The following excerpt from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges is used by PAS is a Scam to attempt to discredit the theory of PAS.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006).
Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2nd edition)
[excerpt]
“The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’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 children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which children are 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 children have their 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 children by voicing their concerns.” – page 24
In this post’s biased attack on Dr. Warshak and the theory of PAS, the author fails to comprehend that this excerpt does not ‘prove’ Dr. Warshak wrong, but only drives home his own key points throughout his work on PAS, as I have understood them through reading his materials and corresponding with him. This excerpt also contradicts the author’s stance that the US family courts do not recognize alienation, regardless of the term used to describe it. This excerpt clearly states:
“The task for the courts is to distinguish between situations in which children are critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other…”.
Although taken out of context, that single quote clearly shows that the court recognizes alienation is a valid possibility, although it uses the term ‘inappropriately manipulated’. While taking alienation into account as a possibility, as well as other possibilities that could be the cause of the deterioration between a child and parent such as abuse, the excerpt shows that the court sees it as a responsibility to determine which is the true cause of the deterioration of the parent/child relationship. This excerpt seems to mirror Dr. Warshak’s point of view:
"Naturally the labels PAS and PA do not ask the court to conclude that a child's alienation is unreasonable. They merely direct the court to an alternative explanation for why a child would want to erase a mother from her life. It is up to the court to decide which explanation best accounts for the problems in the family and, more to the point, whether it is in the child's best interest to repair a damaged relationship with the parent being rejected." - Dr. Warshak (email correspondence)
This excerpt seems to show the court’s careful stance on PAS, being cautious to not only not disallow valid accusations of abuse and mistreatment under a blanket term or diagnosis such as PAS, but also expressing the knowledge that alienation is a real problem that has enough merit to be carefully considered in a custody case, even if it’s defined by a different term in order to not be confused with the rejected term of PAS.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Does PAS Turn the Tables on Parents Trying to Protect Their Children From Abuse?
Excerpt taken from PAS is a scam:
“Parent Alienation,” the idea that one parent (typically the mother) poisons the mind of the child against the other parent, is dangerous because it casts doubt on mothers’ claims of child abuse; the more she tries to protect her child and gather evidence, the more she exhibits “parental alienation.” If she fails–and she’ll face an uphill battle fighting bias, paying exhorborant fees, and fearing for her child(ren)’s safety trying to succeed–she can be fined, jailed and/or she could lose custody. PAS can and has turned the table on women trying to protect themselves or their child(ren) from abuse. (Several cases that have received media attention can be found here, here, and here."
While I am not disputing the fact that the situation described in the above quote does, in fact, happen, I will dispute the reason why this happens. The theory of PAS, in itself, cannot be blamed for the tables being turned on parents trying to protect themselves or their child(ren) from abuse. There are many things that the above statement fails to take into consideration, and in doing that, wrongly places the blame on the theory of PAS and Dr. Warshak.
In the scenario that the quote above is depicting, PA has been misinterpreted to the extreme by professionals assigned to investigate child abuse allegations, and has been haphazardly applied to parents who make child abuse accusations in the event of the allegations being determined as unfounded by investigators.
This is not the fault of the theory of PAS, but rather the fault of apparently common misinterpretations and misapplications of the theory by 'professionals' who are not thoroughly trained or educated in neither child abuse nor PAS. In short, you have police officers and social workers trying to play psychotherapist. Rather than being willing to examine any ineptness or mistakes that might have been made during the investigation to warrant an unfounded result, or taking into consideration any alienating tactics the abusive parent may have used on the child, investigators wrongly assume the parent is making false allegations of abuse against the other.
In the type of case the quote above is speaking of, abuse HAS taken place. The theory of PAS does not dispute that there are, in fact, very real cases of abuse, but it also acknowledges that false allegations of child abuse do, in fact, occur. While Dr. Warshak does focus on false allegations in cases of PA because PA is the focus of his work, he in no way states or insinuates that all parents who make abuse allegations are guilty of alienating their children. In fact, Dr. Warshak clearly encourages parents to look at themselves objectively and try to determine any behavior they have exhibited towards the children that might have contributed to the alienation of their children.
Obviously, though, if a parent is abusive, they do not possess the capabilities to recognize such behavior in themselves and how that behavior negatively impacts their children, and are more likely to project that blame onto the parent who has made the abuse allegations by falsely accusing them of attempting to alienate their child from them. If you pair this with a child who feels compelled to protect their abuser and reject the parent making the allegations, as well as investigators who are not sufficiently trained to adequately navigate such complicated psychological matters with a child, the results are detrimental to everybody involved.
If you mix in what I like to call 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' phenomenon, the complexity of the problem is magnified considerably more and the investigators job becomes even harder. It would directly undermine an investigator's intelligence to suggest to them that, in the heat of custody disputes and divorces, parents never use filing false allegations of abuse as alienation tactics or a way to gain the upper hand to win custody. Although such cases may not be the majority, it is obviously present enough to be widely recognized among investigators, without the help of Dr. Warshak or the theory of PAS. Investigators are forced to take what should be treated as isolated incidents of a parent's individual mental issues, and apply the possibility to cases that seem to 'fit' the typical set of circumstances where abuse is often falsely alleged.
It is also no secret that often, especially when dealing with children, it is difficult for an investigator to obtain enough evidence to create a solid case for prosecutors, even if the investigator believes the allegations are true. This is especially true with sexual abuse cases. The above quote fails to take into consideration all of the key players who determine the outcome of child abuse allegations, as well as the policies on these types of crimes. Many times, despite an investigator's personal feelings about the allegations of abuse, he/she has no choice but to follow policies that force them to determine the allegations as unfounded. This can be mispresented by the abusive parent and/or his/her attorney as the other parent making "false" allegations and claiming PAS when, in fact, there simply wasn't enough evidence to support the accusations.
What other conclusion can an investigator come to if they feel as if their investigation was thorough, and the only logical conclusion to them based on the evidence they acquired or failed to acquire in their investigation is a case of unfounded allegations, or multiple cases of unfounded allegations?
Instead of playing the blame game and biasedly attacking PAS and Dr. Warshak based on misinterpretations and misapplications of both by the 'professionals' who are actually in charge of determining the outcome of each individual case, it seems a better tactic would be to help parents in this type of scenario and educate the professionals involved with our children on proper ways to investigate cases such as these. It is absurd to claim that the theory of PAS is responsible for a problem that would exist even without the term.
Also, by vehemently denouncing the existence of PA, one is subsequently denying many of these parents of truly abused children the opportunity to understand how PA may very well be at the root of their children's rejection and prohibit them from fighting it successfully, or even keep the child from receiving the psychological help that they need. If a parent is truly mentally unstable enough to physically or sexually abuse their own child, it's not a far stretch to assume they may be the perpetrators of PA and HAP themselves, and use the abuse to frighten and subdue their child into remaining 'loyal' to only them. It's preposterous to claim that the argument of PA can successfully work against a loving parent in the favor of an abusive parent, yet simultaneously claim that the argument of PA cannot successfully work against an abusive parent in the favor of a loving, protective parent, as it is intended.
“Parent Alienation,” the idea that one parent (typically the mother) poisons the mind of the child against the other parent, is dangerous because it casts doubt on mothers’ claims of child abuse; the more she tries to protect her child and gather evidence, the more she exhibits “parental alienation.” If she fails–and she’ll face an uphill battle fighting bias, paying exhorborant fees, and fearing for her child(ren)’s safety trying to succeed–she can be fined, jailed and/or she could lose custody. PAS can and has turned the table on women trying to protect themselves or their child(ren) from abuse. (Several cases that have received media attention can be found here, here, and here."
While I am not disputing the fact that the situation described in the above quote does, in fact, happen, I will dispute the reason why this happens. The theory of PAS, in itself, cannot be blamed for the tables being turned on parents trying to protect themselves or their child(ren) from abuse. There are many things that the above statement fails to take into consideration, and in doing that, wrongly places the blame on the theory of PAS and Dr. Warshak.
In the scenario that the quote above is depicting, PA has been misinterpreted to the extreme by professionals assigned to investigate child abuse allegations, and has been haphazardly applied to parents who make child abuse accusations in the event of the allegations being determined as unfounded by investigators.
This is not the fault of the theory of PAS, but rather the fault of apparently common misinterpretations and misapplications of the theory by 'professionals' who are not thoroughly trained or educated in neither child abuse nor PAS. In short, you have police officers and social workers trying to play psychotherapist. Rather than being willing to examine any ineptness or mistakes that might have been made during the investigation to warrant an unfounded result, or taking into consideration any alienating tactics the abusive parent may have used on the child, investigators wrongly assume the parent is making false allegations of abuse against the other.
In the type of case the quote above is speaking of, abuse HAS taken place. The theory of PAS does not dispute that there are, in fact, very real cases of abuse, but it also acknowledges that false allegations of child abuse do, in fact, occur. While Dr. Warshak does focus on false allegations in cases of PA because PA is the focus of his work, he in no way states or insinuates that all parents who make abuse allegations are guilty of alienating their children. In fact, Dr. Warshak clearly encourages parents to look at themselves objectively and try to determine any behavior they have exhibited towards the children that might have contributed to the alienation of their children.
Obviously, though, if a parent is abusive, they do not possess the capabilities to recognize such behavior in themselves and how that behavior negatively impacts their children, and are more likely to project that blame onto the parent who has made the abuse allegations by falsely accusing them of attempting to alienate their child from them. If you pair this with a child who feels compelled to protect their abuser and reject the parent making the allegations, as well as investigators who are not sufficiently trained to adequately navigate such complicated psychological matters with a child, the results are detrimental to everybody involved.
If you mix in what I like to call 'The Boy Who Cried Wolf' phenomenon, the complexity of the problem is magnified considerably more and the investigators job becomes even harder. It would directly undermine an investigator's intelligence to suggest to them that, in the heat of custody disputes and divorces, parents never use filing false allegations of abuse as alienation tactics or a way to gain the upper hand to win custody. Although such cases may not be the majority, it is obviously present enough to be widely recognized among investigators, without the help of Dr. Warshak or the theory of PAS. Investigators are forced to take what should be treated as isolated incidents of a parent's individual mental issues, and apply the possibility to cases that seem to 'fit' the typical set of circumstances where abuse is often falsely alleged.
It is also no secret that often, especially when dealing with children, it is difficult for an investigator to obtain enough evidence to create a solid case for prosecutors, even if the investigator believes the allegations are true. This is especially true with sexual abuse cases. The above quote fails to take into consideration all of the key players who determine the outcome of child abuse allegations, as well as the policies on these types of crimes. Many times, despite an investigator's personal feelings about the allegations of abuse, he/she has no choice but to follow policies that force them to determine the allegations as unfounded. This can be mispresented by the abusive parent and/or his/her attorney as the other parent making "false" allegations and claiming PAS when, in fact, there simply wasn't enough evidence to support the accusations.
What other conclusion can an investigator come to if they feel as if their investigation was thorough, and the only logical conclusion to them based on the evidence they acquired or failed to acquire in their investigation is a case of unfounded allegations, or multiple cases of unfounded allegations?
Instead of playing the blame game and biasedly attacking PAS and Dr. Warshak based on misinterpretations and misapplications of both by the 'professionals' who are actually in charge of determining the outcome of each individual case, it seems a better tactic would be to help parents in this type of scenario and educate the professionals involved with our children on proper ways to investigate cases such as these. It is absurd to claim that the theory of PAS is responsible for a problem that would exist even without the term.
Also, by vehemently denouncing the existence of PA, one is subsequently denying many of these parents of truly abused children the opportunity to understand how PA may very well be at the root of their children's rejection and prohibit them from fighting it successfully, or even keep the child from receiving the psychological help that they need. If a parent is truly mentally unstable enough to physically or sexually abuse their own child, it's not a far stretch to assume they may be the perpetrators of PA and HAP themselves, and use the abuse to frighten and subdue their child into remaining 'loyal' to only them. It's preposterous to claim that the argument of PA can successfully work against a loving parent in the favor of an abusive parent, yet simultaneously claim that the argument of PA cannot successfully work against an abusive parent in the favor of a loving, protective parent, as it is intended.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Losing a Child to Parental Alienation
The agony of losing a child to Parental Alienation is, in my opinion, worse than it would be to lose a child to death. In saying that, I am in no way minimizing the grief a parent experiences when their child passes away. To lose a child, by any means, is to lose an irreplaceable part of yourself.
Death is accepted as a natural part of life. Everybody lives, and everybody dies. Although it is unnatural for a child to die, especially in cases of accidents that are impossible to prepare for, death is still a natural occurance in life and one that we have to deal with many times over throughout our lives. There is nothing natural about a parent and child being deprived of a normal, loving relationship.
Many times when a child looses their life, they are a victim, but once death takes place the child does not continue to suffer. When a parent loses a child to Parental Alienation, that child remains a victim and suffers from the severing of the once loving parent/child bond for the rest of their life. Many people are able to find at least some solace in thoughts of their child in Heaven, or some similar sort of an after life, surrounded by other loved ones who have passed. They know their child can never be hurt or sick ever again. Parents who lose their children to Parental Alienation do not know when their child is hurt, sick, cold, hungry, lonely, sad or crying. They have to live without knowing a single detail of their child's life, and they have to live with knowing that their child is in the care of the alienating parent who does not have the emotional maturity to realize the psychological scarring their alienating tactics leave on their child.
Many people, by the time they have lost their child, have been through the grieving process of losing a loved one and have firm religious beliefs about death. Most religious beliefs have scriptures that help with the grieving process. No religion denounces the sanctity of a loving parent/child relationship, and many times it is hard to find a support system with people who can relate to your situation.
There is finality in death, closure. You know that your child is gone and is never coming back. When you lose your child to alienation, there is never any closure. You're left hanging in limbo, unable to completely let go, but also unable to continue the fight that leaves you emotionally exhausted. Even if the parent/child relationship is recovered successfully, they are never able to get back the time lost. When a child dies, their parents never get to hear their child say 'I love you' ever again, however sometimes they take solace in going to their child's place of rest and talking with them. Many people believe that, even though their child is gone from this Earth, they can still hear them. With alienation, a parent also does not get to hear their child say 'I love you.' Instead, they hear 'I hate you,' or they hear nothing at all. They do not have a symbolic place to visit their child, and they know that their child cannot hear them if they talk to them. Not only can they not physically hear them, but they are unable to mentally hear them through the hatred they have been taught for so long. Your child's love for you is dead, but yours for them continues on, unconditionally and unwelcome.
Losing your child is an unimaginable, undescribable pain, but losing your physical child and your child's love, unnecessarily, because of another person's personal agenda magnifies the grief. The knowledge that your child is out there in the world and sometimes, as in my case, three houses down, yet still unreachable, goes beyond any pain in this world. Losing a child to alienation is the equivalent of having a wound that never scabs over. It is left raw, open and bleeding, and never heals because there is no natural closure. In death, a parent is forced to accept that their child is gone and never coming back. In alienation, it is impossible to accept the notion because your child is alive. It is impossible to accept the pain, knowing there is absolutely no feasible reason for it, no natural, understandable reason such as death to explain why you have to spend your life without your child.
Death is accepted as a natural part of life. Everybody lives, and everybody dies. Although it is unnatural for a child to die, especially in cases of accidents that are impossible to prepare for, death is still a natural occurance in life and one that we have to deal with many times over throughout our lives. There is nothing natural about a parent and child being deprived of a normal, loving relationship.
Many times when a child looses their life, they are a victim, but once death takes place the child does not continue to suffer. When a parent loses a child to Parental Alienation, that child remains a victim and suffers from the severing of the once loving parent/child bond for the rest of their life. Many people are able to find at least some solace in thoughts of their child in Heaven, or some similar sort of an after life, surrounded by other loved ones who have passed. They know their child can never be hurt or sick ever again. Parents who lose their children to Parental Alienation do not know when their child is hurt, sick, cold, hungry, lonely, sad or crying. They have to live without knowing a single detail of their child's life, and they have to live with knowing that their child is in the care of the alienating parent who does not have the emotional maturity to realize the psychological scarring their alienating tactics leave on their child.
Many people, by the time they have lost their child, have been through the grieving process of losing a loved one and have firm religious beliefs about death. Most religious beliefs have scriptures that help with the grieving process. No religion denounces the sanctity of a loving parent/child relationship, and many times it is hard to find a support system with people who can relate to your situation.
There is finality in death, closure. You know that your child is gone and is never coming back. When you lose your child to alienation, there is never any closure. You're left hanging in limbo, unable to completely let go, but also unable to continue the fight that leaves you emotionally exhausted. Even if the parent/child relationship is recovered successfully, they are never able to get back the time lost. When a child dies, their parents never get to hear their child say 'I love you' ever again, however sometimes they take solace in going to their child's place of rest and talking with them. Many people believe that, even though their child is gone from this Earth, they can still hear them. With alienation, a parent also does not get to hear their child say 'I love you.' Instead, they hear 'I hate you,' or they hear nothing at all. They do not have a symbolic place to visit their child, and they know that their child cannot hear them if they talk to them. Not only can they not physically hear them, but they are unable to mentally hear them through the hatred they have been taught for so long. Your child's love for you is dead, but yours for them continues on, unconditionally and unwelcome.
Losing your child is an unimaginable, undescribable pain, but losing your physical child and your child's love, unnecessarily, because of another person's personal agenda magnifies the grief. The knowledge that your child is out there in the world and sometimes, as in my case, three houses down, yet still unreachable, goes beyond any pain in this world. Losing a child to alienation is the equivalent of having a wound that never scabs over. It is left raw, open and bleeding, and never heals because there is no natural closure. In death, a parent is forced to accept that their child is gone and never coming back. In alienation, it is impossible to accept the notion because your child is alive. It is impossible to accept the pain, knowing there is absolutely no feasible reason for it, no natural, understandable reason such as death to explain why you have to spend your life without your child.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Hindsight is 20 20
After being so angry, bitter and hurting so bad for so long over missing out on so much of my baby girl's life, I'm realizing that there are serious, complicated issues that surround Parental Alienation Syndrome, and that a lot of times, the way the target parent reacts to the situation can improve the situation or make it worse. In understanding alienation, I am forced to take responsibility for mishandling situations that I should have handled completely differently with my daughter, no matter how hard it is to swallow. Hindsight is 20 20.
Also, when you take time to understand the issues the alienator is suffering from that cause them to alienate their own child from the other parent, it's hard to not be sympathetic to a point. In a sense, it makes them appear more relatable as a person, albeit with serious issues, rather than a monster who is hurting your child, yourself and your entire family. All you can do is empower yourself with the knowledge you need to rectify the situation with your child(ren), and use the tools you learn to reverse the alienation process and stop it in it's tracks. When you make the choice to become proactive instead of defensive or passive in this kind of situation, you'll become amazed at the transformation in yourself & your outlook on life.
Once you begin to understand the Alienation process from a child's point of view and the position the alienating parent puts the child in, psychologically, it certainly helps you to be more receptive to the things that your child says and avoid being crushed by the hatred that the child expresses, even if he/she does not really feel that way, inside.
For anybody dealing with divorce issues with children, custody issues or what you feel like may be Parental Alienation, I HIGHLY recommend the book, 'Divorce Poison' by Dr. Richard A. Warshak.
As always, I do welcome all feedback and comments.
Also, when you take time to understand the issues the alienator is suffering from that cause them to alienate their own child from the other parent, it's hard to not be sympathetic to a point. In a sense, it makes them appear more relatable as a person, albeit with serious issues, rather than a monster who is hurting your child, yourself and your entire family. All you can do is empower yourself with the knowledge you need to rectify the situation with your child(ren), and use the tools you learn to reverse the alienation process and stop it in it's tracks. When you make the choice to become proactive instead of defensive or passive in this kind of situation, you'll become amazed at the transformation in yourself & your outlook on life.
Once you begin to understand the Alienation process from a child's point of view and the position the alienating parent puts the child in, psychologically, it certainly helps you to be more receptive to the things that your child says and avoid being crushed by the hatred that the child expresses, even if he/she does not really feel that way, inside.
For anybody dealing with divorce issues with children, custody issues or what you feel like may be Parental Alienation, I HIGHLY recommend the book, 'Divorce Poison' by Dr. Richard A. Warshak.
As always, I do welcome all feedback and comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)