Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Behind Parental Alienation

Behind Parental Alienation

02/13/2017 06:59 pm ET
image source dreamstime
There are many parents and children suffering from Parental Alienation. It’s tragic. I know this because my youtube video on the subject has an excessive number of responses...too many people are relating to this issue.
Today, let’s take a look at what’s going on behind the scenes. What motivates the alienator to abuse their children by disapproving of their relationship with the target parent? Hint: Narcissism and PAS are often found in the same scenario...but not always.
PAS is one of the narcissist’s favorite strategies to take control of the children during divorce. Many of the narcissist’s actions are based on fear, insecurity and past trauma. Parental Alienation is no different. Unfortunately, the person they are attempting to pay back (their ex) is not technically the one who ends up damaged. Hurt? Yes, it hurts like hell to be on the receiving end of such bitter and unnecessary disregard. Damaged? No, we aren’t the ones who end up damaged.
The real victims are the children.



http://erasingfamily.org/
https://www.facebook.com/ErasingFamily/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

Dr. Miller knows you are the psycho parent seeking sole custody

Legal disputes involving the care and custody of minor children
Task force study public hearing (2014 transcript)




esq: dr. miller did you submit your written testimony?

dr. steven miller: yes i did
well my name is steven miller, i'm a physician in massachussets. i have a special interest in clinical reasoning and medical decision making which in the past 10 or 20 years has been extended into how mental health professionals reason and make decisions, and also extended into the issue of alienation and estrangement. so i think i'm here in part today because i counsel parents also because i wrote a chapter of a book which i will read you, i don't make a penny off this, working with children and families a clinical guide book and my chapter is on reasoning and decision making. in cases of either strong child alignment including severe alienation or severe estrangement. i'm a medical educator. i've directed several hundred courses for contuniing education on clinical reasoning, and i hope in the short time i'm here i can take a 2 day course and condense it into 3 minutes and maybe shed a little light on how these cases go wrong. siting here listening to the other cases, it's clear there's an epidemic. the afcc 4 years ago held a several day conference, international conference devoted exclusively to parental alienation. so when national organizations are devoting several days to have speakers from numerous countries come in an speak about it. you can be sure it's a serious problem. so getting more specific, if there was time i would comment some of the good things that previous witnesses commented about but also a couple of logical fallacies i heard and a couple of inaccuracies including the idea that parental alienation syndrome, and i never use the word syndrome, but including the idea that it's invalid or that it has been discredited, i'm an evidence based medicine expert, that is untenable. it is unequivocably a phenomenon called it whatever you like. so i mean that in a constructive way. i believe it's a syndrome, i just don't use the term to avoid the controversy. i also think what i'd hope to do is bring a scientific view here as some other people have done. i think it's important to distinguish between science and a belief system. one of the previous witnesses expressed the view that co-parenting has never been shown to be better than having individual custody. that's a logical fallacy, it's called an argument from ignorance. she made 2 other logical fallacies in a period of 3 minutes, and i don't mean that as a criticism. these are very common misconceptions. and finally i'll introduce this if i may steal another minute or two. i'm asked all the time, how could this happen? we have the best psychologist i know. guardian ad litem… and the answer is we have a complex medical situation and there's been no medical input. and i don't mean to imply that you need a psychiatrist, what you need is a sub specialist in alienation and estrangement who see this all of the time. not the best psychologist in the world who rarely sees it. and so very briefly, the short answer to this question, how does this happen? is this field is highly counter intuitive to anyone who doesn't have extensive training and experience dealing with it. they, most people will usually get it wrong. when i say people i mean attorneys, psychologists, other mental health experts. the majority of the time they will not only get the case and the evaluation and recommendation wrong. they will get it exactly backwards… (times up)

question from co-chair sharon wicks dornfeld… what can be done about it?

… i think there's a problem with credentials (evaluators, investigators) … but my perspective is that there's a lack of expertise here, even the well intentioned people who want to do the right thing, are way over their heads, senior forensic psychologists, way over their heads in this type of a situation...
7:00



fundamental attribution error 17:40
an attribution error mean that you look at some behavior and you assign what you think is the cause for it… the reason it is calle the fund attar error… we are hard wired to make it…. it is hard to override it.  you confuse something that is situational for something that is characterlogical dispositional. in an alienation case. the alienating parent… with .99 certainty has a severe personality disorder. they are either borderline, sociopath, a narcissist, or all three… a mistake that almost everyone will make.. if you see an angry man, you think it's his character, in general, he is an angry man. never mind that the reason that he is angry that someone just stole his car or wallet.  we're hardwired to stay away from that guy. so if the anger is situational then it's an error.  the relevance to us, is when an interviewer sees a severe case of alienation, the alienating parent is cool calm and collected. he or she is probably a borderline sociopath or narcissist or all three, and is a master manipulator, has learned to convincingly mimic normal behavior and presents very well.  saying, oh yes i encourage the childs relationship with his father or his mother.  by contrast the targeted parent has ptsd, has not seen the child in god knows how long, maybe years, has been told he's the one who's the problem and comes in all intense, all angry, and stressed out.
you have to ask how severe is this?  what is the parent's capacity to co-parent. if you are dealing with an extreme right sided continuum where you have a severe obsessed alienator, the kids are severely alienated… you want to maintain contact, but you must reverse custody. i don't know any expert that believes that you can treat that while they still live with the alienating parent. but that is a minority of the cases. in most cases, you are dealing with more middle of the road situation, i think the court has to step in and enforce the parenting plan, and have consequences when it's violated. and you're doing the child a favor…  just to conclude this, what experts don't understand is in severe cases, reunification therapy never ever works. it is a fool's errand. there is no recorded case ever in the literature of anyone taking a severe alienator, i'm talking mom hasn't seen the child in three years, dad is not going to change. and you have to recognize that is what you are dealing with. but once you recognize that's what you are dealing with, most judges don't want to reverse custody, i get it, i wouldn't want to either. so once you are really sure this is what you are dealing with, then the appropriate thing is to reverse custody. there are 2 programs in the country, i should say north america… there are 2 places, one in canada run by kathleen ray and another in texas run by richard roushack, give them four day with the kid, and the kid returns to the rejected parent, happy as a clam to have been reunited, but they require a change in custody and no contact with the alienating parent for 90 days. other than that there is no hope for a severe case. don't even think of doing it with office therapy…

question from jennifer verraneault
…there's a lot of money being made on behalf of this industry that is thinking that you're going to be able to reunify the children with the alienated parent. the court system they don't even know about all of this stuff, and they're doing this, and there's mental health professionals who are naive to think that they can do it. they can't. so, what's the solution? 27:10


reverse custody


Judge Bruno CHAN
Principal Family Court Judge
Judge Justin KO
Acting Chief District Judge
Judge Sharon D MELLOY
Family Court Judge
Judge C K CHAN
Family Court Judge
Mr LI Chi-keung, Ben
Legal Aid Department
Mr FUNG Man-chung
Social Welfare Department
Ms Jacqueline LEONG, SC
Ms Corinne REMEDIOS
Mr Jonathan MOK
Mr Dennis HO
Ms Jain BROWN
Mr NG Sek-hon
Deputy Judiciary Administrator (Operations)
Ms Jackie LUI
Chief Judicial Clerk (Family Court)
Ms Betty CHAN
Chief Judiciary Executive (Operations)
(up to 7.9.2015)
Ms Winifred CHAN
Chief Judiciary Executive (Operations) 
(w.e.f. 8.9.2015)


(search engine tags - linda gottlieb, parental alienation, alienator, joint parental responsibility model, hong kong child custody,  judge sharon melloy,  judge bruno , sole custody, hk law reform, family law, lynette levy bandeira, ms. lam, child custody and access on 7 March 2005, HKLRC Report, international child abduction, court fraud)

The Zero Sum Game Of Parental Alienation



This is the time of year when families draw together, but some parents don’t get to experience that, despite longing for it fiercely. I’ve written before about parental alienation, about the pain and suffering endured by parents whose children have been alienated from them through the other parent’s tactics, usually in a high conflict divorce.
Since my initial posting, more media attention has shed light on this devastating phenomenon. Jennifer Harman, a researching social psychologist, associate professor of psychology at Colorado State University, and co-author of Parents Acting Badly (Harman, Jennifer Jill., and Zeynep Biringnen. Parents Acting Badly: How Institutions and Societies Promote the Alienation of Children from Their Loving Families. San Bernardino, CA: CreateSpace, 2016.), gave a terrific TEDx Talk about parental alienation, highlighting it as a domestic abuse and social justice issue.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/traci-l-slatton/the-zero-sum-game-of-pare_b_13870724.html






Judge Bruno CHAN
Principal Family Court Judge
Judge Justin KO
Acting Chief District Judge
Judge Sharon D MELLOY
Family Court Judge
Judge C K CHAN
Family Court Judge
Mr LI Chi-keung, Ben
Legal Aid Department
Mr FUNG Man-chung
Social Welfare Department
Ms Jacqueline LEONG, SC
Ms Corinne REMEDIOS
Mr Jonathan MOK
Mr Dennis HO
Ms Jain BROWN
Mr NG Sek-hon
Deputy Judiciary Administrator (Operations)
Ms Jackie LUI
Chief Judicial Clerk (Family Court)
Ms Betty CHAN
Chief Judiciary Executive (Operations)
(up to 7.9.2015)
Ms Winifred CHAN
Chief Judiciary Executive (Operations)
(w.e.f. 8.9.2015)

Friday, February 10, 2017

Revisiting Visitation Rights

Revisiting Visitation Rights

 
 
For juridical delicacy, arguably few matters match child custody, and just last year, Missouri’s lawmakers acted to clarify and refine procedures involving that hot-button topic by passing House Bill No. 1550, generally known as just HB 1550.
One problem. As in most legislation, legalese shrouds the nuances and niceties of HB 1550.
Happily, two local experts on legal language express guarded optimism about HB 1550, which Missouri’s 98th General Assembly passed last spring. Former Gov. Jeremiah “Jay” Nixon subsequently signed it into law, and it went into effect this past August.
The first such expert, Dr. Christine E. Rollins, serves as a professor in the Saint Louis University School of Law and directs the Legal Research and Writing Program there.
Rollins first provides background on custody and visitation in general, regarding what legal professionals refer to as “the best interests of the child standard.”
“When I teach class, I tell my students that the best interests of the child standard is like stew,” Rollins says cheerily. “Your stew, your mom’s stew, my stew might all look different. You might put barley in it. I might put potatoes. But when you look at the pot, you say, ‘It’s stew.’
“Because whatever is pertinent, whatever is meaningful to that particular child or children, husband, wife, father, mother, in any single case, is going to be taken into account by the court. The guidelines listed in the laws in Missouri are categories of information that a court should, could, may, take into account, but they are not an exclusive or inclusive absolute list of things that the court should take into account.”
That said, at least one nonprofit has been lobbying for a better ingredients list on Rollins’ figurative stew.
The National Parents Organization – a charitable and educational 501(c)(3) entity focused on “promoting shared parenting, where both parents have equal standing raising children after a separation or divorce” to foster such children’s emotional, mental and physical health, according to its website – has been pushing aggressively for shared-parenting refinements like those enacted by HB 1550.
Last May, for instance, that nonprofit ran an op-ed piece in the Columbia Daily Tribune that scathingly denounced “Missouri’s broken family court system.”
Ironically in light of that denunciation, Rollins’ legal stew has long included an ingredient of potential value to dyspeptic parents, notes the second local expert on legal language, Dr. Joseph A. Cernik.
Cernik, a professor of political science and public administration at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, not only chairs the Department of Public Affairs and Administration there but also edits the Missouri Policy Journal, a semiannual publication “focused on issues relevant to Missouri policymakers as well as the public interested with the complexities associated with policymaking,” according to its website.
Specifically, Cernik cites Missouri’s Motion for Family Access Order.
“When you go through the existing law information contrasting it with HB 1550, I believe the key difference is these words in the law: ‘A family access motion does not require the assistance of legal counsel to prepare and file,’” he says.
“This a slight difference. The law, prior to HB 1550, said an attorney can be involved – not ‘required’ or ‘needed.’ Probably there have been parents who felt that, in the past, they had to use an attorney to help them get access to their child or children, and financially, they could not afford to do that. Here, it’s clear no attorney assistance is needed.
“Now, what I’m always wondering about is, just because this tends to help those who cannot afford an attorney, whether this slight change will be publicized well enough to actually make a difference.
“My guess is that any real impact would have to come in a court case where an aggrieved party says they did not know about this, and they thought they needed an attorney to gain access to their child or children. In other words, the competency of one’s divorce attorney can be challenged.”
Regarding the Motion for Family Access Order, Cernik adds: “Court rules allow a lawyer to help a party with certain specific tasks without handling the entire case for a party. This is called limited scope representation. A lawyer providing limited representation will usually charge a fixed fee or charge by the hour.
“So, a small change, but one that might help a few parents who in the past have felt deterred from doing anything because they, automatically, assumed they were going to pay attorney fees.”
Beyond foregrounding information in HB 1550 that might not have been emphasized as prominently in the legal content the new bill replaces, Rollins expands somewhat on other nuances of that piece of legislation, especially with regard to accountability.
“Some of the language change in the bill talks more specifically about things that should not exclude a parent from having access to their child,” she says. “The underlying standard that Missouri law uses is that a child should have meaningful, open, ongoing, consistent – there’s a lot of adjectives used – contact with both parents. Unless the court finds that a reason will keep a parent and child apart.
“We start with that joint-access concept. And part of the law says if you’re going to restrict it, the trial court needs to tell the parties why they are restricting access. So part of this is very procedural in nature.
“The appellate courts want the trial courts to spell out for the mother and the father why they’re getting what they’re getting or, more importantly, why they’re not getting what they are getting.”
At first glance, HB 1550 apparently includes language that, to a nonprofessional eye, sanctions shared custody for a parent accused of domestic violence, a matter Rollins also addresses.
“I very much am in strong support of domestic-violence rules and laws and orders of protection,” she says. “However, sometimes the parties use accusations of domestic violence as weapons. And in fact, parties may consent to what’s called a consent decree – ‘I’ll stay away from you; you stay away from me. I won’t harass you; you won’t harass me.’ But in reality, what they’ve said is ‘I’ve committed domestic violence against you, and I promise not to do it again.’”
Under HB 1550, such a decree, which previously might have led either to supervised visitation or to no visitation whatsoever, doesn’t serve as an absolute bar.
“The legislation, I think, is saying, ‘No, that’s not an absolute preclusion,’” Rollins continues. “And the court has to do the next step of figuring out what kind of abuse was it, did it affect the child, how would it affect the child? And it’s still OK, court, if you look at the entire situation and you find that it’s in the best interests of the child to have access to that parent, then you’re not going to get in trouble, by the appellate court or somebody else, by granting access to that child.
“And later language in the statute absolutely spells out that they are 100 percent making a determination if custody/visitation is safe for the child, it’s in the best interests of the child. And then they have to spell it out to the parties in the decree.”
Like Cernik, Rollins otherwise guardedly praises the fact that HB 1550 better brings to the fore the family access motion.
“I think any time you can educate people about their legal self-remedies, it really helps the process,” she says. “It keeps everybody accountable for what’s going on. Family access motions are available to persons to be able to alert the court if the visitation schedule is being thwarted, without the need for hiring an attorney.
“And I think that’s just a show of the times. Because we have more families – the divorce rate is about 50 percent – we have more families that are dealing with child support and aging children who are going to vocational school or going to community college or four-year colleges and how that support is supposed to be working out.”
Cernik otherwise offers a suggestion for lay readers approaching legal documents in general, not just HB 1550 in specific.
“In looking at a lot of these new laws as they come along, you might want to see if at the end of them there is written reference to rulemaking,” he says. “Rules – in other words, interpretations – come later on to address vague, confusing, contradictory laws. Laws seem clear but usually are not, and the rules are the means to interpret a law and give it some clarity.
“When I’m reading laws or bills proposed as laws, I look to see which federal or state agency has been assigned rulemaking capability; it’s usually written in the bill or law. If I don’t see reference to rulemaking, I assume that the assumption is that court cases are expected at some point to give clarity to laws. This is similar to U.S. Supreme Court cases.”
For those tempted to think such complications cluster only in lesser legal documents, Cernik continues by citing one of the nation’s fundamental texts.
“The Constitution, for example, is filled with lots of vague stuff, and we really rely on the opinions from court cases to provide some clarity to oftentimes incredibly vaguely written words,” he says.
“I know that never comes across clearly on TV-news shows because it’s too complicated to take the time to explain. If I say, ‘Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 as understood from the court case of … ,’ well, you’ll never see me on TV again because I just confused the audience with what is closer to what really happens.”
Cernik concludes pragmatically that his commentary constitutes “just some guidance in struggling through future bills and laws. I don’t think it ever gets easier.”

http://www.laduenews.com/business/features/revisiting-visitation-rights/article_1c642130-a66b-509b-8e57-1930b46e2e3f.html

Friday, December 18, 2015

DSM: Psychiatry the biggest medical legal scam ever

whistleblowers
Jeffrey Schaler, PhD
Peter Mansfeld, MD
Jonathan Emord, Attorney
Richard Bentall, PhD
Robert Spillane, PhD
Brett Hartmann, PsyD
Craig Newnes, PsyD
Renee Garfinkel, PsyD

For HK Law Reform Contact 
hong kong free press
Scmp
cy leung
hong kong family court
judge sharon d. melloy
dr. jadis blurton
dr. andrew connelly 
thelma kwan
chief justice geoffrey ma tao-li

Sunday, September 27, 2015

“Parental alienation” DSM-5 diagnosis


The presence in the child’s symptom display of the three characteristic diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation”7 warrants the DSM-5 diagnosis of,

309.4 Adjustment Disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct 
V61.20 Parent-Child Relational Problem
V61.29 Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress
V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed


A professionally established DSM-5 diagnosis of V995.51 Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed based on the presence in the child’s symptom display of the three characteristic diagnostic indicators of an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” warrants an immediate child protection response, or we can simply abandon the child to the psychopathology of the hostage-taker, which becomes the decision before the Court.

Mental health professionals need to end their complicity of silence that results in the abandonment of the child to the psychopathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent by formally recognizing the child protection issues involved and by making an appropriate DSM-5 diagnosis for an attachment-based model of “parental alienation” as V995.51, Child Psychological Abuse, Confirmed, which will then allow the Court and child protective services to decide whether to fulfill their role of rescuing and protecting the child from the psychopathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent, or of instead abandoning the child to the psychopathology of the narcissistic/(borderline) parent. 

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Children Held Hostage

Children Held Hostage: Identifying Brainwashed Children, Presenting a Case, and Crafting Solutions, Second Edition

ISBN: 978-1-62722-155-9, 978-1-62722-156-6
Product Code: 5130197, 5130197EBK
2013, 560 pages
How do you identify a child alienated by one parent against the other? This practical guide discusses all aspects of a case where an alienated child may be involved, from identifying the process to making the presentation in court

In the first edition of Children Held Hostage, Stanley Clawar and Brynne Rivlin used their groundbreaking study of 700 families to demonstrate that children could and were being used by parents in the divorce battle. Their research showed how negative actions by parents toward their children would show up in court proceedings where children testify or are questioned by mental health professionals. Now completely updated and greatly expanded, the research underpinning the material in this book now focuses on research involving over 1,000 families. The major issue in confronting this problem of programmed and brainwashed children has been identification of a child alienated by one parent against the other; proving it in court; and then finding a solution that not only works, but that a court will buy into. The updated edition of Children Held Hostage explains these issues in detail, with practice-focused explanations on every step in the process. Among the many new information and findings presented in this edition, the authors offer further insights into gender issues and differences. Other new material in this edition includes a social-psychological profile of programmers and brainwashers; identification of the most commonly asked questions by judges, target parents, lawyers and children; an expanded social explanation to the causes, impact, and interventions; development of an abductor profile; the addition of charts to visualize key findings and processes; and much more.


"Parental Alienation is about parents who place their own selfish needs above those of their defenseless children and in doing so, they deny them their right to love and be loved by both parents. Alienators do not fit the stereotype of the deficient and ill-equipment parent. Instead, these parents are generally articulate, resourceful, and competent in all other aspects of their lives – except in the realm of parenting. In fact, these individuals might easily be mistaken for ideal parents, except to the properly informed, because they profess love and concern for their children. What sets these individuals apart from other dysfunctional parents is their overwhelming commitment to meeting their own needs first. In doing so, they destroy the relationship their children have with the other parent – at whatever cost. ” Dr. Reena Sommer - Internationally Recognized Divorce and Custody Consultant



Symptoms of Parental Alienation

Copyright 1997 by Douglas Darnall, Ph.D.

To prevent the devastating effects of Parental Alienation, you must begin by recognizing the symptoms of PA. You will notice that many of the symptoms or behaviors focus on the parent. When the child exhibits hatred and vilifies the targeted parent, then the condition becomes parental alienation syndrome. After reading the list, don't get discouraged when you notice that some of your own behaviors have been alienating. This is normal in even the best of parents. Instead, let the list help sensitize you to how you are behaving and what you are saying to your children.

1. Giving children choices when they have no choice about visits. Allowing the child to decide for themselves to visit when the court order says there is no choice sets up the child for conflict. The child will usually blame the non-residential parent for not being able to decide to choose whether or not to visit. The parent is now victimized regardless of what happens; not being able to see his children or if he sees them, the children are angry. 
2. Telling the child "everything" about the marital relationship or reasons for the divorce is alienating. The parent usually argues that they are "just wanting to be honest" with their children. This practice is destructive and painful for the child. The alienating parent's motive is for the child to think less of the other parent.

3. Refusing to acknowledge that children have property and may want to transport their possessions between residences.

4. Resisting or refusing to cooperate by not allowing the other parent access to school or medical records and schedules of extracurricular activities.

5. A parent blaming the other parent for financial problems, breaking up the family, changes in lifestyle, or having a girlfriend/boyfriend, etc.

6. Refusing to be flexible with the visitation schedule in order to respond to the child's needs. The alienating parent may also schedule the children in so many activities that the other parent is never given the time to visit. Of course, when the targeted parent protests, they are described as not caring and selfish.

7. Assuming that if a parent had been physically abusive with the other parent, it follows that the parent will assault the child. This assumption is not always true.

8. Asking the child to choose one parent over another parent causes the child considerable distress. Typically, they do not want to reject a parent, but instead want to avoid the issue. The child, not the parent, should initiate any suggestion for change of residence.

9. Children will become angry with a parent. This is normal, particularly if the parent disciplines or has to say "no". If for any reason the anger is not allowed to heal, you can suspect parental alienation. Trust your own experience as a parent. Children will forgive and want to be forgiven if given a chance. Be very suspicious when the child calmly says they cannot remember any happy times with you or say anything they like about you.

10. Be suspicious when a parent or stepparent raises the question about changing the child's name or suggests an adoption.

11. When children cannot give reasons for being angry towards a parent or their reasons are very vague without any details.

12. A parent having secrets, special signals, a private rendezvous, or words with special meanings are very destructive and reinforce an on-going alienation.

13. When a parent uses a child to spy or covertly gather information for the parent's own use, the child receives a damaging message that demeans the victimized parent.

14. Parents setting up temptations that interfere with the child's visitation.

15. A parent suggesting or reacting with hurt or sadness to their child having a good time with the other parent will cause the child to withdraw and not communicate. They will frequently feel guilty or conflicted not knowing that it's "okay" to have fun with their other parent.

16. The parent asking the child about his/her other parent's personal life causes the child considerable tension and conflict. Children who are not alienated want to be loyal to both parents.

17. When parents physically or psychologically rescue the children when there is no threat to their safety. This practice reinforces in the child's mind the illusion of threat or danger, thereby reinforcing alienation.

18. Making demands on the other parent that is contrary to court orders.

19. Listening in on the children's phone conversation they are having with the other parent.

20. One way to cause your own alienation is making a habit of breaking promises to your children. In time, your ex-spouse will get tired of having to make excuses for you.