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.