Fear Reaction to Displeasing the Alienating Parent
The Fourth Ingredient of Parental Alienation
This is the fourth in a series of posts devoted to discussion of the four
criteria found in cases where parental alienation is present.
Deterioration
in the Parent Child Relationship
The Third Ingredient of Parental
Alienation
This is the third in a series of four posts devoted to the four behavioral criteria that are all present in cases of parental alienation. These criteria were first described in an article authored by myself and family attorney, Michael Walsh. The article was first published in the Florida Bar Journal and then was republished as the lead article in the Minnesota Bar Journal.
Access
and Visitation Blocking
The Second Ingredient of Parental Alienation
This is the second in a series of four posts devoted to the four criteria that are found in parental alienation cases. As a reference point to this, I would remind the reader that this series of posts is related to an article authored by myself and a Florida Attorney, Michael Walsh. The original purpose of the article was to provide Family Law attorneys with a kind of template as to what to look for in these cases. It was written in such a way that one could potentially review the file and make a fairly good speculative guess as to the presence or absence of parental alienation.
Access
and Visitation Blocking
The First Ingredient of Parental Alienation
This is the first of four weekly posts regarding the four criteria which are present in cases were Parental Alienation is present. These posts are derived from an article that was published in the Florida Bar Journal in 1999.
Persuasive Rhetoric
The Tool of Choice for the Alienating Parent
Persuasive Rhetoric refers to using language in an emotionally laden manner with the purpose of convincing the audience of some particular perspective.
Persuasive Rhetoric is a tool for selling ideas, beliefs and positions on a given topic or subject. It is unrelated to truth. It only refers to the spin, the story and the goal of winning over the audience. Nothing in the message requires truth.
In the case of Parental Alienation, this concept is useful in that it describes a favorite modus operandi that the alienating parent uses to vilify the targeted parent.
In this context, the alienating parent will allege something either entirely untrue or grossly distorted regarding the targeted parent. It is done with such emotion and tenacity, that the audience is typically drawn into its message. Then the alienating parent does the same thing with another listener. Now there is a group of three who all believe the same either untrue or grossly distorted thing.
There are now three voices in this chorus, and the intensity level tends to increase with the volume and the numbers of those involved. Then someone in this group of three relates this to another person, who questions it but is told that several other people told them the same thing, so it must be true. This new “convert” to the distortion then unwittingly spreads the distortion to someone else, and to someone else, and to someone else.
Socrates, the story goes, is approached by a man who wants to tell him some urgent news. Before he does this, Socrates stops him and says he would first like to ask him three questions before he tells his story. The man agrees.
The first question is, “do you know the person to whom this news occurred?”
Answer: “No, but I know someone who does know them. “
Question two: “did you witness the event yourself?”
Answer: “No, but I spoke to someone who was there.”
Question Three: ” Is the news good or bad?”
Answer: “It would be considered bad news.”
Socrates reviews accordingly, “You do not know the person to whom this happened, you only heard about it from someone who says they were there, and it is bad news. Thank you, but I think I would rather not listen to this news.”
Rightly or wrongly, we humans do tend to be herd animals. Due to our wiring and our evolution, when the herd is exposed to some message that is potentially dangerous or at least negative, we do tend to give it extra weight, and then pass it on.
This is a self-protective reflex that is easily exploited by the alienating parent in their mission to obliterate the targeted parent in Parental Alienation cases.
Since the words “Parental Alienation” were first uttered within a family court room, it comes as no surprise that the echoes emanating from adversaries within both the mental health and legal environments have blurred and tarnished the very concept and, at times, left it unrecognizable. The side opposing an assertion of Parental Alienation is tasked with discrediting, disputing and demeaning it, hoping to convince the court to ultimately reject it. The adversarial process within the family court will predictably batter the concept about a good deal. Consequently, much misinformation, partial information and outright untruths and fabrications emerge and begin to fester.
When one considers that arguing attorneys and family law judges typically learn about Parental Alienation via arguments, examinations and cross examinations in court, it should not be surprising that such understandings are usually limited to the facts of a particular case, and are not necessarily characteristic of specific knowledge acquisition. In other words, the understandings about Parental Alienation as born through litigation are anecdotal and unique, far from a balanced and complete instruction. Judges and attorneys may hear about Parental Alienation from expert witnesses who have essentially been hired to discredit it or to assert it, and their information may be distorted or contaminated by the need to persuade (i.e., biased). In other words, the adversarial environment where it is argued is ripe for distortions and partial truths. What is important to know is that there have been specific arguments created to discredit it that can be shown to be absolutely false. For example, the argument that it is not accepted by the professional community can be shown to be absolutely false. The argument about its presence or absence in the DSM-5 can be answered completely and affirmatively. The argument that it is “junk science” can be shown to be completely unsupported by the scientific literature.
The two day course offered by NAPAS is designed not only to provide a full and complete picture of parental alienation but to impart practical strategies to attorneys representing either a rejected parent or an alienating parent and the course material is supported by the scientific literature and professional consensus.
Recent Updates
- Applying the science of misperception and how to use the available research in preparation for defending a parental alienation case in court.
Parental Alienation vs Parental Alienation…
March 3, 2016
Announcing the National Association of Parental…
February 19, 2016
The Impact of Parental Alienation on Children
November 4, 2015
Top 5 Issues to Consider When Hiring an Expert…
October 21, 2015
Transition Difficulties & Alienation with…
June 24, 2015
Transition Difficulties vs Alienation with…
June 19, 2015
Educating the Court on Parental Alienation
March 20, 2015
Is Hiring an Expert Worth it in Family Law Cases…
March 13, 2015
Educating the Court on Parental Alienation
March 6, 2015
Hiring an Expert in Family Law Cases involving…
February 13, 2015
Parenting, Attachment and Parental Alienation
February 6, 2015
Child Custody: Rehabilitating Your Case
January 30, 2015
The Benefits of Expert Role Distinction in PA…
January 22, 2015
Expert Roles in Parent Alienation Court Cases
January 9, 2015
Pursuing and Defending Parent Alienation in Court
December 31, 2014
Moderate levels of Parental Alienation: Part Two
December 23, 2014
Symptoms for Moderate Cases of Parental…
December 18, 2014
Mild Cases of Parental Alienation
December 11, 2014
Levels of Severity of Parental Alienation
December 5, 2014
The Symptoms of Parental Alienation
November 7, 2014
Forced Visitation and Access between a Child &…
October 31, 2014
Parental Alienation and Child Abuse
October 24, 2014
Parental Alienation as a Diagnosis in Court Cases
September 18, 2014
Should Parental Alienation be Considered a…
September 12, 2014
Parental Alienation and Confusion in Clinical…
September 5, 2014
Child Alienation from One Parent
August 28, 2014
Does Parental Alienation Oversimplify the…
August 15, 2014
Parent Alienation: Current Controversies
Visit our PA Resources page for more about Parental Alienation.
Dr. J. Michael Bone's Parental Alienation Videos
DSM UPDATE - While the terms; Parental Alienation or Parental Alienation Syndrome did not make it into the DSM IV, not all is lost. Instead, what you will find is a discussion regarding the 'Child/Parent Relational Problem' where the discourse surrounds the cognitive issues of the problem that have the potential to include; "negative attributions of the other's intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement." According to Dr. William Bernet, one of the proponents for the PA language inclusion, "That's a pretty good description of a child's view of the alienated parent. “ At the very least, what has been acknowledged here is the conditions that must be present for alienation of one parent to occur. This is similar to what Dr. Craig Childress calls the 'parental alienation dynamic'. Same/same. All it really amounts to is the DSM IV acknowledging that these behaviors can lead a child to have cognitive problems of feeling 'unwarranted feelings of estrangement' towards what we call the 'target parent'.
We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace.
Post by Dave Farmer.
Let's Join The Purple Keyboard Campaign((Activate :2015))4 Family Justice Reform!Operation CPS reform and Family law...
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, May 25, 2015
World4Justice : Cyber Protest! - Boycottfamilylaw : Restore Children's Rights Worldwide - Family Justice & Child...
Posted by Children's Rights on Monday, May 25, 2015
What do you do when a voluntary guardianship guardian blocks, prevents, alienates and then has the child call her Mommy? Additionally lies to the court at inception of the guardianship, lawyers lie, lies to schools and the community and then tries to claim abandonment and unfit parent to keep the child who has been alienated from the ENTIRE family?
ReplyDeleteI say that our Legal and Court system is nothing but a BIG drama. It's a money making business and they run these operations at the expense of a good and integrated family and end up with the disintegration of the family. What a SHAME? My life is being torn apart due to the false allegations (by my wife) pursuant to explosive anger from our 14 year old teenage daughter. I have been separated from my family and daughter for over 7 months now. Recently I have come to know per the deposition taken under oath that my wife was coerced and forced by the authorities into stating most of the false allegations including sexual assault on her and on my daughter. They informed my wife quoted here “You will never see your daughter again unless you sign off on the allegations". How would you feel if your daughter/son is taken away from you without any good cause? It's all a standard text book procedure ... First, it was the DV protection order based on false fears. The DV protection order was dismissed with prejudice after 1 month. Then the CPS started its case of sexual abuse on my own daughter. This was closed as "Unfounded" after 2 months. And now my wife with her attorney are trying to enforce very limited supervised visitation and no contact orders. Where is the JUSTICE? The truth is that JUSTICE is blindfolded. email: raporeilly@yahoo.com
ReplyDeleteHOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
PRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."