and wellbeing have been subordinated to the principle of maximum shared parenting arrangements,” Dr McInnes said. 

 

 

Lapsed judgment: thieves among Their Honours

• Email
• Printer friendly version
• Normal font
• Large font

Richard Ackland
December 26, 2008

Advertisement

Judges, supposedly, are a cut above politicians. Judicial duties require learning, wisdom, fairness, balance and restraint. Almost the exact opposite to what we expect from pollies. Each day perfectly good trees are terminated in the cause of news about the political struggle. We despair at the antics, inadequacies and downright stupidity of politicians, but we are inured to the horrors.

What, then, of the judicial arm of government? Throughout 2008 there was no shortage of distressing fodder. Sex and self-interest were to the fore. Here’s our selection.

Judge Roy Pearson, who was a Washington judge, lost his infamous $US54 million case against a dry-cleaning business over his missing pants. He said that each member of the Chung laundry family owed him $US18,000 a day for the four years his pants could not be found. The US Court of Appeals threw his case out, saying the judge’s pants were not worth that amount. Pearson is now suing the District of Columbia Government for not reappointing him to the bench.

A senior British judge, Frank Chapman, resigned last week after it emerged that he privately rang a prosecution barrister in a rape case and offered him advice on how to conduct the trial.

In Pennsylvania, the judicial disciplinary body banned Judge Ann Lokuta from office, finding that she was bullying, had terrorised courthouse workers and had lied under oath.

Actually, Lokuta was a real pussy compared to Judge Elizabeth Halverson from Nevada. In a much finer display of the English language the discipline authorities found her to be paranoid, mercurial, boorish, quixotic, combative, disrespectful, dismal and a deliberate liar. She repeatedly referred to court staff as “bitches” and “dumb f—s” and got the bailiff to massage “her feet, neck and shoulders, or some combination of those body parts”. Halverson’s lawyer said: “She’s not perfect.”

A judicial panel decided that Derek Schofield, the Chief Justice of Gibraltar, “repeatedly fell short of what befitted the dignity of his office”. Among other things, he heard an application in a defamation case brought by his wife against the Gibraltar Bar Council. Schofield’s case now goes to the Privy Council.

The name of a senior South Australian magistrate, Richard Brown, was subject to a no-publication order for two years because he is the accused in a child-sex case. A full bench of the South Australian Supreme Court this week decided that the community should know the identity of the defendant.

Ralph Mecham, the man who used to head the administrative office in charge of US federal courts, filed a complaint against Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit. Mecham said that the judge disabled the porn filter on the court’s computer system. Kozinski had already been in hot water for having sexually explicit images posted on a private web site. Mecham claimed that former US chief justice William Rehnquist said: “Tell Kozinski to watch pornography at home and not in his own court.”

The Texas judge Elizabeth Berry got into trouble for driving her sports utility way over the speed limit and having alcohol on her breath and cans of beer in the vehicle.

The head of the family law division in England, Sir Mark Potter, has been subjected to an investigation because he wrote a character reference on official court stationery for an accused barrister. Bruce Hyman was the first barrister in 800 years to go to jail for perverting the course of justice after he faked a Court of Appeal judgment used in family court proceedings.

A former Pennsylvania judge apologised after sending an email to Jewish voters saying to vote for Barack Obama would be like ignoring the warning signals that led to the Holocaust.

Meanwhile, in Pittsburgh the Superior Court judge Michael Joyce was sent to trial for fraud. He was accused of “bilking” $US440,000 from his insurers for neck and back injuries, yet he was still fit enough to play golf, fly and scuba-dive. He spent the insurance money on a Harley-Davidson, a new hot tub and plastic surgery for his girlfriend.

The retired English High Court judge Sir Richard Tucker arrived home to his estate to find his flower beds and lawn had turned orange. He and his third wife, Lady Tucker, said the gardener had sprayed weed killer in revenge for being sacked. Lady Tucker told her husband “it’s either him or me”. Edward Hancock, the gardener, was cleared by magistrates of any wrongdoing.

A judge who presided over a double murder trial, which resulted in the accused going to death row, had a long, undisclosed affair with the prosecutor.

The former New York judge Ron Tills pleaded guilty to transporting prostitutes across state lines. He recruited the hookers to service members of a fraternal club, the Royal Order of Jesters.

And in England, a man was jailed for three years because he stole a set of judges’ robes from a London court.

Divorced Man dresses up as santa and shoots his ex wife’s family

Gunman in Santa suit kills six at Christmas party

(AP)

A man dressed as Santa opened fire on a Christmas party then set the house alight

Anne Barrowclough

The Christmas Eve party in a Los Angeles family home was in full swing when an eight year old girl opened the door to Santa.

Instead of giving her the large gift-wrapped box he was carrying he shot her in the face, then burst through the house shooting indiscriminately at fleeing guests.

As the 25 party goers tried desperately to escape, the gunman used his ‘present’ to spray inflammable liquid that quickly engulfed the house in flames.

By the time he had finished his slaughter, six of the party guests were dead and two children were seriously injured.

RELATED LINKS

• Man shot dead after Christmas shopping trip

• Boy, 8, charged with murdering father and lodger

It was Bruce Pardo’s final revenge against his ex-wife, after an acrimonious divorce.

The massacre took place at her parents’ home during their annual Christmas party and Pardo’s parents in law and his wife, who have been listed as missing , are thought to be among the victims.

“Six bodies have been confirmed at this point. They have not been identified yet. They are too badly burned and will have to be identified by dental records,” Lieutenant Pat Buchanan of theCovina Police department said.

Police said they do not know how many of the victims died of gunshot wounds or from the fire.

A 16-year-old girl was shot in the back, and a 20-year-old woman broke her ankle when she escaped by jumping from a second-story window.

The gunshot injuries of the 8-year old and the 16 year old are not believed to be life threatening, police said.

When the fire was extinguished early on Thursday, officers found three charred bodies in the living room area. Later in the day they discovered three more bodies in the ashes.

“They were met with a scene that was just indescribable,” Kim Raney, the police chief, said.

After his rampage Pardo, 45, threw off the Santa suit and fled down the street, guests later told police.

He went to his brother’s home about 25 miles away in the Sylmar area of Los Angeles. No one was home, so Pardo let himself in, police said.

Police were called to the home early Thursday, and officers found Pardo dead of a single bullet to the head.

“He died of self-inflicted wounds. We believe it was a marital dispute,” said Lt Buchanan

Lighting a Candle Times

Hello Everyone,

We have a lot of candles here in OZ.

We will be doing two lots of lighting candles:

Australia time(If you want to light a candle for Australian children, this will be 1am in the UK xmas day, 8pm Xmas eve East Coast and 5pm on the west Coast ):

12 noon Xmas day

USA(Australians can light a candle on 9am boxing day and 10pm xmas day UK for American Children)

East Coast Time:

5pm Xmas Day

West Coast Time

2pm Xmas Day

UK(Australians can light a candle on 9am boxing day and Americans can light a candle at 5pm East Coast Time and 2pm West Coast Time Xmas day for UK Children)

10pm Xmas Day

Kindest Regards,

Anonymum

Lighting a Candle Times

Hello Everyone,

We have a lot of candles here in OZ.

We will be doing two lots of lighting candles:

Australia time(If you want to light a candle for Australian children, this will be 1am in the UK xmas day, 8pm Xmas eve East Coast and 5pm on the west Coast ):

12 noon Xmas day

USA(Australians can light a candle on 9am boxing day and 10pm xmas day UK for American Children)

East Coast Time:

5pm Xmas Day

West Coast Time

2pm Xmas Day

UK(Australians can light a candle on 9am boxing day and Americans can light a candle at 5pm East Coast Time and 2pm West Coast Time Xmas day for UK Children)

10pm Xmas Day

Kindest Regards,

Anonymum

Lighting a Candle Times

Hello Everyone,

We have a lot of candles here in OZ.

We will be doing two lots of lighting candles:

Australia time(If you want to light a candle for Australian children, this will be 1am in the UK xmas day, 8pm Xmas eve East Coast and 5pm on the west Coast ):

12 noon Xmas day

USA(Australians can light a candle on 9am boxing day and 10pm xmas day UK for American Children)

East Coast Time:

5pm Xmas Day

West Coast Time

2pm Xmas Day

UK(Australians can light a candle on 9am boxing day and Americans can light a candle at 5pm East Coast Time and 2pm West Coast Time Xmas day for UK Children)

10pm Xmas Day

Kindest Regards,

Anonymum

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) Info

December 22, 2008 — batteredmomslosecustody

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

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

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

The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy Jennifer Hoult – Children’s Legal Rights Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006  Abstract:  Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome (”PAS”). Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS’s admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny. This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS’s evidentiary admissibility. As a novel scientific theory, PAS’s admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science.This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively. The article further analyzes PAS’s admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS’s scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards. The article also analyzes the writings of PAS’s originator, child psychiatrist Richard Gardner – including twenty-three peer-reviewed articles and fifty legal decisions he cited in support of his claim that PAS is scientifically valid and legally admissible – finding that these materials support neither PAS’s existence, nor its legal admissibility. Finally, the article examines the policy issues raised by PAS’s admissibility through an analysis of PAS’s roots in Gardner’s theory of human sexuality, a theory that views adult-child sexual contact as benign and beneficial to the reproduction of the species.http://ssrn.com/abstract=910267
paper available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=642440

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

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

Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases Carol S. Bruch  University of California, Davis 35 Family Law Quarterly 527 (2001)  Abstract:   As courts and legislatures continue their enthusiastic ventures into family law reform, they make frequent use of theories and research from the social sciences. This essay focuses on developments in child custody law stemming from “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), a theory propounded in 1985 by Richard Gardner, M.D. that became widely used despite its lack of scientific foundations. The discussion highlights theoretical and practical problems with PAS, provides a similar review of more recent proposals labeled “Parental Alienation” (PA), and concludes with recommendations for lawyers and judges who must evaluate these and similar developments.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=298110&rec=1&srcabs=910267
paper available at : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=228611

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

Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force On Violence And The Family – ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN FAMILY VIOLENCE Issue 5 WHEN PARENTS SEPARATE AFTER AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, SHOULDN’T FATHERS HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS MOTHERS TO BE GRANTED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF AND VISITATION RIGHTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN? Tensions exist between children’s need for contact with their father and their need to be protected from the physical, sexual and psychological abuse that is common in families where there has been other forms of violence such as woman abuse.  Although most people believe that fathers should have equal access to their children after the termination of a relationship between the parents, the equal-access option is based on the assumption that the fathers will act in their children’s best interests. However, that is a naive assumption in situations where family violence has occurred. Fathers who batter their children’s mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children, too. In many of these families, prior to separation, the men were not actively involved in the raising of their children. To gain control after the marital separation, the fathers fight for the right to be involved. Often children who have been exposed to violence in the family are frightened to confront their father’s negative or abusive behavior, and mothers cannot protect them. Sometimes the father tries to alienate the child from the mother by using money and other enticements, negative comments, or restricted access to the telephone during visitation with him. Other times, fathers may threaten or actually kidnap the child to punish the mother for leaving, or to try to force her to return. Most people, including the battered woman herself, believe that when a woman leaves a violent man, she will remain the primary caretaker of their children. Family courts, however, may not consider the history of woman abuse relevant in awarding custody. Recent studies suggest that an abusive man is more likely than a nonviolent father to seek sole physical custody of his children and may be just as likely (or even more likely) to be awarded custody as the mother. Often fathers win physical custody because men generally have greater financial resources and can continue the court battles with more legal assistance over a longer period of time. Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children’s witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers.http://web.archive.org/web/20000307233013/www.apa.org/pi/pii/familyvio/issue5.html

LOYOLA OF LOS ANGELES LAW REVIEW 29:1367-1415 (1994) THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME: A DANGEROUS AURA OF RELIABILITY Cheri L. Wood – PAS testimony should not be admitted in court because of the causation and evidentiary problems with the theory. Because of the dangerous aura of reliability and trustworthiness extant in Dr. Gardner’s self- published theory, admission of PAS is inevitable and particularly disconcerting. http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/wood94.htm

Dr. Richard Gardner: A Review of His Theories and Opinions on Atypical Sexuality, Pedophilia, and Treatment Issues by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP Reference: Dallam, S. J. (1998). Treating Abuse Today, 8(1), 15-23.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/2.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is one such theory. This unsophisticated, pseudoscientific theory explains a child’s estrangement from one parent or allegations of abuse at the hands of one parent by blaming the other. The theory, developed by the late Richard A. Gardner, M.D., portrays the preferred parent (usually the mother under PAS) as an evil “alienator” who is virtually solely responsible for turning a vulnerable child against their estranged parent (usually the father under PAS)….there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS is a valid syndrome or that the so called “alienator’s” behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child’s behavior towards the target parent (Walker et al, 2005). In fact, the majority of mental health and legal experts who have studied the issue consider PAS theory to be both erroneous and dangerous to the children involved.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/faq.htm

The Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is It Scientific? by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP Dallam, S. J. (1999).  In E. St. Charles & L. Crook (Eds.), Expose: The failure of family courts to protect children from abuse in custody disputes . Los Gatos , CA : Our Children Our Children Charitable Foundation. Gardner ’s theories are based on his assumption that sex between a child and an adult is not inherently harmful, and his belief that there is an epidemic of false sexual abuse allegations being made by vengeful wives during custody disputes. Gardner maintains these beliefs in spite of a wealth of clinical and experimental data which prove otherwise.http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/3.html

Faller, K. C. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: What is it and what data support it? Child Maltreatment, 3(2), 100-115 “No data are provided by Gardner to support the existence of the syndrome and its proposed dynamics. In fact, the research and clinical writing of other professionals leads to a conclusion that some of its tenets are wrong and that other tenets represent a minority view” (p. 112).  http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/docs/Faller1998.pdf

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 of 2 Update – Volume 16, Number 6, 2003 By Erika Rivera Ragland & Hope Fields 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.” 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 states 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. 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. 2. PAS Presumes a Disadvantage to Women in Child Custody Determinations….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. Moreover, PAS is not recognized by any professional associations, 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.” 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. 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.http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Update– Volume 16, Number 7, 2003 Part 2 of 2 By Hope Fields & Erika Rivera RaglandPAS 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.http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_7_2003.html

Parental Alienation Syndrome: Frye V. Gardner in the Family Courts by Poliacoff, Ph.D., P.A., Greene, Esq., and Smith, Esqhttp://web.archive.org/web/20051124134133/http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/poliacoff.htm

RICHARD A. GARDNER: IN HIS OWN WORDS “At the present time, the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim,” though the child may initiate sexual encounters by ’seducing’ the adult.” Gardner, Richard A., Child Custody Litigation (1986), p.93 http://web.archive.org/web/20061012010857/http://www.gate.net/~liz/liz/pedoph.htm