A self-censored chronicle of family court dramas, lived by parents who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence
WHAT EVERY PROFESSIONAL WHO INTERVENES IN CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT PARENTAL ALIENATION/PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
by Linda Gottlieb, LMFT, LCSW-r
Much controversy surrounds a family interactional pattern first labeled in 1985 by child psychiatrist, Richard Gardner, as the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This interactional pattern is, specifically, a cross-generational coalition of one parent with the child to the deprecation and rejection of the other parent. But this specific family interactional pattern, characteristic of the PAS, had been noted dating back to the 1950's by numerous, independently practicing child psychiatrists upon observing their psychiatric child patients on the hospital wards during family visits. These child psychiatrists, Nathan Ackerman (1958, 1961, 1965); Murray Bowen (1971, 1978); Don Jackson (1971); and Salvador Minuchin (1974, 1978, 1981, 1993, 1996; et al.), who later founded the family therapy movement, have observed and written extensively about this family interactional pattern. Murray Bowen (1971, 1978) labeled it the "pathological triangle" and Jay Haley, (1963, 1968, 1973, 1977, 1990) labeled it "the perverse triangle," which, in the extreme situations, caused a psychosis in the child. This long history of documented triangulation was extensively validated by second generational family therapists (Andolfi 1983, 1989; Angelo, 1983; Boscolo, 1987; Gottlieb, 2012; Nichols, 1992, et al.), although the psychiatrists and therapists in the family therapy movement did not apply the label of parental alienation syndrome to this family interactional pattern. But hey, when there has been 60+ years of observable and scientific supporting data, what's in a name? And that is the point: it is unnecessary to become side-tracked by and hung-up on a label when there is such extensive empirical evidence for the existence of this dysfunctional family interactional pattern and its adverse effects on children.
This cross generational cannot be a good outcome for any child who is caught in it. It empowers them and gives them a sense of entitlement, and it creates a double-bind as they have to reject one half of themselves to satisfy the co-opting parent. Or, if they refuse to join in a coalition, the co-opting parent usually rejects the child. Double-binds are crazy making behaviors that create severe disturbances in those who are victimized by it. I have written a chapter from my book documenting how this coalition, which I will refer to as parental alienation syndrome, is a form of emotional child abuse.
Any prudent parent’s perception and any prudent professional’s perception would have to agree with Christopher Barden, PhD., JD., who has received 2 national research awards in psychology and a law degree with honors from Harvard Law school, when he stated, “There can be no credible controversy about the power of parents to influence children.” (The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome, p. 420.) And we would also have to agree with Barden when he stated that custody cases require “the critical obligation to carefully review the influence of parents, therapists or other adults on the attitudes, beliefs and memories of children.” (pp. 419-432)
Given how children are so powerfully influenced by parents and given what Minuchin and the other family therapists described as the negativity on children of triangulation, any prudent person and any prudent professional would also have to agree that, in typical cases of divorce, children are negatively affected even more from triangulation----or what I would also label “destructive parenting,” “hostile parenting” or simply “crappy parenting.”
I would further like to confirm that hatred for and rejection of the parent is anti- instinctual. I have reached this conclusion in part due to my training as a family therapist but primarily as a response to having worked for 24 years with a foster care population numbering in the thousands of children. Not one of these many children, who had been removed from their home due to adjudicated neglect and/or abuse, ever expressed hatred for her/his parents or refusal to visit. Indeed, the two most frequently asked questions were, "When can I go home" and "When is my next visit with my mom/mommy or dad/daddy?" I am therefore unequivocally certain that there is only one explanation as to why a child expresses hatred for and refusal to have contact with a parent: the child has been programmed by the other parent and is receiving sanctioning by that parent to reject the targeted/alienated parent. You have to be carefully taught to hate and fear---- especially a parent. I am quite concerned that our customary professional response to a child's refusal to have contact with a parent is to support the refusal or at least to sanction it. It is not healthy to conduct one's life feeling hatred for parent or believing, as in the case of alienation, that one hates a parent. Remedy must be reunification therapy between the child and targeted/alienated parent. Additionally, the programming parent must be made to understand that they are engaging in emotional child abuse by facilitating an alienation, and remedy must be the same as for any form of child abuse---even including transfer of custody for failure to cease the abuse. References in this Article as well as other important readings Ackerman, N. W. (1958). The psychodynamics of family life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Ackerman, N. W. (1961). The emergence of family psychotherapy on the present scene. In M. I. Stein, (Ed.), Contemporary psychotherapies. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. - Ackerman, N. W., & Franklin, P. (1965). Family dynamics and the reversibility of delusional formation: A case study in family therapy. In I. Boszormenyi-Nagy & J. - Baker, A. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome. New York, NY: Norton. Barden, R. C. (2006) Protecting the fundamental rights of children and families: Parental alienation syndrome and family law reform. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & L. Lorandos (Eds.), International handbook of parental alienation syndrome (pp. 419-432). Sringfield, IL: Thomas. - Bowen, M. (1971). The use of family theory in clinical practice. In J. Haley (Ed.), Changing families: A family therapy reader (pp. 159-192). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. - Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Jason Aronson. Gottlieb, L. (2012). The parental alienation syndrome: A family therapy and collaborative systems approach to amelioration. Springfield, IL.: Charles. C. Thomas. - Gottlieb, L. (2012) The parental alienation syndrome: A family therapy and collaborative systems approach to amelioration. Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Haley, J. (1963). Strategies of psychotherapy. (1st ed.) New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. Haley, J., & Hoffman, L. (Eds.). (1968). Techniques of family therapy. New York, NY:Basic Books. - Haley, J. (1971). Changing families. New York, New York: Grune & Stratton. Haley, J. (1973). Uncommon therapy. New York, NY: Norton.Haley, J. (1977). Toward a theory of pathological systems. In P. Watzlawick & J.Weakland (Eds.), The interactional view (pp. 37-44). New York, NY: Basic Books. - Haley, J. (1990). Strategies of Psychotherapy, Rockville, MD: The Triangle Press. Jackson, D., & Weakland, J. (1971) Conjoint family therapy: Some considerations on theory, technique, and results. In J. Haley (Ed.), Changing families (pp. 13-35). New York, NY: Grune & Stratton. - Kopetski, L. (2006). Commentary: Parental alienation syndrome. In R. Gardner, R.Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International handbook of parental alienation syndrome (pp. 378-390). Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Lorandos, D. (2006). Parental alienation syndrome: Detractors and the junk science vacuum. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome (pp. 397-418). Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Lowenstein, L. (2006). The psychological effects and treatment of the parental alienation syndrome. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International handbook of parental alienation syndrome. Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. - Minuchin, S., with Baker, L., & Rosman, B. (1978). Psychosomatic families: Anorexia nervosa in context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Minuchin, S., with Fishman, C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. - Minuchin, S., with Nichols, M. (1993). Family healing. New York, NY: The Free Press. Minuchin, S., with Lee, W., & Simon, G. (1996). Mastering family therapy. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. - Sauber, R. (2006). PAS as a family tragedy: Roles of family members, professionals, and the justice system. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International Handbook on Parental Alienation Syndrome (pp. 12-32). Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Steinberger, C. (2006). Father? What father? Parental alienation and its effect on children. Law Guardian Reporter, 22 (3). New York, NY: Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court of New York. - Warshak, R. (2001). Current controversies regarding parental alienation syndrome, American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(3), 29-59. - Warshak, R. (2006). Social science and parental alienation: Examining the disputes and the evidence. In R. Gardner, R. Sauber, & D. Lorandos (Eds.), International handbook of parental alienation syndrome (pp. 352-371). Springfield, IL: Thomas. - Warshak, R. (2010). Divorce poison. New York, NY: Harper.
It’s just not possible that intelligent lawyers like judges don’t understand exactly what goes on in their courtrooms, yet they allow it to continue.
This judicial collusion is far more serious crime than even the fraud of divorce attorneys themselves.
We need reform toward a more humane family dispute resolution solution. They’ve treated us as enemies of the state. When we thought we’d be welcomed, or at least heard, we’ve instead become targets of prosecution and terrorist threats. They've assaulted us, harassed our members including threatening “gun cock” and death threat late night phone calls, attacked our businesses, professional licenses, and threatened to jail and extort us with further crime.
It’s outrageous that our own government allows this to happen, and we’re asking the federal court to protect our members as we pursue the civil and criminal charges against the courts. A complete set of filings and exhibits is available from CCFC’s Facebook page at www.Facebook.com/ccfconline ~~ Grandparents and Grandkids World4Justice2016 ~ GR Vid2 -- www.facebook.com/Grandparents4Justice
Dr. Richard Warshak of the University of Texas has just published a new paper in the journal, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, entitled, “Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies that Compromise Decisions in Court and in Therapy.” Parental alienation is a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents have been engaged in a…Read More
Isolation. The act of isolating, or the state of being isolated, insulation, separation; loneliness. Manipulation. A method of changing an individual’s attitudes or allegiances through the use of drugs, torture or psychological techniques, any form of indoctrination, alluding to the literal erasing of what is in or on one’s mind. Brain Washing…Read More
Many of our members are mothers, fathers, and children who have withstood abundant hardship resulting from the current practices of what is generally described as the “Family Law Community.”
These injuries and insults include fraudulent, inefficient, harmful, and even dangerous services; an institutionalized culture of indifference to “clearly-established” liberties; insults to the autonomy and dignity of parents and children; extortion, robbery, abuse, and more, delivered at the hands of eager operators within the divorce industry. ~~ CPRW Vid1 - 2016
The gift of parenting children is the single greatest blessing and experience an individual can enjoy in life. Therefore to me, parenting rights are not a “special rights” concern; they are a “human rights” concern.
So, I want to ask where you stand on an important political issue: Family Law Reform.As you may or may not be aware, our current system of Family Law has devolved into one in which a whole host of Family Court Industry players are profiteering from the minimization or elimination of parenting time and rights for non-custodial parents.
Many custodial parents, lawyers, parenting plan evaluators, supervised parenting services, States, friends of the Court social workers, many Courts, and others; are making money by using children as an excuse to exploit non-custodial parents, causing irreparable harm to both children and their parents in the process.
I, and a rapidly growing base of many others, would like this to stop. More specifically, we are asking for five primary reforms to Family Law:
The presumption of 50/50 custody and parenting rights during and after divorce. We are NOT asking for a REQUIREMENT of 50/50, because we still want parents to be able to decide for themselves what works best for them. However, in the event that case goes to trial, instead of having the NCP being forced to rise to a high standard to show why they should have time with their children, I believe it’s far healthier (for both parents and children) for the parent contesting this time to be required to rise to a high standard to show why the NCP should NOT have equal time with their children. And while this may dramatically hit the financial accounts of those who are using children for profit by creating or aggravating conditions of conflict, this reform will affect far healthier outcomes for families.
I would like reforms to child support calculations. More specifically, an elimination of financial incentives for minimizing or eliminating a non-custodial parent’s time with their little ones. As it sits now, there are basically two pieces to the child support calculation: (1) An actual physical needs worksheet, and (2) A tax-free income redistribution; with the Court establishing the higher of the two as the child support order. I recognize that custodial parents may need some time to adjust after divorce, and I have no problems with alimony/maintenance. However, I would like the alimony portion of child support to be eliminated. If a CP wants to better their lifestyle, they can put the work into bettering themselves just like NCP’S are often admonished to do. Children are NOT tax-free income producing assets, and NCP’s are NOT indentured servants.
Reforms to child support enforcement: If one wants to accomplish a goal, it helps establish good or helpful conditions to achieve that goal. Unfortunately, the Family Court has become accustomed to pathological and often draconian measures for enforcement in which the civil rights of NCP’s are systematically ignored or eliminated through administrative court procedures. If a person loses their job, or becomes ill or disabled, it makes no sense what so ever, to take away their driver’s license, vocational license, destroy their credit, throw them in jail, or force them into homelessness. How does this help to ensure the support gets caught-up? It doesn’t. It simply makes the problem worse and sets the non-custodial parent up for future, life-destroying failures. Truthfully, current regimes for enforcement that treat "deadbroke" parents as common criminals are completely inappropriate.
Social Security Act, Title IV, Part D, Section 458 "Incentive Payments To States": I have no problem, in theory, with states being rewarded for child support enforcement. However, I have a big problem with States profiting from it, and a REALLY big problem with the lack of resources available to NCP’s for visitation enforcement. For little or no cost, a CP can have the state pursue civil or criminal remedies for delinquent child support. However, an NCP in reality, must hire an attorney if his or her visitation orders are being ignored, and often, these orders are not enforced with anywhere near the same severity by the Court as they are with child support orders. And I’m confident this is happening in large part, due to the financial interests of those parties noted in paragraph four. Therefore, if there is going to be Federal incentives for the enforcement of Family Court orders, I want equal weighting and importance put the enforcement of visitation orders. Honestly, the message that money is more important than a parent’s relationship and the emotional well-being of children is remarkably disgusting. I simply can’t tolerate that kind of worldview.
VAWA reform. I agree that victims of abuse and violence need the ability to feel safe in swiftly seeking the protection of the Justice system. However, fraudulent allegations of abuse made during Family Court are getting out of control. This is a gender-neutral problem, and it seems it now boils down to which party can launch this nuclear attack first. There are no remedies available to the victims of fraudulent allegations – none, and the damage these allegations cause to both children and parents is catastrophic.
The American Bar Association loves to fall back on VAWA as its reasoning for opposing any kind of Family Law reform. However, I can’t help but wonder how much money attorneys and investigators are making from a law that allows someone to be accused of such a serious crime and presumed guilty of it with no credible evidence what-so-ever. Something needs to be done about this, right now.
In short, much of the current political and judicial rationalizing for the current structure of Family Law centers on the concept of what’s “in the best interests of the children”. However, what is becoming increasingly clear is that children are simply being used as a seemingly noble excuse to mask a greedier underlying motive that is causing significant and irreparable harm to parents and children alike.
I understand you can expect to receive significant resistance to my ideas for reform because those parties noted earlier have a great deal to lose when they take place.
However, I’m not concerned about them. I’m concerned about the health and well-being children and parents, and your position on this matter will affect my voting behavior going forward.
Therefore, I will be grateful if you will tell me, in plain and simple words, where you stand on Family Law Reform.
Family roles have changed substantially since the 1950s. Mom now works outside the home. And dad is expected to be more involved in raising the kids. By Sissi Aguila.
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.
Abuses can originate from virtually every part of the legal system. Litigants, attorneys, law enforcement andjudiciary can abuse the system, sometimes accidentally but more often intentionally. Legal abuse can also besystemic, such as when the principles, processes, and consequences of law itself encourage and enable individuals to legally harm others.
Abusive litigants in civil cases are most often classified as vexatious litigation, frivolous litigation, or both. Avexatious litigant seeks to harass or subdue an adversary. A frivolous litigant starts or carries on actions that have little or no merit and are very unlikely to be won. Litigants of this sort are often unable to find representationwilling to accommodate them and thus must represent themselves in propria persona.
There can often be considerable overlap between these two types of abuse. One case in point is the strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), which is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by fear, intimidation and burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such actions are self-evidently vexatious, but are typically frivolous as well in that the plaintiff does not expect, or even intend, to win.
Litigants can abuse the system in criminal ways as well. Some of the forms of criminal legal system abuse arejury tampering, the practice of directing enticements or threats to jurors in order to influence their deliberations, and falsification of evidence, which refers to any of a variety of ways evidence is improperly manipulated. One particular case of falsifying evidence is the frameup, a chiefly American term for the manufacture or manipulation of evidence for the purpose of indicating the guilt of an innocent party.
Lawyers, paralegals and other professionals involved in legal advocacy can abuse the system in a number of ways. In some cases, representation may well-intended but nonetheless incompetent. In others, lawyers engage in misconduct in an effort to gain unfair advantage for their clients or in pursuit of some self-interest.
Although the primary consequence of unaddressed legal-system abuse for victims is injustice, abuses of the legal system inflict harm in many other ways. Civil litigation and criminal defense of the innocent imposepsychological stress, often severe, upon the parties involved. Often such stress will affect physical health as well. When the system is abused and justice is denied as a result, stress and its effects can be exacerbated enormously. Karin P. Huffer, M.S., M.F.T. hypothesized the condition Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS) as a form ofpost traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by ethical violation, legal abuse, betrayal, abuse of power, abuse of authority, lack of accountability and fraud.
Chronic and high-profile legal abuse have societal effects as well, including distrust of the law, law enforcement and the legal system, rationalization of small crimes by ordinarily honest citizens, and psychological stress.
