Canadian lawyer Anne-France Goldwater, 1991, on rejected PAS theory

[grahamg]

Apologies, I couldn't think of a better title for this thread on a topic I'm fairly accused of raising too much, but may still be of interest to someone (concerning the breakdown of relationships with children and their parents following divorce or separation):

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/goldw01.htm

Quote:
"We live in a society which is in a profound state of transition and social upheaval. There are two principal trends affecting the stability of the nuclear family which are profoundly in conflict. There is the one trend of the epidemic of family breakdown with an explosion of divorces and separations, as well as a formidable number of families headed by single mothers. This makes for a blossoming number of children raised in one-adult families, without the modulating effect of two-parent interaction under one roof.

At the same time, there is the trend of developing social acceptance of the respect of the child as autonomous participant in the social contract, endowed with rights as inalienable as those of his elders. This has led to the development of the concept of the child advocate, the right of the child to testify and the nomination of the tutor ad hoc (read, ad litem). Concomitant with this acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the rights of the child have been the tumultuous revelations of the degree of child neglect and abuse that had been previously tacitly sanctioned by all of us.

These two principal trends -- liberalization of family law and recognition of children's rights -- appear superficially to be beneficial. There is no longer a stigma in being an illegitimate child, an unmarried mother, or for that matter, being a divorced person. Fault is no longer required in most jurisdictions throughout North America to obtain a divorce. Children are no longer viewed as the property of their parents (or, even more traditionally, children and their mothers as the chattels of the men). These trends appear to be part of the greater recognition of individual rights and freedoms.

However, a society predicated upon rights and freedoms without recognition of obligations and duties may fail to make the grade in protecting its children. The importance attached conceptually to rights and freedoms was a valid response historically to the oppressions of tyranny and autocracy. In a contemporary democracy, surely there is more to the social contract than merely the assertion of what one may not do to one's fellow man -- or child.

Indeed, there is a moral failure in smugly asserting that children have "rights" without taking into account their evident lack of autonomy and their material and psychological vulnerability to control and manipulation. In any divorce, the "right" of the child to being in the care and custody of his two parents has been breached without his consent and often without his participation."

"

 

[grahamg]

I thought it worth tying to check out why the theory of "Parental Alienation syndrome" has been rejected in the UK but could only come up with links to very long documents, if I find something more concise I'll return:

https://gov.wales/sites/default/fil...earch-and-case-law-on-parental-alienation.pdf

This one is more concise but maybe limited to some extent, in its justification of the UK courts rejection of the PAS theory:

https://www.mothersuniteuk.co.uk/accused-parental-alienation

 

[grahamg]

Another rejection of PAS, this one from the USA:

Quote/abstract:
"Despite widespread rejection of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), some custody evaluators use the presence of its components to invalidate abuse allegations and blame the preferred parent. Although PAS supporters claim that the elements of PAS are unique to Parental Alienation (PA) and can, therefore, be used to diagnose it, no scientific study has yet demonstrated this. Reanalysis of Gardner’s data, and our current knowledge of children, indicate that the elements of PAS are not unique to PA. Many PA/PAS advocates approach custody cases assuming that when children reject parents, it is probably the result of a denigration campaign by the preferred parent. Confirmation bias then leads the evaluator to spin, value, and vet information so that it support their expected conclusion. Children’s avoidance of significant visitation with a parent is often driven by a desire to remain with their primary attachment figure, rather than a rejection of the other parent. Forcing visitation and cutting the children’s time with the primary attachment figure leads to rejection of that parent, rather than solving it. The article suggests a method of scientifically assessing if a child’s rejection of a parent is due to PA, affinity, or justified rejection. "

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15379418.2019.1590284?src=recsys&journalCode=wjcc20

 

[grahamg]

A British paper suggesting there is something to be valued in research into the PAS theory:

Quote:
"American twaddle?
There are of course perfectly legitimate reasons why a child may reject a parent – as in cases of genuine neglect, physical or sexual abuse, or violence in the home. These cases of genuine estrangement are not covered by PA, which is characterised by a dislike and rejection of a parent for no apparent logical, significant reason.

Whilst the concept of PA is acknowledged and even seen as mainstream in many countries, it remains contentious and continues to be hotly debated as evidenced by the recent deliberations surrounding its inclusion in DSM-5 (Bernet et al., 2010). It is difficult to determine whether the benefits of a diagnosis of such a psychiatric disorder outweigh the risks. Risk of harm may be further exacerbated due to an increase in parental conflict following such a diagnosis, which might suggest that one parent was to blame for the situation. Such a diagnosis may be counterproductive in the reparation process. However, the absence of PA in nosologies such as the DSM, enables its denial by some, and has been blamed for a lack of research and appropriate resources to support conflicted, separating families and young people.

Although there are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles by psychologists, psychiatrists, legal and social work professionals attesting to the concept and presence of PA in highly conflicted divorce cases, it has rarely been openly or formally discussed in the UK. Anecdotal evidence, and the preliminary findings in my research, suggest that the concept is perceived as ‘American twaddle’ and is most usually dismissed out of hand by the judiciary, solicitors and Cafcass officers when raised in family proceedings, despite clear reference to PA throughout the Cafcass Operating Framework (Cafcass, 2012).

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/...ental-alienation-–-time-notice-time-intervene

 

[JaniceM]

It's another example of how, when government starts meddling, things get messy, and when so-called "experts" start putting in their two-cents it can get even worse.

While the original post actually addresses 3 different topics- related and connected- to focus solely on PA/PAS:
My experiences are "living proof" that this 'controversial' issue exists- AND the longterm or even lifelong consequences to both an alienated child and the targeted parent.

I'll try to be as brief as possible: the PA started when I was a teenager still in high school, and involved an older family member. Years before the term PA was created, divorce proceedings hadn't started and there were no custody disputes. After a somewhat long marriage, the relative had had enough of the spouse's drinking and other 'behaviors' and moved out. There were no major problems for awhile- til the relative tried to create some sense of normalcy in his life and found a nice girlfriend. Well, the 'ex' was not going to tolerate that!! and retaliated by kidnapping the child.
With assistance from her parents, the ex not only cut the Dad out of the child's life but did the same to the Dad's family members. They tried to make it appear as if none of these people even existed- pressuring the child to refer to her maternal grandfather as 'Grandpa-Daddy' and to start going by her mother's maiden name. While this individual made it clear she never wanted children in the first place, harming the child's father was her only concern.

As I saw very little of the child over the years, I wasn't prepared for what I encountered when I met up with her when she was around 30 years old. Severe mental illness that appeared to be paranoid-schizophrenia, suicide attempts, alcohol/drug addiction, and irrational vicious hatred toward her father and all her father's relatives. She had no trouble continuing to take money from her Dad, but made remarks such as 'Oh, they'll probably find him dead in an alley someplace.' The hatred extended to his relatives, too- for example, she said she wished her grandmother would hurry up and die so she could get her inheritance. As for the Dad, after he retired from his job he became homeless- supposedly by choice- gave up on himself, his life, everything.

From 'PA-Awareness' groups to a governor's 'proclamation,' all these individuals are clueless. Regardless of the facts, they insist kids 'need and deserve BOTH parents' in their lives. However- when for no reason other than vindictiveness someone poisons a child's mind against a good, loving parent, and destroys the relationship between the child and the parent, it's NOT 'in the child's best interest' to have such a person in their lives. Do these so-called experts really believe an alienator is simply going to stop what they're doing and do the right thing?! PA is one example of situations in which a parent forfeits his/her right to be in a child's life. Yet, in this situation, the only individual who came through it all unscathed was the alienator.