Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] Battered Mothers Rights - A Human Rights Issue.

Permalink

Judge’s Association Warns: “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and Claims of “Parental Alienation” Have No Grounding in Reality

Filed under: Child Custody Battle, Child Custody Issues, Child Custody Mediation, Domestic Abuse, Domestic Violence, Dr. Richard Gardner, Family Court Reform, Family Courts, Family Rights, Non-custodial Mothers, Noncustodial Mothers, Parental Alienation Syndrome,fathers fighting for custody, parental alienation — justice4mothers @ 9:51 pm

Here is the new Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department.  Again the fake, so-called “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and the use of “parental alienation” is warned against and the Council tells the courts they should not accept this BS.

The only entities that do believe in this fairy tale syndrome are father’s rights groups who are fronted by abusive violent men and the Whores of the Court that sustain themselves by use of these false syndromes.

2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department

Page 12:

C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34

Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38

The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’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 child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is 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 the child has his or her 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 child by voicing his or her concerns.

To read the entire report, “A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (2009)” by National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department, please click here.  This report should be very useful to both moms and dads who are under attack by claims of PAS against them.