A Must Read

Recommended By And See More at “LetsGetHonest” Blog

Best Interests of the Child
in Custody Cases
This Website is UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Please be patient and/or VOLUNTEER TO HELP us get it all done
(510)789-0510

Beware of the AFCC

History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

1939 Judges, lawyers and mental health professionals got State law passed (SB 737).

The 53rd Session of Legislature. The court became a lobby group. Each and every county would pay for marital counseling to help unclog the court system from divorce cases. The Family Law code • Section 1740 et seq formed The Children’s Courts of Conciliation, which was later repealed. • Section 1760 Article III Whenever any controversy exists, disruption of household with a minor child, the Court of Conciliation takes jurisdiction: to create a reconciliation. Evidence: Senate Bill and Family Law Code Lukewarm reception

1955 A Los Angeles judge formed the first Conciliation Court as per this law in Los Angeles.

1958 The Los Angeles County courthouse at 111 Hill Street was dedicated.

1962  The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)

Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.

1963 Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse.

No incorporation documents on file, and no registration with Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board or IRS. Evidence: Statement from IRS that there is no such entity and corporation papers in 1969. The founders of CCC were Los Angeles judge Roger Pfaff and Meyer Elkin. Six (6) California counties were involved • Los Angeles County • Imperial County • San Mateo County • San Bernardino County • Sacramento County – Albert H. Mundt, Phillip Schleimer • San Diego County 339 W Broadway The incomes of Blacks, Hispanics, Orientals, Caucasians were profiled.

Evidence: Publication of first CA Conciliation Courts Quarterly

1965 Tried to get Family Law bill passed.

1965 The CCC has other states involved

• Arizona California was dropped from their publication name.

1967 CCC became a national organization.

Treasurers in Missouri and Michigan Still no incorporation documents filed; still no Secretary of State, FTB or IRS registration • President Lauren Henderson from Phoenix,AZ • VP Hugh Page from San Luis Obispo, CA • Treasurer William Shields (where from?) CCC expanded to include • Alameda County • San Luis Obispo County

1968 CCC became international.

Still no formal incorporation status, despite being an international group with a money flow. Treasurer: from San Luis Obispo In the seminar business, began giving Family Law Symposiums in Los Angeles Combined with Bar Association (marriage between attorneys and court) Have a legislative committee CCC expanded to include • San Luis Obispo • Phoenix,AZ • Chicago, ILL • Detroit, MICH • Missouri • AUSTRALIA Evidence: CC Quarterly

Money began flowing in from everywhere, despite no incorporation status, no registration with FTB o

• Income of $2716.64. Into this unincorporated entity, which did not pay taxes, flowed dollars from membership dues and conference registration fees. • Expenses of $208.64. Out flowed dollars for stamps, a rubber stamp, check imprinting, Holiday Inn meeting rooms, a refund to Conner Cole for conference registration, Hills Stationery Ledger Papers, and a mysterious entry: reimbursement to the County of San Luis Obispo for stationery. NOTE: the treasurer is from San Luis Obispo Evidence: CCC Financial Report (through May 21, 1968)

After May 21, 1968, the CCC, an unincorporated entity paying no taxes, anticipated they would have:

• Income of $700 from Registration, and $300 from County of S.L.O NOTE: the treasurer is from San Luis Obispo • Expenses of $2433.64 for banquet, luncheon, breakfast and cocktail party • Expenses to Drs. Stembr, Suares, Steller, Muhrich,Transcription costs, flowers, music and Expenses to President Meyer Elkin for publications. Evidence: CCC Anticipated Income and Expense Report (after May 21, 1968)

1969  The national CCC finally filed to incorporate as a domestic nonprofit CA corporation with Secretary of State. Michael Aaronson, attorney from San Carlos, filed these papers.

• Filed seven years after establishing the original bank account at SPNB. • The address of this corporation was Room 241, Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles 90012, which is the LA County public courthouse address. • Stated on the form filed with Secretary of State that CCC is not incorporated, is now being incorporated, and is not an outgrowth of another unincorporated predecessor (despite the fact that they have maintained a bank account for seven years under that name) • Stated on the form filed with Secretary of State that that they have not applied for an exemption with the federal government, nor filed federal tax returns (despite money flowing in and out of their account). • Defines the specific purpose: “To improve marriage counseling procedures so as to provide greater assistance to parties having marital difficulties. To attempt to improve the professional and ethical standards of professional family counseling so as to help preserve family relationships.” • Defines major activities: Conduct meetings and seminars with the various judges, handling domestic, relations and with marriage counselors and court commissioners for the purpose of disseminating knowledge and information that will be direct benefit to marriage counselors and thus benefit the families which are counseled by them. • Sources of income: dues and contributions • Purpose use of funds:“Cost of meeting halls and speakers, costs of reference books, telephone and clerical and stenographic services.” Evidence: documents filed with Secretary of State

NOTHING EVER ON FILE WITH IRS FTB contacted them because they had left off part of their articles:

Judge Victor J Baum of Michigan Edward Staniec of Michigan Franklin Bailey of Los Angeles Mailing Address: James E. Frick, 3100 S Central Ave, Chicago, Ill 60650 (Cook County) Corporation # CO376876 Evidence: Secretary of State Status Inquiry

1974 FTB contacts the corporation again because they had not named statements of officers.

Judge Solie Ringold of Washington State filed a document and said he was president of CCC. In their documents the Conference of Conciliation Courts states that it is also known as the Association of Family Conciliation Court Services

1975 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts of Law was incorporated in Illinois

Registered with IRS and Secretary of State in Illinois, but claimed they were a charity and were brand new. But Meyer Elkin takes charge shortly after their incorporation. (NOTE: he is the co-founder of the CCC) Shortly afterwards they changed to Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (dropped Law) (Not supposed to use a misleading name, claiming they are a court, but are not.) At the same time the Conference of Conciliation Courts was still operating in California and was not registered with the IRS.

1978 Child Custody Colloquium had their first conference.

1979 Conference of Conciliation Courts was suspended by Franchise Tax Board

Evidence: Secretary of State Status Inquiry

1981  The Association of Family Conciliation Courts was established as a foreign non-profit corporation

Located at 111 N. Hill Street, LA (no room number, but in courthouse) Headquarters in Cook County, Illinois They are an Illinois corporation doing business in California. • Margaret Little is a custody evaluator since 1986 until now she is the child custody evaluator and the head of family court services in LA, and is the local agent/president, corporation head of the AFCC) • Jessica Pierson is also an agent and incorporator outside of CA in Colorado Evidence: Secretary of State corporation papers filed in California No IRS papers filed.

1989 Association of Family Conciliation Courts surrenders their intrastate license to do business i

No longer supposed to be doing business in CA Evidence: Corporation papers

1990 Gregory Pentoney began working as an accountant for LA Municipal Court, 110 N. Grand, LA (same building as 111 N. Hill St., LA)

1990 Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund bank statements indicate an account was established at Security Pacific National Bank

Address was Room 1198, 111 N. Hill Street, LA. This room is the Finance Department of the LA County Courthouse. Can’t tell exactly when it was established, since bank records destroyed after 7 years (and these records were requested in 1997) Evidence: Bank Statements Current BofA bank statements state that JMEF has been a customer since 1962. Curiously, that was the approximate date of the establishment of the Conference of Conciliation Courts which was also at located at 111 N. Hill Street.

1991 The County Functional Listing directory of phone numbers and addresses does not show any entry for Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund in Room 1198

BUT there are two entries in LA and Norwalk for a Judges Trust Fund Accounting. • Judges wrote checks out of Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund for cash. (Kelly O’Meara article) • A check made out to Family Court Services Special Fund was deposited into the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. • A check from a District Attorney and his judge wife, David and Sally Disco, was made payable to Judges Trust Fund, and was deposited into the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. • This is called “diversion of funds” because one can’t cash or deposit checks made out to one entity into the account of another entity. (Penal Code 487 Grand Theft Larceny, or Penal Code 484 if under $400 or Penal Code 242 Theft of Public Funds.)

1992 Al Schonbach began working for LA Superior Court, Manager of the Finance Department (Revenue and Pace-Professional And Court Accounting Expenditures handles all Court money from every part of LA)

Judges Trust Fund Accounting was listed in the County Directory

1992 14th Child Custody Colloquium

This book states that the LA Superior Court Judges Association created the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, which was formerly the Conference of Conciliation Courts founded in 1963. How conflict resolved. Judiciary and attorneys redefined roles, to learn and celebrate interdependence. Grown in stature,work together, cooperative judges, attorneys, mental health Promotes Richard Gardner and PAS. Thanked Pat Higgins especially. She collected money from lawyers to take the classes which were created and taught by judges and psychiatrists, free tickets were given to evaluators. Calderon (legislator) and Lionel Margolin (evaluator) were part of the colloquium.

1992 April 22, 1992 Security Pacific National Bank merged into Bank of America.

BofA is now the bank of record for the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. The bank had to convert all the accounts from SPNB to BofA which took a year-it is a complex process.

1993

April 23, 1993 Bank of America/Security Pacific National Bank conversion completed.

All SPNB account numbers all had to be transferred and assigned a new BofA account number.

Not only was the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund given a new BofA account number, but it also received a new name. It is now the LA Superior Court Judges Association. Evidence: a signature card with the old and new account numbers and date of conversion. Neither JMEF or LASCJA is registered with the Secretary of State, FTB or IRS. There is between $60,000 and over $100,000 in the account, and one transaction was $30,000

1993 LA Superior Court Judges Association, an unincorporated, non-profit, nonbusiness Evidence: On their business card.

Marvin Bryer’s daughter filed disqualifications on Presiding Judge Richard Denner (his Judicial Profile states his court is sexist) and head of Family Law Judge Kenneth Black in December due to fraud. At first both denied, then Kenneth Black disqualifed himself.

1994  January, Richard Denner becomes head of Family Law and is out of the case. Sacramento Judge Ford rules that since Black disqualifed himself, no hearing needs to be held.

Citizen Marvin Bryer reported possible financial fraud and wanted a criminal investigation in LA to Christopher Darden, Bureau of Special Operations (CID) in LA District Attorney’s office. . May 23, Christopher Darden declined to investigate.

Also in May, Gregory Pentoney transferred from LA Municipal Court to the Superior Court, Finance Dept Al Schoenback was his boss. • n June,Marvin Bryer contacted Pentoney and asked for copies all donations from lawyers and judges to the court. • July 19, Bryer received a letter from Schonbach, composed by Pentoney identifying donation, 2 of which were anonymous to the Colloquium. Has copies of checks, which were to Family Court Services Special Fund from the County Bar $3,848 Aug 1991, and the other was to Family Court Service April 1992 from LA County Bar $2,902. • Pentenoy said he never heard of the LA Superior Court Judges Association, but all the checks went through him for the whole county court system. • Pentenoy was later and convicted of a felony.

1995 LA Judge Richard Denner started a Child Custody Visitation Center, to train and license monitors for supervised visitation.

• One check was made out to Family Court Services Special Fund ended up in the LA Superior Court Judges Association account.

1995  In May, Melissa Morris registered to set up a business called Morris and Associates Bookkeeping Services, 7336 Quill Drive #66 in Downey, CA , a building complex owned by Gregory Pentoney.

On October 10, Tax Collector puts Pentenoy and Schonbach under criminal investigation due to the 12 checks which never were deposited in the LA County Treasurer. Total $6,750

• Starting in December 1995 to Nov 1, 1996 Pentenoy takes $463, 465 from attorney Robert Fenton (bribery) while he was under investigation. • All the checks were made to Morris and Associates. Pentenoy is later convicted of bribery, after pleading no contest in Year 2000.

1996  Suddenly Judges Trust Fund Accounting was removed from the County phone directory

In May, Marv received a letter from DA (same Bureau) thanking him for delivering evidence, and they would consider turning the evidence over to the AG.

• Also in May, Deputy Executive Officer to Auditor Judy Call (who is on the signature card for the LASCA and person who signed the checks to cash and to judges) sent a letter to Tyler McCauley, LA County Auditor- Controller (who is doing the audit). The letter stated that Judy wanted all the money transferred from the (Subject: transmission of administrative responsibility for the LA Superior Court Judges Account ) to transfer LASCA account to the judges. • LASCJA is still not registered at IRS or FTB or city. The only identity belonging to the account is the Auditor-Controller because the tax number is for LA County. None of the money has been reported to IRS. (just like if I used Marv’s SSN and opened an account…and then got a job using Marv’s SSN. He would be reported to IRS if he didn’t report taxes after cutting the W- 2. If I don’t pay taxes, they will come after the ID and Marv) a Federal crime • Also in May, a letter saying Confidential from Tyler McCauley to John Clark, admitting that there was an attempt to charge Marv $2000 which Marv called extortion. Admitted that the checks that Pentenoy gave Marv should have gone into the Court revenue, not into the private fund for judges. • Marv’s daughter subpeoned the Auditor’s investigation file. The Auditor admits they are doing an investigation but refused to give the file to her.

1996  August 6, Marv sued Pentenoy and Patricia Higgins for fraud and lying about court money.

DA raided the court with a search warrant and shut down work in Finance Dept.

• November 1, DA raided Pentenoy’s office, car, home (which is the same as Morris and Associates) and Judy Call’s office, locked up the computers and home Robert Fenton in Encino (who was bribing Pentenoy) and hid evidence. (Marv was busily suing and now could not get to the evidence.) • November 7, DA made another raid on Finance Dept and took a package marked “Marvin Bryer”,Pentenoy had notes on Marv.(Unconstitutional because no new search warrant…still don’t know what first search warrant said) • Dec 10, the Daily Journal reported the raid. (Since 1900, LA has been stealing money from the public. Pentenoy had lists of all the money that was stolen in Eminent Domain (when take people’s money) and Interpleader Accounts. He and Al Schonbach take it to the dumpster, but Pentenoy went to the dumpster later and retrieved it.)

1997  Marv Bryer subpoenaed all bank statements.

The LA Superior Court Judges Association bank statements state they have been a customer since 1962.

1998  LA Superior Court Judges Association corporation incorporated Jan 1, 1998

Registered with IRS and Secty of State/FTB with a new EIN # after Marv subpoenaed the bank statements.

2000  Hypothesis: CCC became the AFCC which became the JMEF which became the LASCJA.

We are requesting that you assist us in calling for an audit of the LA Superior Court Judges Association and the Superior Court Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. It appears from documents included with this letter that the Superior Court Judges Association maintained a checking account, yet neither the IRS nor the County of Los Angeles claim any knowledge of this account. It appears that the Judges Association put on seminars and co-sponsored events with the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and registration fees from these events went into this abovementioned fund.

There is a possibility of impropriety that needs to be investigated because the attorneys attending these functions regularly appear in front of these judges, and the checking account seemed to be used for purposes unrelated to court administration. Bank records show that this account reached almost $80,000 in August of 1991. Several of the copies of cancelled checks included with the attached material are for ‘Cash,’ and the amounts are not trivial.The small number of checks for cash that CA NOW was able to obtain total over $4,000. In addition, there are checks to country clubs and jewelry stores. Further questions are raised by numerous checks by Los Angeles attorney made out directly to the ‘Judges Trust Fund.’ Given that the account appears to have been used for personal reasons, it seems highly improper for practicing attorneys to be paying money into this checking account.

In 1997, after Insight Magazine published an expose on the checking account, the Judges filed articles of incorporation. The address of the nonprofit, however, is the Central Courthouse in Los Angeles. CA NOW questions whether is it appropriate for the judges of the Superior Court to be operating a private nonprofit corporation out of a county government building.The name on the articles of incorporation and the checking account is the LA Superior Court Judges Association. It appears, however, that this account may be a continuation of the Miscellaneous Expense Fund, since the Bank of America records indicate that the Association has been a member since 1962, despite being incorporated in 1997.

Regardless of whether this account is the same as the Miscellaneous Expense Fund, the use that this account was put to raises even more questions. It appears from the attached documents that attorneys wishing to be employed as Child Visitation Monitors were required to complete a class offered by the Court. Attorneys attending these classes made out checks to the ‘Family Court Services Spec. Fund’ but the checks were deposited into the LA Superior Court Judges Association checking account.

In an effort to gather as much information as possible, the various administrative departments in Los Angeles County were ask to identify any records they had of the LA Superior Court Judges Association. The County Counsel for Los Angeles responded that there were no records transferring the right to use the County tax payer ID number to the LA Superior Court Judges Association, nor is there any record of a fictitious name state having been filed. It appears that the County of Los Angeles has no knowledge of the LA Superior Court Judges Association.

Obviously, this is a complex matter. CA NOW does not have the resources to fully investigate this matter, and is hesitant to make allegations.The appearance, however, is that a group of judges within the Los Angeles Superior Court are operating a checking account and a business that is essentially ‘off the books,’ with no oversight from any regulatory agency, and receiving money from attorneys who are practicing in their courtrooms.To those of us on the outside, this appears highly improper, if not illegal. For these reason, we respectfully ask for your help seeking an audit.

Here are the documents we have attached and our analysis of what they indicate:

#1) A page out of LA County Directory showing the official address of the County Court and the Finance and Pace Management Room 119A.As stated above, the County Court should not be the official address for this nonprofit, nor should the official address on this non-profit checking account be 111 Hill Street Room 119A.

#2) Documents indicate that the LA County Bar Association offered annual Family Law Workshops and “The Child Custody Colloquium,” to its members. The fees of which had been diverted into accounts purportedly held by the LA County Superior Court, but which in fact, are not under the jurisdiction of the County.

#3) Documents indicate the existence of account # 0106021263 at Security Pacific under the name of Superior Court Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund. Into this account checks were deposited in 1991/1992 from attendees for the “Child Custody Colloquium” and out of this account checks were drawn to pay for expenses for this event and other unknown expenses.The deposited checks were payable to either “The Family Court Services Special Fund,” or the “Judges Trust Fund” neither of these purported accounts are legally incorporated. In fact, as of October 9th 1997 the expense fund had not registered a fictitious business name with the LA County Recorder.

#4) Documents indicate the existence of account #00211-80052 at Bank of America under the name of LA Superior Court Judges Association. Into this account checks were deposited from attendees for the 1995 “Superior Court Child Visitation Monitor Training Workshop.” The deposited checks were payable to “The Family Court Services Special Fund,” this purported account is not legally incorporated.Additional documents indicate that an entity The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association, incorporated December 1997, is using the address at 111 North Hill Street, LA CA which is the official Los Angeles County Court address as mentioned in #1 above.Additional documents indicate that as of October 9th 1997 the Judges Association had not filed a fictitious business name with the LA County Recorder.

#5) Documents indicate that the Bank of America account was using LA County tax identification number 95-6000927 and that neither the IRS nor the County of Los Angeles can confirm the legal relationship between this account and this tax identification number. In addition, the attorneys for the recently incorporated Judges Association denied knowledge of the Association’s use of the tax identification number.

#6) Documents indicate the non-existence of the Judges Trust Fund, Family Court Services and The Family Court Services Special Fund as legal entities.

Sincerely,

Helen Grieco CA NOW Executive Director

See more at LetsGetHonest Blog

An article from the National Organization for Women

The Crisis in Family Law Courts

Also See The nafcj.net

There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family law courts of this country. Affirmed by experts and leaders in the women’s movement,
the existence of this crisis is verified by women in every state who report injustice in their family law cases, especially battered mothers trying to
protect their children from abusive fathers who aggressively litigate against them, using family court to stalk, harass, punish, and impoverish their former
partners and children. NOW recognizes this crisis for women and their children and seeks to address discrimination against women in family courts.

The information presented here has been compiled by the National NOW Family Law Advisory Ad Hoc Committee. Created in April 2004, this all-volunteer committee is comprised
of parents, grandparents, activists, paralegals, organizers, attorneys, and advocates from across the nation devoting their collective experience and
expertise in family law and navigating the family court system to NOW’s work in promoting justice and equality for women.

Created in April 2004, the all-volunteer National NOW Family Law Advisory Ad Hoc Committee is comprised of parents, grandparents, activists,
paralegals, organizers, attorneys, and advocates from across the nation devoting their collective experience and expertise in family law and navigating the
family court system to NOW’s work in promoting justice and equality for women.

Family Law Clearinghouse on Foundation Website

By Jan Erickson, Director of Foundation Programs

Over the past several years, the National NOW Family Law Advisory Committee has been compiling materials on a range of issues that women face in divorce and child custody cases. The information is of special interest to women involved in difficult cases where battering and/or child sexual or physical abuse has been involved. These materials are now posted on the NOW Foundation website.

The web page is intended to provide help to both protective mothers and their lawyers and to expose a trend where abusive parents use the courts to harass, punish and impoverish their former spouses and children. In many cases, NOW chapters and the NOW Foundation have been made aware of legal custody being granted to documented batterers and child abusers. Certainly, this pattern constitutes a crisis in family courts.

In addition to an extensive recommended reading list, the Family Law web page carries links to further information on courts and judges, men’s custody groups, research sites, court watches and many other resources.

The committee chair, National NOW Board Member from Michigan Renee Beeker, notes that the collection is a work in progress with more material to be posted. The committee hopes to soon make available model state legislation and sample law briefs.

Users will find information on the phony Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) that is being used against protective mothers to revoke custody of minor children, with little evidence. Judges frequently ignore evidence of a father’s violent behavior and grant him custody of children.

Additionally, the page contains links to legal resource kits, support organizations, safety resources, a discussion of joint vs. sole custody approaches, case studies, guidelines for custody evaluations, and other relevant topics.

MYTHS

“Good mothers don’t lose custody of their kids.”

“The system is set up to help you.”

“Courts operate strictly on legal processes.”

“Courts protect children from abusers.”

“Kids lie about abuse; mothers make them lie.”

Some fathers are aided by friendly judges and court-appointed personnel, along with aggressive ‘men’s rights’ networks.

NOW is addressing this crisis systemically. For more: http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/

Tips from the Front Lines:

Divorce and Custody Cases

NOTE: These suggestions are not legal advice.  There is no substitute for a qualified attorney.

Understanding the Process

You cannot assume that the primary caregiver during the marriage will be awarded primary

custody after a divorce. Be aware of possible time limits for responding tomotions, appeals, and other legal papers.

When appearing for a hearing on one motion or petition, do not expect a judge to allow you to offer

testimony on another matter or file a counter petition at the same time.

Find out everything you can about the players in your case, the laws affecting your case, and what can happen to mothers in family law courts.

Courts, Lawyers and other personnel Get a good attorney! Research his or her expertise in family law and get referrals.

Public legal aid services can vary widely from state to state, and free help is hard to find. For legal help, information, or attorney referrals,

consider your local legal aid program, nearby law school clinic, local domestic violence program,

state or local bar associations, state legal aid support centers and state/local bar associations.

Be careful in agreeing to any court-appointed guardians, psychologists, therapists, parent coordinators, evaluators or other professionals

associated with your case — especially ones you did not choose. Inform the court that you would like to obtain background information on these

people and, if you can, submit the name of someone you choose.

Domestic Violence and Safety

If you are concerned for your safety or your child’s, ask about “address confidentiality programs.” State domestic violence programs

should have this information. In some states, you can request temporary custody and support when requesting a protective order; you may need an affidavit.

Custody, Visitation and PAS

Be alert to the use of phony diagnostic terms such as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), and Alienated Child. Trying to protect your child

from violence and molestation can be deliberately misconstrued as any of the above and cause you to lose your child. PAS has been debunked by all

ethical psychological communities as scientifically invalid.

Do not agree to “give up custody temporarily,” even for a short time— it can be harder to get it back. If the child is away long enough, the court’s

jurisdiction can change to the new residence, putting you at a disadvantage. Find peaceful, non-confrontational ways to stay in contact with your kids if you don’t have

custody. Try to set up a schedule for calls or other contact.

Documents

Keep a notebook and document who you call, who you speak with, what they say, and what occurs with your ex.

Keep all papers and information pertaining to your case; don’t give away originals.

When filing a motion for relief, include all the evidence you intend to submit (pages from transcripts, medical records, expert statements). Check local rules for guidance.

When addressing the court in affidavits, keep your language clear and non-emotional. Have someone proofread your documents for clarity.

Have 3 copies of documents with you at hearings (for the judge, opposing council and yourself).

Self-Advocacy

Ask permission to bring an assistant to court with you to help with paperwork. If your deposition will be taken, try to have both

parents deposed on the same day. If financial information is requested for any hearing, ask to have all information exchanged

on the same day, preferably before the hearing, so that you can review the information.

If there is no written order signed by the judge and entered, it may not be binding, so check.

Build a case timeline. Keep it updated.

If you are involved in a parenting or home evaluation and want to present evidence to the evaluator, build four binders of copies: two for

you, one for evaluator, and one for the other side.

Keep all documents in files according to date. You can go to the courthouse to obtain files and make copies.

Even though you have paid for legal expertise, no lawyer is perfect. No one knows your case better than you do. Advocate for yourself.

 

State Orders audit of Marin Family Court (from nafcj.net site)

State orders audit of Marin family court

Posted: 07/01/2009 06:58:10 PM PDT

 

Prodded by Sen. Mark Leno and other lawmakers, the state Joint Legislative Audit Committee voted Wednesday to investigate the family courts in Marin and Sacramento counties.

The audit will focus on the use, and potential misuse, of court-appointed specialists in family-law disputes, such as mediators, investigators and therapists.

Critics say such appointees can form incestuous and incompetent networks more concerned with generating fees than helping children through painful custody fights.

“It becomes a service mill, a cottage industry of sorts,” Leno said in an interview Wednesday. “Maybe state law needs to be changed.”

Marin and Sacramento counties were chosen for the audit because of the number of litigants reporting problems and filing complaints, said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for Leno. But any changes recommended by the auditors could inspire new statewide legislation.

The audit is expected to take four months and cost about $160,000. The start date has not been determined.

Leno said that because of the state budget crisis, the audit committee – which consists of seven assembly members and seven senators – could only approve two audits Wednesday. Six were under consideration, he said.

Leno, a Democrat representing Marin and parts of San Francisco and Sonoma County, said the committee voted unanimously for the family court audit, demonstrating the widespread doubts about the system.

“People are concerned the health and well-being of children might be


Advertisement

at risk,” Leno said. “I’ve had mothers and fathers in tears in my office, telling me their sad stories. Minimally, we have to look into this and see what the truth is.”

The audit was approved two months after Marin Superior Court issued a report extolling its efforts to increase public confidence in its family-law division. The changes followed a turbulent decade for the family court, whose critics launched a fierce but unsuccessful recall campaign against several judges and a former district attorney.

To improve the system, the court announced, officials cleared a backlog of 1,500 stalled family law cases; translated legal forms and instructions in Spanish; conducted a public survey on court performance; and established a special twice-monthly calendar to help litigants who are representing themselves, according to the report.

But the report still didn’t address the core issue of the mediators and other specialists appointed to advise the courts, said Kathleen Russell of the Center for Judicial Excellence, a Marin watchdog organization.

“Needless to say, we’re thrilled that we had such unanimous support from the committee for the audit request,” Russell said. “We spent 17 months working with legislators to educate them about the problems. It’s really the end of a long journey, but we’ll be working with the auditors as well.”

The state auditors are expected to investigate how court appointees are selected, how they are trained and evaluated, how their fees are established, and how complaints against them are resolved, among other issues.

Judge Verna Adams, a former divorce lawyer who is Marin’s presiding judge, said she welcomes the audit because it could clear the record and instill more confidence in the court.

“We’re happy to have this happen,” Adams said. “We really would welcome a well-designed, professional review of our family law procedures.

“We’re confident that we’re following the law. If they want to do an audit of best practices, Marin is the best place for them to be.”

Contact Gary Klien via e-mail at gklien@marinij.com

Article from The Leadership Council from nfcj.net by Liz Richards

home services contacts site map
little boy
Home
Research
Child Sexual Abuse
Media
Justice
Taus v. Loftus
Conferences

Upcoming

Make a Donation
Resources
Contact Us
FEEDBACK? Send us your comments.
Search Site

 

 

Abuse Allegations In Custody and Visitation Disputes: An annotated review of literature

Achimovich, Lois. (2003). Parental Alienation Syndrome Revisited. Paper presented at the Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Response or Alternative Resolution Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology and held in Adelaide, 1-2 May 2003.

Following critiques of Richard Gardner’s Parent Alienation Syndrome (PAS) by Faller, Berliner and Conte, Jenkins and others, this paper addresses recent attempts by academics to reach a kind of detente with these ideas, which have extraordinary influence in family courts around the world. The paper considers the work of Kelly, Johnston, Berns, Zirogiannis and others as well as recent publications by Gardner. It is contended that these efforts at reframing are not leading to better outcomes either in the quality of expert witness testimony or in the welfare of children. It is also contended that the changes to the Family Law Act in 1995-6 have encouraged inadvertently the use of the PAS diagnosis, thus engendering an increase in adversarial cases and a trend towards the neglect of issues of child development and attachment. The Act’s emphasis on the child’s right to contact has created a transference of this ‘right’ from the child to the parent, which has more than counterbalanced the Act’s increased recognition of the effects of violence upon children. The paper concludes by arguing that we need more studies in this area, including longer and broader outcome studies regarding the effects on the child and the protective parent of forced contact and change of residence.

Amaya-Jackson, L., & Everson, M.D. (1996, July). Book Reviews: Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35 (7), 966-967.

Lisa Amaya-Jackson, M.D., Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Medical Director of  Child & Adolescent Trauma Treatment Services at Duke University, and Mark D. Everson, Ph.D., Clinical Associate Professor in Psychiatry and Director of the Program on Childhood Trauma & Maltreatment at University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, reviewed Gardner’s book Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry .

EXCERPT: “Bias can be noted in the author’s attempts to discredit a child’s allegations by resorting to narrow, often oversimplified notions of how sexually abused children are supposed to behave.”  While Gardner discusses the importance of evaluators being neutral and objective, he conveys “a strong bias that the overwhelming majority of allegations, especially in custody-related cases, are false and that the assessment procedures the author advocates are slanted to arrive at such a conclusion.”

Amaya-Jackson and Everson (1996) consider Gardner’s system for detecting sexual abuse in children to be “seriously flawed.” They conclude:  “This book can perhaps best be described as a recipe for finding allegations of sexual abuse false, under the guise of clinical and scientific objectivity. One suspects that it will be a bestseller among defense attorneys.”

Austin

Bancroft, L. R. (1998). Understanding the batterer in custody and visitation disputes. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/understanding-the-batterer-in-visitation-and-custody-disputes.pdf

EXCERPT:

A batterer who files for custody will frequently win, as he has numerous advantages over his partner in custody litigation. These include, 1) his typical ability to afford better representation (often while simultaneously insisting that he has no money with which to pay child support), 2) his marked advantage over his victim in psychological testing, since she is the one who has been traumatized by the abuse, 3) his ability to manipulate custody evaluators to be sympathetic to him, and 4) his ability to manipulate and intimidate the children regarding their statements to the custody evaluator. (p. 5)

Because of the effects of trauma, the victim of battering will often seem hostile, disjointed, and agitated, while the abuser appears friendly, articulate, and calm. Evaluators are thus tempted to conclude that the victim is the source of the problems in the relationship. (p. 6)

Bancroft, L. R., & Silverman, J. G. (2002). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
http://www.lundybancroft.com/pages/b_as_parent.html

Analysis of the characteristics of batterers, their impact on the whole family, and their impact in undermining the mother as parent. Includes a chapter on the batterer as incest perpetrator and a section which examines batterers’ motivations for seeking custody or increased visitation, and the advantages they have over their partners in family court. The book includes also includes a brief section on batterers use of PAS to help them win custody.

See also: “The Connection Between Batterers and Child Sexual Abuse Perpetrators” (1997). Unpublished article, precursor to Chapter Four of The Batterer as Parent.

“Understanding the Batterer In Custody and Visitation Disputes” (1998). Unpublished article, precursor to Chapter Five of The Batterer as Parent.

Bancroft, L. R., & Silverman, J. G. (2002). Assessing risk to children from batterers. In P. Jaffe, L. Baker, & A. Cunningham (Eds.) Protecting Children from Domestic Violence: Strategies for Community Intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
http://www.lundybancroft.com/pages/articles_sub/JAFFE.htm

Bancroft, L. (Winter 2002). The batterer as a parent. Synergy [Newsletter of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges], 6(1), 6-8.
http://www.lundybancroft.com/pages/articles_sub/SYNERGY.htm

Bancroft, L. (2004). When Dad Hurts Mom: Helping Your Children Heal the Wounds of Witnessing Abuse. New York, MY: G.P. Putnam.
http://www.lundybancroft.com/pages/Whendadhurtsmom.html

Bemiller, Michelle. (2008). When Battered Mothers Lose Custody: A Qualitative Study of Abuse at Home and in the Courts. Journal of Child Custody, 5(3/4), 228-255.
Available here ($)

Abstract: The following study adds to research that examines child custody cases involving a history of interpersonal violence. This study contributes to past research by providing qualitative accounts of women’s experiences with intimate partner violence prior to custody loss, institutional abuse at the hands of the family court, and abuse experienced after custody loss. Data come from a convenience sample of 16 noncustodial mothers from northeastern Ohio. Findings support past research, which finds corruption, denial of due process, and gender bias in the family court system. Policy recommendations are made and future research directions suggested.

Bemiller, Michelle. (2008). Non-custodial Mothers: Thematic Trends and Future Directions. Sociology Compass, 2, 910-924.

This article provides an overview of research completed on non-custodial mothers over the past two decades, with attention to the family and the role of the courts. After reviewing past research, the current state of the field is discussed, and future research directions are suggested.

Braun, Joan. (1999, Summer). Custody Order or Disordered Custody? Institute Against Family Violence British Columbia, Canada.
http://www.bcifv.org/resources/newsletter/1999/summer/custody.html

Problematically, raising allegations of child abuse can actually work against the one raising them. S. 16(10) of the Divorce Act states that, in making custodial determinations, the courts are to consider the willingness of the custodial parent to facilitate contact with the other parent. This has been called the “friendly parent presumption”. As a result, if a woman raises safety concerns, but is unable to prove her allegations, she risks having the court conclude that she is merely being vindictive in order to prevent her ex-partner from having contact with his child. On the other hand, if she does not raise legitimate concerns she is putting the child’s safety at risk.

Brown, A. L. (2008). Criminal Rewards: The Impact of Parent Alienation Syndrome on Families. Affilia, 23, 388-396. (pdf)

Excerpt: Despite the overwhelming evidence against PAS, particularly its lack of recognition by any medical or psychological diagnostic body, the absence of consistent empirical and clinical evidence that PAS exists, or indications that the alienator’s behavior is the actual cause of the child’s behavior toward the target parent, it has been used by forensic psychologists, parent coordinators, and lawyers (Bruch, 2001; Dallam, 2008; First, Frances, & Pincus, 2002; Hoult, 2006). It is often recognized by judges in their depositions and used to determine visitation and custody, even when the child’s fear and reluctance is a healthy and adaptive response to documented abuse.

Brown conducted hour-long interviews with three authorities on PAS attempting to answer the following questions: What is PAS? If PAS is junk science, then why does it continue to be used in the courts? What is the impact of PAS on families? What is the role of social workers and clinicians in addressing this issue?

The authorities interviewed are: Lisa Dressner, LCSW, a founding member and co-director of Affinity Counseling Group, a community-based mental health agency in New Jersey; Amy Meckeler, a social justice advocate, an educator–administrator at Kean University, and a member of the Alliance for Racial and Social Justice, which, among several projects, houses a grassroots court monitoring action–research efforts in Middlesex County, New Jersey; and Ms. Thomas (a pseudonym), a mother and activist who is involved in a PAS case.

Bruch, Carol S. Parental (2001). Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting It Wrong in Child Custody Cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35, 527.

According to Bruch, the deficiencies in PAS theory are multiple. In addition to its lack of scientific support, Bruch notes the following problems:

First, Gardner confounds a child’s developmentally related reaction to divorce and high parental conflict (including violence) with psychosis. In doing so, he fails to recognize parents’ and children’s angry, often inappropriate, and totally predictable behavior following separation.

Second, possibly as a consequence of these errors and his tail-of-the-elephant view, Gardner vastly overstates the frequency of cases in which children and custodial parents manufacture false allegations or collude to destroy the parent-child relationship.

Third, in this fashion, PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behavior of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child. Indeed, for Gardner, the concerned custodial parent’s steps to obtain professional assistance in diagnosing, treating, and protecting the child constitute evidence of false allegations.

Fourth, Gardner believes that, particularly in serious cases, the relationship of an alienated child with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged, probably ending for all time,

Fifth, as these sources suggest, Gardner ‘s proposed remedy for extreme cases is unsupported and endangers children.

Burkhart, M. A. R. (2002). Child Abuse Allegations in the Midst of Divorce and Custody Battles: Convenience, Coincidence or Conspiracy? NCPCA Update, 13(10), Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.

“An allegation of child abuse arising out of a divorce or custody situation should be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.  It is wrong to assume that such an allegation is untrue or can’t be proven.  Although an allegation arising during a custody situation may create unique problems of proof, these children are no less deserving of protection.”

California National Organization for Women Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and Their Allies Take on the Family Law System. (2004). Edited by Helen Grieco, Rachel Allen and Jennifer Friedlin. (more)

Electronic (download) publication featuring a collection of essays by experts addressing the critical issues mothers face in contentious custody and divorce cases. http://www.canow.org/ca_now_family_law/buy-disorder-in-the-court.html

With an introduction and afterword by the editors, the collection includes essays by: Phyllis Chesler, Karen Anderson; Dr. Lundy Bancroft; Sharon Bass; Dr. Robert Geffner; Judge (ret.) Sol Gothard; Dr. Mo Therese Hannah; Karen Hartley-Nagle; Paige Hodson; Kristen, Diane and Charles Hofheimer, Dominique Lasseur, Kristen Lombardi, Dr. Geraldine Butts Stahly, Garland Waller, and Trish Wilson.

The contributors offer advice, encouragement and personal experiences to other mothers and their allies facing cases of their own, or working to address the crisis for mothers and their children in the family law courts.

Caplan, P. J. (2004). What is it that being called “parental alienation syndrome”? In P. Caplan & L. Cosgrove (Eds.). Bias in psychiatric diagnosis, A project of the association for women in psychology (pp. 61-67). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.

Asks important questions regarding the use of the term PAS: (1) Who decides to call it a mental illness? (2) How is it defined? (3) What information supports the claim that the entity: (a) exists? (b) is consistent with some reasonable definition of mental illness? (c) that the use of the label PAS is helpful or harmful?

Chenoweth, P. R. (1993, April 19). Don’t blame the messenger in child sex abuse cases. New Jersey Law Journal, p. 17.

Priscilla Read Chenoweth, a New Jersey lawyer and senior case editor of the New Jersey Law Journal , notes that Gardner makes sweeping assertions that when a sexual abuse allegation arises in the context of custody disputes or day-care centers: “the problem is not the sexual abuse of children but `vengeful wives’ and ‘hysterical mothers’.”

“Gardner’s extravagant and conclusory language, and his obvious bias against women, should be enough to give any judge or lawyer pause before accepting his invitation to disbelieve and even punish the messenger”  (p. 17).

Phyllis Chesler. (2011 ). Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody (2nd. ed.). Lawence Hill Publishers.

This landmark book orginally published in 1986 was the first to break the false stereotype about mothers getting preferential treatment over fathers when it comes to custody. In this new edition, Chesler shows that, with few exceptions, the news has only gotten worse: when both the father and the mother want custody, the father usually gets it. This happens even when there is evidence to show that the father has been abusive.

Corwin, D., L. Berliner, G. Goodman, J. Goodwin & S. White. Child sexual abuse and custody disputes: No easy answers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), Mar. 1987, 91-105.

The authors argue that reliance on simplified approaches to the complex problem of alleged CSA in the context of child custody disputes is likely to result in misdiagnosis and a failure to protect children who are both sexually abused and caught in custody battles. The authors discuss the limits of clinical impression, the difference between unfounded or unsubstantiated and false accusations of abuse, and the high prevalence of actual CSA in the setting of marital dissolution.

Custody litigation and the child sexual abuse backfire syndrome. (1988, Winter). Jurisfemme, 8, 21.

Presenters at a 1987 legal continuing education seminar on sexual abuse allegations in child custody litigation, suggested that “unless there was irrefutable medical evidence of sexual abuse, the custodial parent should not raise the allegation” because they risk losing custody to the abuser.

Dallam, S. J. (1998). Dr. Richard Gardner: A review of his theories and opinions on atypical sexuality, pedophilia, and treatment issues. Treating Abuse Today, 8(1), 15-23.

While Gardner ‘s theories about PAS and mass sexual abuse hysteria have been widely criticized, his views on bona fide child sexual abuse and his treatment recommendations for working with incestuous families have largely been ignored. This article provides an in-depth exploration of Gardner ‘s views on pedophilia and his therapeutic approach to working with families in which a child has been molested by a parent.

Dallam, S. J. (1999). Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is it scientific? In E. St. Charles & L. Crook (Eds.), Expose: The failure of family courts to protect children from abuse in custody disputes. Los Gatos, CA: Our Children Our Children Charitable Foundation.

This article examines the scientific support for PAS along with its underlying assumptions and logic. This theory’s relevance to child abuse allegations that arise during child custody disputes is also explored.

Dallam, S. J., & Silberg, J. L. (Jan/Feb 2006). Myths that place children at risk during custody disputes. Sexual Assault Report, 9(3), 33-47.

Dalton, Clare. (1999). When Paradigms Collide: Protecting Battered Parents and Their Children in the Family Court System 37 FAMILY & CONCILIATION COURTS REVIEW 273.

Clare Dalton, Susan Carbon, and Nancy Olesen. (2003). High Conflict Divorce, Violence, and Abuse: Implications for Custody and Visitation Decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, [VOL 54, NO 4]. 11-34.

Judges making custody determinations are faced with the difficult challenge of distinguishing between a divorce with “high conflict” and a domestic violence case with ongoing abuse. This article summarizes the legal, philosophical, and historical understandings of the “high conflict” family and its potential impact on children. It will also provide practical judicial guidelines for making the important distinction between high conflict and domestic violence and subsequently crafting appropriate and safe child custody awards.

Clare Dalton, LLM, Leslie Drozd, PhD, and Judge Frances Wong. (2004). Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases With Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). (PDF)

This Guide is designed to serve as a practical tool for judges on how to determine whether a custody evaluation is needed, how to select the right person for the evaluation, and how to interpret and act on professional child custody evaluations when domestic violence is involved in family law cases.

Margaret K. Dore, The “Friendly Parent Concept: Anything But Friendly, Washington State Bar Association, Family Law Section Newsletter, Fall 2001.

EXCERPT: The friendly parent concept puts children at increased risk of abuse, violence and neglect at the hands of a parent. This is because a parent who raises these concerns can be perceived as “unfriendly” to justify a change in custody, i.e., to the abusive, violent or neglectful parent. With such high stakes, parents with these concerns may choose to forgo disclosing them…. The friendly parent concept thus has a chilling effect regarding matters that put children at risk. It obstructs the protection of children.

Dore, Margaret K. (2004). The “Friendly Parent” Concept: A Flawed Factor for Child Custody, Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 6, 41-56. (PDF)

EXCERPT: On close examination, the friendly parent concept presents a paradox. This is because in a child custody dispute, the parents are in litigation against each other. The purpose of this litigation is to take custody away from the other parent, which by definition does not foster the other parent’s relationship with the child. The friendly parent concept, however, requires parents to make the opposite showing, that they will “most likely foster . . . the other parent’s relationship with the child.”

With this inherent contradiction, the results of a friendly parent analysis are unpredictable and at times, bizarre. The friendly parent concept also encourages litigation and conflict between parents; it renders parents unable to protect themselves and their children from abuse, violence, and neglect at the hands of the other parent. Because of these problems, this article argues that the friendly parent concept should be eliminated from child custody practice, and that existing friendly parent statutory provisions should be repealed or judicially overturned.

Margaret K. Dore, “Court-Appointed Parenting Evaluators and Guardians ad Litem: Practical Realities and an Argument for Abolition,” Divorce Litigation, Vol. 18, No. 4, April 2006.

This article documents how parenting evaluators and GALs act as a “filter” between the court and the evidence. This can lead to poor decisionmaking in custody cases.

Doyne, S. E., Bowermaster, J. M., Meloy, J. R., Dutton, D., Jaffe, P., Temko, S., & Mones, P. (1999). Custody disputes involving domestic violence: Making children’s needs a priority. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50(2), 1-12.

Noting that domestic violence is a widespread phenomenon, the central thesis in this article is that the justice system needs to better recognize the special needs of children exposed to domestic violence. Even in cases where there are no observable injuries, children’s adjustment and development can be jeopardized seriously by witnessing one parent abusing another parent. Being raised in a climate of fear, having poor models of conflict resolution, and observing abuse of power in intimate relationships can have long-term detrimental consequences for children and adolescents.

EXCERPTS:

“In reality, however, contested custody cases often represent a high level of violence compared to the general population of divorcing adults” (p. 5).

“Paradoxically, women may not be believed when violence is reported because they are seen to be exaggerating incidents of violence as a way of manipulating the courts” (p. 5).

“Many battered spouses are advised to promote relationships and set aside past conflicts with ex-spouses who may be a danger to them and their children. If they do not comply, they may be deemed `unfriendly or unfit parents’ and they can lose custody to abusive parents” (p. 5).

Ducote, R., & D. M. Harrison. (1988). Aggressive advocacy for parents protecting children in child sexual abuse cases. In E. Bruce Nicholson and Josephine Bulkley (Eds.), Sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation cases: A resource book for judges and court personnel. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

Discusses errors sometimes made by judges charged with fact finding and dispositional tasks in child custody/visitation hearings.  These errors can condemn children to continued sexual abuse, destroying the child’s trust in the ability of the protecting parent and the “system” to protect them.  The “backfire syndrome” refers to cases where in-spite more than adequate evidence of the sexual abuse, the system turns on the innocent parent, denounces him or her as “paranoid,” or “the real abuser.”   The protective parent is found in contempt for not cooperating in family therapy, not encouraging the child to relate to the abuser, or for impeding visitation. The protective parent is punished by fine or incarceration and the child’s custody may be granted to the abuser, or unsupervised visitation may be increased. There are a number of erroneous strategies and assumptions made by the bench and bar which result in bad decisions.

Erroneous assumptions include:

  • Doing a lot family law work qualifies an attorney to handle sexual abuse cases.
  • Allegations that arise in the context of a divorce, custody or visitation dispute are probably false.
  • Allegations of child sexual abuse must be true, and all that needs to be done is to suspend visitation.
  • Expert witnesses in child sexual abuse are all the same (one cancels out the other on the opposing side) or is an expert because he or she claims to be one.
  • Secrecy will protect the child’s best interests.
  • Sterotypic attitudes about how a mother or father whose child has been sexually molested is supposed to act toward the molester.
  • The child’s attorney’s position is the best because he or she has only the child’s interest at heart.

Ducote, Richard. Guardians ad Litem in Private Custody Litigation: The Case for Abolition, Loyola Journal of Public Interest, Vol. 3, Spring 2002, p. 146.

This article examines the purported historical justification for the use of Guardians Ad Litem (GALs), the plethora of criticism nationwide concerning their involvement, their poorly defined role, their particular failures in cases of child abuse and domestic violence, their unaccountability, their unjustified cost, and alternatives to their use.

EXCERPT: One of the great paradoxes in the nation’s family courts is the role of the guardian ad litem in custody cases involving domestic violence and child abuse. On one hand, the appointment of a GAL in an ordinary situation where the child is not subject to potential harm from such dangers at worse can simply raise the expenses of the parents, increase the arbitrariness already inherent in deciding the amorphous best interest issues, and compromise due process. However, in domestic violence and abuse cases, where courts are even more eager to appoint GALs, children are frequently ending up in the custody of the abusers and separated from their protecting parents. This tragedy does not happen in spite of the GALs, but rather because of the GALs.

Ehrenberg, Marion F., & Michael F. Elterman. (1995). Evaluating allegations of sexual abuse in the context of divorce, child custody, and access disputes. In Tara Ney (Ed.), True and False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse: Assessment and Case Management. NY: Brunner/Mazel, pp. 209-30.

This chapter focuses on the evaluation of CSA allegations that occur in custody/access disputes.  Historical and legal issues relevant to this problem are summarized, and research about the extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in divorce is reviewed.  Research finds suggest that improbable allegations are equally or more likely to occur during custody disputes than in cases where custody is not an issue.  The authors present a range of divorce-related family dynamics as possible contexts for sexual abuse allegations: (1) abuse leading to divorce, (2) abuse revealed during divorce, (3) abuse precipitated by divorce, and (4) custody/access disputes. The authors then summarize the knowledge and skills needed to complete an evaluation, and review relevant professional and ethical issues.

A clinical-research approach to evaluation is recommended and described. The clinician is encouraged to carefully evaluate the specific circumstances of the sexual abuse allegation, including when, how, and by whom the allegation was made.  Strategies are presented for differentiating sexual abuse from divorce trauma, and characteristics of accusing and accused parents and aspects of their relationships with their children in probable and improbable cases are reviewed.  The evaluation of sexual abuse allegations arising during divorce is a complex and challenging process with a great deal at stake for the children and families involved.  The authors conclude the chapter with 10 specific recommendations relevant to practitioners involved in these evaluations.

Emery, R. E. (2005). Parental alienation syndrome: Proponents bear the
burden of proof. Family Court Review, 43, 8–13.

Notes that it is blatantly misleading to call parental alienation a scientifically based ‘‘syndrome.’’

Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2007). Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1-29.

Theoretically, the law guides and controls child custody evaluations, but the prevailing custody standard (the ”best interests of the child” test) is a vague rule that directs judges to make decisions unique to individual cases according to what will be in children’s future (and undefined) best interests. Furthermore, state statutes typically offer only vague guidelines as to how judges (and evaluators) are to assess parents and the merits of their cases, and how they should ultimately decide what custody arrangements will be in a child’s best interests. In this vacuum, custody evaluators typically administer to parents and children an array of tests and assess them through less formal means including interviews and observation. Sadly, we find that (a) tests specifically developed to assess questions relevant to custody are completely inadequate on scientific grounds; (b) the claims of some anointed experts about their favorite constructs (e.g., ”parent alienation syndrome”) are equally hollow when subjected to scientific scrutiny; (c) evaluators should question the use even of well-established psychological measures (e.g., measures of intelligence, personality, psychopathology, and academic achievement) because of their often limited relevance to the questions before the court; and (d) little empirical data exist regarding other important and controversial issues (e.g., whether evaluators should solicit children’s wishes about custody; whether infants and toddlers are harmed or helped by overnight visits), suggesting a need for further scientific investigation.

Our analysis of the flawed system, together with our desire to sharply limit custody disputes and custody evaluations, leads us to propose three reforms. First, we urge continued efforts to encourage parents to reach custody agreements on their own—in divorce mediation, through collaborative law, in good-faith attorney negotiations, in therapy, and in other forums. Some such efforts have been demonstrated to improve parent–parent and parent–child relationships long after divorce, and they embrace the philosophical position that, in the absence of abuse or neglect, parents themselves should determine their children’s best interests after separation, just as they do in marriage. Second, we urge state legislatures to move toward adopting more clear and determinative custody rules, a step that would greatly clarify the terms of the marriage contract, limit the need for custody evaluations, and sharply narrow the scope of the evaluation process.We find particular merit in the proposed ‘‘approximation rule’’ (recently embraced by the American Law Institute), in which postdivorce parenting arrangements would approximate parenting involvement in marriage. Third and finally, we recommend that custody evaluators follow the law and only offer opinions for which there is an adequate scientific basis. Related to this, we urge professional bodies to enact more specific standards of practice on this and related issues.

Erickson, Nancy S. (2007, February). Confusion on the Role of Law Guardians. The Matrimonial Commission’s Report and the Need for Change. NEW YORK FAMILY LAW MONTHLY vol. 8 (no. 6), 1-2.

Erickson notes:

“An adult can fire his/her attorney, but the child may be trapped in a
relationship with a law guardian who does not represent the child, and the
child’s voice may never be heard.” ….

“I have been involved in cases where I had reason to believe that the law guardian was not doing his/her job or was actively attempting to gain judicial approval for a course of action that would be harmful to the law guardian’s client. In some cases, the law guardian communicated with the child so infrequently that it would have been impossible for the law guardian to be familiar enough with the case to be able to represent the child at all. For example, in one case I am familiar with, a child told his therapist that he would kill himself if he continued to be forced to visit — even under supervision — with the father who had sexually abused him and had threatened to kill his mother. The boy’s law guardian had spoken with him only once and took no action even to seek out the facts, much less to protect the child. In fact, he worked closely with the attorney for the father to make sure that no unfavorable orders were issued against the father.”

The articles concludes with the following recommendations:

“There needs to be some mechanism for the child to report to the court that the law guardian is not representing the child properly. Additionally, there may need to be an ombudsperson for a parent to go to if the child is unable or unwilling to report to the court about a law guardian’s failings.”

Erickson, Nancy S. (2005, Spring). Use of the MMPI-2 in Child Custody Evaluations Involving Battered Women:  What Does Psychological Research Tell Us?  Family Law Quarterly, vol 39, no. 1, p. 87-108.

Erickson notes:

The effects of domestic violence on survivors, who are primarily women, may be severe. Battered women’s advocates often note that, in custody cases, the batterer often “looks better” to the court than the victim does because he is confident and calm, whereas she is still suffering the effects of his abuse and therefore may appear hysterical, weepy, anger, or otherwise not “together.”

When a custody evaluation is conducted by a psychologist, the revised version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) is often used as part of the evaluation process. The MMPI-2, like other traditional psychological tests, was not designed to be used in custody evaluations and arguably should not be used for such purpose except “when specific problems or issues that these tests were designed to measure appear salient in the case.”

If it used, Erickson notes that “great care must be taken” as “a misinterpretation could result in placing custody of a child with a batterer, which could put the child at severe risk.”

Erickson reviews research on the use of MMPI evaluations with battered women and found that:

When tested while domestic violence is ongoing or has just ended, battered women typically exhibit MMPI/MMPI-2 elevations on several clinical scales. However, MMPI/MMPI-2 scores tend to normalize after the abuse ends, as time passes. Additionally, the frequency and severity of the abuse appears to be correlated with the MMPI/MMPI-2 elevations, suggesting that the elevations are caused by the abuse.

Erickson concludes that the psychological stress that battered women suffer may result in MMPI scores that do not accurately evaluate their ability to parent.

Fahn, Meredith S. (1991). Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Disputes: Getting to the Truth of the Matter, Family Law Quarterly 193.

Problems specific to the fact-finding of child sexual abuse alleged between divorcing or divorced parents are discussed.  Fahn argues that the legal system’s mechanisms for protecting children from intrafamilial sexual abuse are inadequate.  Contrary to the popular assumption that accusers have nothing to lose by raising false allegations, a mother who fails to meet a stringent standard of proof faces the risk of losing custody. There is often a judicial bias against the accusing mother and child.  The courts may characterize the mother as overprotective, vindictive, or uncooperative and therefore, transfer custody to the father.

Discusses the difficulties of substantiating abuse allegations and emphasizes that the term “unsubstantiated” does not mean “false.” The media has popularized an image of the mother in a custody dispute who raises allegations of child abuse in order to hurt the father rather then to protect the child. Children’s allegations of sexual abuse are often met with skepticism and disbelief. Advocates for accused parents virtually always describe the charges as false because they arose in a custody suit.  The child’s confirmation of the abuse is attributed to fantasy or to brainwashing by the mother. Fahn outlines reasons why legitimate allegations sometimes arise in the context of a custody dispute. The article concludes by recommending certain changes, beginning with an increased awareness and a more uniform updating of the legal process, in order to improve the legal system’s ability to protect child victims.

Faller, K. C. (1991). Possible explanations for child sexual abuse allegations in divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(1), 86-91.

This study explores a range of dynamics leading to allegations of sexual abuse in divorce. A classification system is proposed based on a review of the literature, discussions with other mental health professionals, and a careful examination of a clinical research sample of 136 cases referred for diagnosis and treatment.  The four identified dynamics resulting in allegations of sexual abuse during or after the dissolution of a marriage are as follows:

  • The mother finds about the sexual abuse and decides to divorce her husband;
  • Long-standing sexual abuse is only revealed during the marital breakup;
  • Sexual abuse is precipitated by the marital dissolution;
  • The allegation is false.

The largest proportion of cases were those in which the marital dissolution precipitated the sexual abuse, followed by those in which divorce triggered disclosure.  The data suggests that 15% to 25% of allegations were false. It is concluded that mental health professionals should maintain an open mind and an appreciation of the range of circumstances and dynamics that might lead to a report of abuse during divorce.

Faller, K. C. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: What is it and what data support it? Child Maltreatment, 3(2), 100-115. (PDF)

This article describes proposed characteristics and dynamics of PAS, and the methods used to document its presence. Research data related to various tenets of the syndrome are then reviewed. Dr. Faller notes that

“The parental alienation syndrome is a nondiagnostic syndrome. It is only useful for mental health professionals in explaining the symptom presentation if they know from other information that an abuse allegation is a deliberately made, false accusation. The syndrome cannot be used to decide whether the child has been sexually abused. As a consequence, it is of little probative value to courts in making decisions about the presence or absence of sexual abuse …. An additional problem with the parental alienation syndrome is that virtually every symptom described by Gardner as evidence of its presence, and consequent false charges against the accused parent, is open to opposing interpretations” (p. 111).

After reviewing the relevant research Faller concludes:

“No data are provided by Gardner to support the existence of the syndrome and its proposed dynamics. In fact, the research and clinical writing of other professionals leads to a conclusion that some of its tenets are wrong and that other tenets represent a minority view” (p. 112).

Faller, K. C., & DeVoe, E. (1995). Allegations of sexual abuse in divorce, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(4), 1-25.

Faller & DeVoe examined 214 allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases that were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team at a university-based clinic.

72.6% were determined likely,
20% unlikely,
7.4% uncertain.

Of the 20% of cases that were judged to be false or possibly false cases, only approximately a quarter (n = 10) were determined to have been consciously made. The remainder were classified as misinterpretations.

Faller and DeVoe found that 40 concerned parents experienced negative sanctions associated with raising the issue of sexual abuse.

These sanctions included being jailed, losing custody to the alleged offender, a relative, or foster case, limitation or loss of visitation, admonitions not to report alleged abuse again to the court, Protective Services or the police, and prohibitions against taking the child to a physician or therapist because of concerns about sexual abuse in the future.

NONE of the parents experiencing these sanctions were ones who were judged to have made calculated false allegations.

In fact, sanctioned cases tended to score higher on a composite scale of likelihood of sexual abuse, and were more likely to have medical evidence than cases without sanctions.

Andrea Farney & Roberta L. Valente. (2003). Creating Justice Through Balance: Integrating Domestic Violence Law into Family Court Practice, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, [VOL 54, NO 4], 35-55.

This article reviews the development of family and domestic violence law. It compares and contrasts the core precepts of family and domestic violence jurisprudence. The challenge facing judges and lawyers is how to integrate the “friendly parent” assumptions of family law with the separation and safety assumptions that undergird domestic violence law.

Garber, B. (1996, March). Alternatives to parental alienation: Acknowledging the broader scope of children’s emotional difficulties during parental separation and divorce. New Hampshire Bar Journal, 51-54.

Garber, B. D. (2004). Parental Alienation in Light of Attachment Theory: Consideration of the Broader Implications for Child Development, Clinical Practice, and Forensic Process. Journal of Child Custody, 1(4), 49-76.

Abstract: Few ideas have captured the attention and charged the emotions of the public, of mental health and legal professionals as thoroughly as the concept of parental alienation and Gardner’s (1987) Parental Alienation Syndrome. For all of this controversy, the alienation concept stands outside developmental theory and without firm empirical support. The present paper explores alienation and its conceptual counterpart, alignment, as the necessary and natural tools of child-caregiver attachment (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969; Bowlby, 1969) and of family system cohesion. This conceptual foundation offers developmentalists, clinicians, and family law professionals alike a common language and valuable instruments with which to understand those relatively infrequent but highly charged circumstances in which these tools are used as weapons, particularly in the context of contested custody litigation. The need to establish baseline measures, child-centered interventions, and legal remedies anchored in the attachment model is discussed.

Garrity, C., & Baris, M. A. (1995, Winter). Custody and Visitation: Is It Safe? How to Protect a Child From an Abusive Parent. Family Advocate, 17(3), 40, 42-45, 88.
Chicago, IL: American Bar Association, Section of Family Law
(http://www.abanet.org/family/advocate )

This article offers guidelines for protecting a child in a postdivorce family from an abusive parent. The characteristics of the severely and moderately severe conflicted family are described. Postdivorce environments that place the emotional and physical well-being of children at risk are identified, including the presence of physical and sexual abuse, alcohol or substance abuse, domestic violence, and psychopathology in one or both parents. Factors that must be assessed in planning for custody and visitation in high-risk postdivorce situations are presented, including determining the capacity of the parents for providing for their children’s safety.

Phases of visitation for impaired parents are described, including supervised therapeutic visitation. If no progress is made toward remediation during this period of supervised therapeutic visitation, visitation may be terminated permanently or temporarily. If only partial remediation is expected, therapeutic visitation can be replaced with short blocks of visitation supervised by nonprofessionals and expanded as remediation progresses. If full remediation is expected, unsupervised visitation will be attempted for a short period of time accompanied by briefing and debriefing sessions. This period is followed by increasing unsupervised visitation periods along with weekly contact with a family therapist. As progress continues, a normalized developmentally appropriate visitation schedule may be implemented.

Geffner, Robert, Conradi, L., Geis, K., & Aranda, M. B. (2009). Conducting Child Custody Evaluations in the Context of Family Violence Allegations: Practical Techniques and Suggestions for Ethical Practice. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 189–218.

Abstract: A review of the literature (i.e., Austin, 2001) and the daily practice of conducting child custody evaluations has revealed that there is an inadequacy assessing and incorporating family violence issues, including both partner and child abuse, into the context of a child custody evaluation when such allegations occur. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has published attempts to address the lack of adequate assessments in family violence cases (e.g., Dalton , Drozd, & Wong, 2006), however more needs to be done. The current article discusses the existing approaches in conducting child custody evaluations when family violence is alleged and provides suggestions and practical techniques for adequately considering these issues in an evaluation. The various assessment and interview techniques that can be utilized in these complex custody evaluations are presented. The techniques discussed should aid child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges in dealing with these complex cases, such that proper techniques can be followed to arrive at appropriate recommendations. If an evaluator conducts a child custody evaluation in a case where there are allegations of family violence but does not have specific training or expertise in this area, ethical concerns and questions arise.

Goldstein, S. L., & Tyler, R. P. (1998, Fall). Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody Visitation Cases: Difficult Decisions in Divisive Divorces. APSAC (American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children) Advisor, 11(3), 15-18.

This article examines the difficulty in investigating sexual abuse allegations in divorce custody cases. These cases are difficult to investigate because of the lack of evidence, possible biases and the bitterness between the parties. The problems are compounded by shrinking budgets and staff in many investigative agencies. Questions are listed that should be paid close attention to when credibility issues arise, including: to whom did the child first disclose?; why is the child telling now?; what evidence is available to confirm what the child is saying?

Three types of sexual abuse allegations are identified: (1) those in which there is a sincere, legitimate and valid report made which is true because the abuse actually occurred; (2) those in which there is a sincere, legitimate, and valid report made which is a misinterpretation or those in which a direct and correct report of some behavior or statements made by the child, but there was no abuse; and (3) those where there is a deliberately malicious false allegation made. Four investigative concerns are summarized, and recommendations for interviewing are made.

Gould, Jonathan W., Martindale, D. A., & Eidman, M. H. (2007). Assessing Allegations of Domestic Violence. Journal of Child Custody, 4(1/2), 1-36.

Critically reviews the family court response to domestic violence cases, highlighting evidence that most partner abuse consists of coercive control rather than physical assault alone. The article discusses a variety of factors evaluators may consider using when developing an evaluation protocol to assess allegations of domestic violence within the context of child custody disputes.

Haralambie, A. M. (1999). Child Sexual Abuse in Civil Cases: A Guide to Custody and Tort Actions. American Bar Association.

Ann Haralambie is a certified family law specialist in private practice in Tucson , Arizona , and a former president of the National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC) and charter life member of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. Her book provides a comprehensive guide to dealing with sexual abuse in intrafamilial and other non-stranger situations. It details the civil legal interventions and strategies that may be employed in such cases while emphasizing the ultimate goal of protecting and assisting the child. Includes appendices on standards, diagnosis, and treatment, plus a table of authorities. (Available through Amazon, the ABA, or the NACC )

Haralambie, A. M., & Haralambie, A. N. (1999, Fall). Representing the Protective Parent in Sexual Abuse Custody Cases. APSAC (American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children) Advisor, 12(3), 10-14.

This article provides guidance to lawyers representing the protective parent in sexual abuse custody cases. It outlines the steps lawyers should take, beginning with assessing the strength of the abuse allegation. Lawyers need to assess the factual basis of the claim and to make a good faith attempt to determine the truth. The lawyer should refer parents who believe their children are being abused to the most qualified experts available. The client’s willingness to accept expert advice is essential and will benefit the client during the process.

Part of the lawyer’s investigation is to reconstruct as accurately as possible the process of how the allegations came to light, including to whom the child spoke, and who observed or heard things that might corroborate the allegations. If the allegations do not appear to be true, then the lawyer must determine whether they were deliberately fabricated or merely good faith misinterpretations. The article recommends having a lawyer appointed to represent the child as early as possible in the proceedings. The article discusses inconclusive or insufficient evidence, allegations of parental coaching, educating the judge, dealing with the client’s emotions, and dealing with dropped child protection and criminal cases.

Heim, S., Grieco, H., Di Paola, S., & Allen, R. (2002). Family Court Report. Sacramento, CA: California National Organization for Women.
(download the entire report-PDF format)

requires the free utility Adobe Acrobat

EXCERPT: After significant research, CA NOW declares the present family court system in California to be crippled, incompetent, and corrupt. The bias in the system results in pathologizing, punishing, and discriminating against women. The system leaves decisions, which should be made on facts in a courtroom, to extra-judicial public and private personnel. The system precludes the parties, particularly the mother, from her rights to due process, including a trial, long cause hearing, or adjudication, to which she is entitled, much less an appeal of these decisions. Mothers are coerced into stipulations through the rubber-stamping of definitive evaluations and reports, which become the court’s ruling. The present family law system in California exists to enrich attorneys and allied mental health and mental health professionals. This system allows mothers to be taken to court time after time, challenging what is in “the best interests of the child,” therefore subjecting them to a system that has no end for them or their children. In the most egregious cases, perfectly fit mothers who were the primary caretakers of their children lose custody to the fathers who are motivated by evading support obligations, and are often known abusers.

Hoult, Jennifer . (Spring 2006). The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy, Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 26(1) pp. 1-61. (download PDF)

Abstract: Since 1985, in jurisdictions all over the United States, fathers have been awarded sole custody of their children based on claims that mothers alienated these children due to a pathological medical syndrome called Parental Alienation Syndrome (“PAS”).  Given that some such cases have involved stark outcomes, including murder and suicide, PAS’ admissibility in U.S. courts deserves scrutiny.

This article presents the first comprehensive analysis of the science, law, and policy issues involved in PAS’ evidentiary admissibility.  As a novel scientific theory, PAS’ admissibility is governed by a variety of evidentiary gatekeeping standards that seek to protect legal fora from the influence of pseudo-science.  This article analyzes every precedent-bearing decision and law review article referencing PAS in the past twenty years, finding that precedent holds PAS inadmissible and the majority of legal scholarship views it negatively.  The article further analyzes PAS’ admissibility under the standards defined in Frye v. United States, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, and Rules 702 and 704(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including analysis of PAS’ scientific validity and reliability; concluding that PAS remains an ipse dixit and inadmissible under these standards.

The article also analyzes the writings of PAS’ originator, child psychiatrist Richard Gardner – including twenty-three peer-reviewed articles and fifty legal decisions he cited in support of his claim that PAS is scientifically valid and legally admissible – finding that these materials support neither PAS’ existence, nor its legal admissibility.  Finally, the article examines the policy issues raised by PAS’ admissibility through an analysis of PAS’ roots in Gardner ‘s theory of human sexuality, a theory that views adult-child sexual contact as benign and beneficial to the reproduction of the species.

The article concludes that science, law, and policy all support PAS inadmissability.

(Note: The Children’s Legal Rights Journal is published by the American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law, and Loyola University Chicago School of Law)

Peter Jaffe, Nancy K. D. Lemon, & Samantha E. Poisson. (2003). Child Custody and Domestic Violence: A Call for Safety and Accountability, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

This book outlines the essential differences between custody disputes with and without allegations and findings of domestic violence, and the different analysis and distinct interventions by judges, policymakers, and mental health professionals necessary in domestic violence cases. The book addresses difficult issues such as parent alienation syndrome, false allegations, and mutual abuse. It also reviews recent legislation and guidelines in custody disputes involving domestic violence in four countries: the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, and outlines significant judicial decisions in custody disputes, highlighting the inconsistency and unpredictability of the decisions and their impact on the desired outcome.

Jaffe, Peter G., Crooks, C.V., & Bala, N. (2009). A Framework for Addressing Allegations of Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 169-188.

Abstract: The dominant philosophy in family court emphasizes cooperative solutions between separating parents who are encouraged to put their conflicts behind them. For the majority of separating families, this collaborative approach will best serve their children. However, cases involving domestic violence require a paradigm shift, with a greater focus on making a parenting plan that protects victims and children, and less emphasis on speedy, cooperative outcomes. This paper presents a framework for addressing domestic violence through a tiered assessment strategy and an accompanying intervention framework depicted by off-ramps from a freeway (as an analogy in this case to the substantial momentum towards collaborative settlements). These off-ramps for domestic violence and high-conflict cases do not suggest a one-size-fits-all solution within these categories; rather, they mark a departure point from which a wide range of solutions may be considered. Policy and practice implications of this paradigm shift are highlighted.

Jaffe, Peter G., Crooks, C. V., & Poisson, S. E. (2003). Common Misconceptions in Addressing Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4), 57-67.

Domestic violence has been recognized as an important factor to consider in determining the best interests of children in custody and visitation disputes. However, there remain many misconceptions about the extent and impact of domestic violence in child custody proceedings. This article outlines 7 misconceptions with respect to domestic violence and child custody that represent barriers to safety and accountability in these cases. Each of these misconceptions is juxtaposed with the perspectives of 62 women victims and 95 children exposed to domestic violence who had to navigate the justice system after separation from an abuser.

Johnston, Janet. (2001). Rethinking parental alienation and redesigning parent-child access services for children who resist or refuse visitation. Paper presented at the International Conference on Supervised Visitation, Munich, Germany July 9-10, 2001.

Notes that alienating behavior by a parent is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for a child to become alienated.

Johnston, J. (2003). Parental alignments and rejection: An empirical study of alienation in children of divorce. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 158-170. (pdf)

Johnston J. R., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43, 283-294.

Johnston, J., Walters, M., & Olesen, N. (2005).  Is it alienating parenting, role reversal, or child abuse?  A study of children’s rejection of a parent in child custody disputes.  Journal of Emotional Abuse, 4(4), 191-218.

Jones, David P.H., & Ann Seig. (1988). Child sexual abuse allegations in custody or visitation disputes: A report of 20 cases. In E. B. Nicholson & J. Bulkley (Eds.), Sexual Abuse Allegations in Custody and Visitation Cases: A Resource Book For Judges and Court Personnel. Washington, DC: American Bar Association. pp. 22-36.

Reports the characteristics of 20 consecutive cases evaluated at the C. Henry Kempe Center where both sexual allegations and a parental custody dispute coexisted. Included were all cases which met these criteria between 1983 and 1985.  The researchers found that four (20%) of the cases appeared fictitious.  70% were found to be reliable, arguing strongly against the practice of dismissing CSA allegations in custody disputes contexts as being false.  In the other 10% of the cases, the researchers were uncertain

Keating, Sharon S. (1988). Children in Incestuous Relationships: The Forgotten Victims, 34 Loyola Law Review 111.

Discusses the many injustices that children who have been the victims of incest suffer in our present court system.  The courts are returning children to parents who are accused of molesting them, in spite of significant physical and psychological evidence that the abuse occurred.  This article discusses how courts work and how they have little patience with a parent who will not compromise.  “If a parent believes the child’s story that the abuse happened, reports the abuse to the proper authorities, feels anger toward the perpetrator, that parent is considered by the court to be unreasonable.” However, these responses would be considered normal if the perpetrator were not a family member.

Backlash groups have painted pictures of modern day witchhunts and McCarthy-type hearings, attempting to shift the focus from abused children to innocent fathers who are being persecuted by vindictive wives.  Recent studies have shown that there is no evidence to support the idea the incidence of false accusations is higher in divorce-custody cases. Even when allegations are proved to the court’s satisfaction, the judge may order supervised visitation. Court-ordered visitation between a rape victim and a rapist in any other context would be a judicial outrage. However, in incest cases this is considered acceptable.

Kernic, M.A., Monary-Ernsdorff, D. J., Koepsell, J. K., & Holt, V. L. (2005). Children in the crossfire: Child custody determinations among couples with a history of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 991-1021.

This retrospective cohort study examined the effects of a history of interpersonal violence (IPV) on child custody and visitation outcomes.

The investigators analyzed documentation on more than 800 local couples with young children who filed for divorce in 1998 and 1999. These included 324 cases with a history of domestic violence and 532 cases without such a history. The researchers estimate that at least 11.4% of Seattle divorce cases involving couples with dependent children involve a substantiated history of male-perpetrated domestic violence. The findings reveal a lack of identification of IPV even among cases with a documented, substantiated history, and a lack of strong protections being ordered even among cases in which a history of substantiated IPV is known to exist.

  • In 47.6% of cases with a documented, substantiated history, no mention of the abuse was found in the divorce case files.
  • “The court was made aware of less than one fourth of those cases with a substantiated history of intimate partner violence.”
  • Mothers in cases with a violent partner were no more likely to obtain custody than mothers in non-abuse cases. Fathers with a history of committing abuse were denied child visitation in only 17% of cases.

Kleinman, T. G. (2002, August 5). Understanding the Impact of Violence on Children Integrating the public policy to protect children with the custody statute is not a simple affair . New Jersey Law Journal, 169(6), 471.

Argues that courts should employ a child-centered, protective strategy in child-custody cases involving allegations of child maltreatment and domestic violence, and such a strategy must be grounded in a complete understanding of the impact of violence on children.

Kleinman, T. G. (2003, April 7). DYFS Is Misdirected and Misunderstood. New Jersey Law Journal. 172(1), 1-3.

While DYFS must consider the safety of children, its primary mandate is reunification and preservation of the family. As a result children’s best interests are often ignored.

Kleinman, T. G. (2004). Child Protection and Child Custody: Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Other Issues of Child Protection. Journal of Child Custody, 1(1), 115-126. (pdf)

Although the safety of the child or parent from the physical abuse of the other parent, history of domestic violence (if any), and parental fitness are often among the factors that must be considered by trial courts in making a custody determination, the paramount concern for safety of the child is conspicuously absent and may even appear to be overwritten in custody and visitation decisions.

A child’s need for safety should trump any and all other considerations in family law. Child-service agencies cannot be expected to both promote reunification and child protection simultaneously. The author asserts that legislatures need to change the laws such that it is clear to the court that children come first and that safety is paramount. Although visitation between child and parent is considered to be a fundamental right, this right can and should be abrogated when initial evidence shows that such contact poses a risk of danger to the emotional or physical health and safety of the child. A new and specially trained court dealing only with issues of family violence and abuse may need to be considered.
[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>Website: <http://www. HaworthPress.com> 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Kleinman, T. G. (2004). Strategies and Pretrial Hearings for Child Protection. Journal of Child Custody, 1 (2), 105-112. (pdf)

In order to provide maximum protection to abused children, the protective parent or counsel must avail themselves of all of the tools at their disposal from the very start of litigation in custody and/or visitation disputes involving family violence. This column sets forth examples of pretrial motions, hearings, and other strategies. These are used to provide the court with detailed information about the abuse that has happened and the impact that the courts decisions will have upon the children involved.
[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>Website: <http://www. HaworthPress.com> 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Kuehl, S. (1999, August 16). Letter by Sheila Kuela, Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, California State Legislature.

In a letter to the presiding judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Assembly member Sheila Kuela, asks the court “to take affirmative steps to erase the influence of Dr. Gardner on the Los Angeles Court System.” According to Kuehl, “Judges need to be made aware that arguments based on his theories are invalid, and recommendations by therapists based on his work are extremely suspect …”
The text of this letter can be found at: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~idelc/presidingp1.htm

LaViolette, Alyce. (2009). Assessing Intimate Partner Violence: A Context Sensitive Aggression Scale. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 219-231.

Abstract: In the late 1970s and early 1980s, researchers began exploring the differences in men who physically abused their female intimate partners. Since that time, there has been an emergence of research on that topic which has led to the development of batterer typologies. These men were identified around the issues of behavioral characteristics, traits, emotional responses, and experiences. Shelter advocates, for the most part, have presented a relatively one-dimensional view of abusive men based on their experiences with battered women and their children. This author proposes a continuum of aggressive acts with the intention of creating a context that could aid in assessment and intervention when intimate partner violence (IPV) is an issue. The continuum contains acts of aggression that may occur without a context or pattern of abuse.

Lemon, N. K. D. (2000). Custody and Visitation Trends in the United States in Domestic Violence Cases. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 3(1), 329-343.

This article addresses custody and visitation trends in domestic violence cases in the United States and concludes that the way domestic violence issues are treated in custody and visitation cases is often problematic, and the author calls for specific reforms.

Logan, T. K., Walker, R., Jordan, C. E., & Horvath, L. S. (2002). Child custody evaluations and domestic violence: Case comparisons. Violence & Victims, 17(6), 719-42.

This study is one of the first to examine characteristics of disputed custody cases and their custody evaluation reports differences between domestic violence and non-domestic violence cases. This study selected a 60% random sample of cases with custody evaluations in Fiscal Year 1998 and 1999 (n = 82 cases). Out of the 82 cases, 56% (n = 46) met criteria for classification into the domestic violence group and 44% (n = 36) did not. In general, results indicated that although there were some important differences in court records between cases with and without domestic violence, there were only minor differences between custody evaluation reported process and recommendations for the two groups.

Logan, T. K., Walker, R., Horvath, L. S., & Leukefeld, C. (2003). Divorce, Custody, and Spousal Violence: A Random Sample of Circuit Court Docket Records. Journal of Family Violence, 18(5), 269.

Abstract   The fastest growing marital status category in America is divorced, with the number of divorced individuals quadrupling between 1970 and 1996. The majority of children in divorced families live with a single parent and often lose contact with the noncustodial parent. A recent review of the literature suggests that many noncustodial fathers fail to keep contact with their children and become delinquent in child support payments because of their dissatisfaction with the custody arrangement. However, there has been little examination of how custody arrangements are typically determined or settled. In addition, divorces that involve spousal violence bring further complications to child custody, visitation, and child support decisions.

This study included a 20% random sample of court records for all divorces settled in one county judicial circuit court during 1998. The purpose of this study was to examine characteristics of divorcing adults as well as characteristics of child custody arrangements, visitation, and child support decisions. Contrary to popular belief, findings from this study indicate that divorce actions were almost always settled through agreement of the divorcing parties rather than by adjudication. About 38% of the couples had children in common and between 78 and 92% of cases were settled through agreement, which suggests that fathers are in fact agreeing to the custody arrangement, rather than being forced into it. About one in five records overall noted spousal violence, and there was no significant difference in settlement methods for couples with or without spousal violence. Cases with children and spousal violence were significantly more likely to have also mentioned substance use and postdecree activity. This study suggests a need for more focused attention on divorce cases with spousal violence to reduce postdecree court involvement and improve safety of children and adult victims, as well as further study into what causes noncustodial parents to lose contact with their children.

Lowenstein, Sharon R. (Winter 1991). Child Sexual Abuse in Custody and Visitation Litigation: Representation for the Benefit of Victims, 60 University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review 228.

This article is written primarily for attorneys who wish to identify bona fide allegations of incest in custody and visitation cases, and represent non-offending parent and their children.  The article outlines the principle issues in dispute and the major problems to be addressed.

Part I provides an introduction and overview of the subject.

Part II discusses the use of experts in CSA cases. Problems arise because of differences in professional backgrounds and conceptual differences within various disciplines. Experts tend to divide into two different “camps.” One group fears that evaluators are too ready to stigmatize an innocent father by accepting an allegation that might be false.  They tend to assume that any allegation of CSA raised during a child custody dispute is false.  The other fears endangering a child by assuming that the allegation is false when it might be true.

Part III discusses the prevalence of child sexual and incestuous assault.  It includes a statistical summary of the legal disposition of 96 child custody and visitation cases in which allegations of CSA were made.  Mothers raised the incest allegation in 78% of the cases. In 45% of the cases in which custody or unsupervised visitation were the principal issue courts awarded children to alleged perpetrators without any restrictions or protections.  At the same time, no father who raised a CSA allegation lost custody to a mother whose household contained an alleged perpetrator. It is concluded that mothers who raise the issue of CSA in the context of divorce at an extreme disadvantage.  The fact that the mother raises an allegation during a divorce or custody dispute is considered evidence that the allegation is false. Nowhere in the literature are accusing fathers attacked as a suspect group merely because they introduce the allegation of CSA within the context of a custody dispute. Accusations made by fathers toward their former wife’s new husband or boyfriend do not arouse the suspicion incurred when accusations are made by mothers.

Part IV offers a system for classifying CSA cases in a divorce context.  It analyzes child sexual assault characteristics and questions specific to custody and visitation litigation.

Part V explores evidentiary issues in CSA cases and examines the legal difficulties encountered when attorneys must interface with professionals in the various disciplines involved with CSA cases. It discusses the child’s statements, the child interview, the child witness, the child’s right to testify, hearsay exceptions, corroboration, the use of anatomically correct dolls and medical evidence.

Part VI addresses jurisdictional and judicial matters including juvenile versus family court. It suggests strategies to consider and traps to avoid.

Part VII concludes with suggestions and recommendations.

Maggio, C. F. (2001). A Review of Parental Alienation Syndrome Theory, Literature and Empirical Data. Treating Abuse Today, 9(5), 7-13.

Dr. Richard A. Gardner developed the theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome to describe the behaviors of a parent who influences a child to turn against his or her other parent. Although there is no empirical support for the behaviors to be identified as a mental health disorder, Dr. Gardner recommends authoritarian deprogramming therapeutic methods to correct the misperceptions of the child and terminate the alienation process. He proposes that a judge oversee the therapeutic process and that decisions about treatment be made without the input of the child, a direct violation of court policies to promote the best interests of the child in custody disputes. These theories have not been supported by the medical community and are not acknowledged in recent editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Other empirical studies about the existence of parental alienation syndrome are flawed because of sampling procedures or methodological problems. Psychologists are urged to increase professional and public awareness about the misinformation published about parental alienation syndrome.

McDonald, M. (1998). The myth of epidemic false allegations of sexual abuse in divorce cases. Court Review, 12-19.
http//www.omsys.com/mmcd/courtrev.htm

It is commonly believed that false allegations of sexual abuse in the context of divorce are epidemic, that most allegations made in the context of divorce are made by vindictive mothers and that these allegations are almost always false. These beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence.

McInnes, Elspeth. (2003). Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Paradigm for Child Abuse in Australian Family Law. Paper presented at the Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Response or Alternative Resolution Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology and held in Adelaide, 1-2 May 2003.
This paper argues that as there is no publicly funded capacity in the Family Court of Australia to investigate allegations of child abuse by a parent, the conditions are created for the de facto operating presumption of the Parental Alienation Syndrome paradigm in the courts. This paradigm, at its simplest, insists that claims of serious child abuse are invented and that children’s statements and manifestations of fear are the outcome of parental coaching. Without a publicly funded professional child protection investigative service available to inform the Family Court, the private adversarial system of family law commonly fails to substantiate allegations of child abuse, thereby systematically producing the outcome that child abuse allegations will be deemed to be false. Safety for children in family law proceedings who are subject to abuse depends on access to a national professional investigative service to inform the Court, and a redefinition of a child’s best interests in the Family Law Act to give safety the highest value.
Meier, J. S. (2009). Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Research Reviews. VAWnet: National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women.

Reports that “alienation claims have become ubiquitous in custody cases where domestic violence or child abuse is alleged,” often resulting in custody being awarded to the alleged abuser. Outlines policy changes that need to take place in order to prevent charges of alienation from being used to distract the court’s attention from abusive behavior.

Meier, Joan S. (2009). A Historical Perspective on Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 232–257.

Abstract: Claims of parental alienation syndrome (PAS) and parental alienation (PA) have come to dominate custody litigation, especially where abuse is alleged. Although much psychological and legal literature has critiqued PAS, and leading researchers as well as most professional institutions have renounced the syndrome concept, alienation as a parental behavior or child’s condition continues to be extensively investigated and credited in research and forensic contexts. This article reviews the history of PAS, both as posited by its inventor, Richard Gardner, and as used and applied in courts, suggesting that it not only lacks empirical basis or objective merit, but that it derives from its author ‘ s troubling beliefs about adult and child sexual interaction. It then examines the more recent explorations of non-syndrome “alienation” as proffered by Janet Johnston and others, noting both its more balanced and grounded nature and its more modest remedial implications. However, the article concludes that PA is too closely tied to PAS to be an adequate improvement. It, too, is used crudely in courts to defeat abuse allegations, it continues to rely on speculations about mothers ‘ purported unconscious desires and their effects on children, and, more subtly than PAS, it minimizes abuse and its effects on mothers and children. At root, although even PA researchers have found it to be a real issue in only a small minority of contested custody cases, courts ‘ and evaluators’ extensive focus on it in response to mothers’abuse allegations continues to privilege false or exaggerated alienation concerns over valid concerns about abuse.

Mertz, E., & Lonsway, K. A. (1998). The Power of Denial: Individual and Cultural Constructions of Child Sexual Abuse. Northwestern University Law Review, 92(4), 1415-1458.

This article outlines methods used by child molesters to deny and hide their behavior from therapists, lawyers, and judges. The strategies are explained from the individual context, as well as from the institutional and cultural perspective. Denials characteristically attack the source of the allegations, by claiming that the accuser is crazy, confused, mistaken, or vengeful; or by reframing the event, claiming that the incident was not as bad as claimed or citing other factors involved. Molesters also play games with language, quibbling over differences in words (e.g., touch and hurt). Legal professionals and therapists are advised to consider the language and the context of denials to assess the validity of the claims of innocence. Caution must be used in situations that may be influenced by the media and academics. Courts provide an opportunity to evaluate denials and provide a chance for the victim, or weaker party, to speak. The denial framework is applied to assessments of the credibility of abuse allegations in child custody cases.

Morrill, A. C., Dai, J., Dunn, S., Sung, I., & Smith, K. (2005). Child custody and visitation decisions when the father has perpetrated violence against the mother. Violence Against Women, 11(8), 1076-1107.

This research evaluated the effectiveness of statutes mandating a presumption against custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence (DV) and judicial education about DV. Across six states, the authors examined 393 custody and/or visitation orders where the father perpetrated DV against the mother and surveyed 60 judges who entered those orders. With the presumption, more orders gave legal and physical custody to the mother and imposed a structured schedule and restrictive conditions on fathers’ visits, except where there was also a “friendly parent” provision and a presumption for joint custody. Thus it appears that a presumption against custody to a perpetrator of DV is effective only when part of a consistent statutory scheme.

Myers, John E. B. (1997). A Mother’s Nightmare – Incest: A Practical Legal Guide for Parents and Professionals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

EXCERPT: “In my opinion, much of Gardner ‘s writing, including his discussion of his parental alienation syndrome, is biased against women. This gender bias infects the syndrome and makes it a powerful tool to undermine the credibility of women who allege child sexual abuse.” (p. 137)

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2006). Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide (2nd edition). Reno, NV: NCJFCJ. (download PDF)

EXCERPT from page 19: “Children in contested custody cases may indeed express fear of, concern about, distaste for, or anger with one parent. And those feelings may sometimes have been fostered or encouraged by alienating behaviors on the part of the other parent. On the other hand, there are a variety of competing explanations that need to be explored-including the very real possibility that the children are responding to concerns based in their own experience with the parent from whom they feel estranged.” Read whole excerpt

Neustein, A., & Lesher, M. (2005). From Madness to Mutiny: Why Mothers are Running from the Family Courts–and What Can be Done About It. Lebanon, NH: Northeastern University Press.

This scholarly book documents case after case where accusations of sexual abuse by a child resulted in forced contact with the alleged abuser, and sometimes complete termination of parental contact with a loving parent who seeks only to protect the child.

Neustein, Amy, & Lesher, Michael. (2009). Evaluating PAS: A Critique of Elizabeth Ellis’s “A Stepwise Approach to Evaluating Children for PAS”. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 322-325.

Pagelow, M. D. (1993). Justice for victims of spouse abuse in divorce and child custody cases. Violence & Victims, 8(1), 69-83.

Unequal power positions and domination-subordination roles of battering husbands and battered wives during marriage contaminate the process of separation and divorce. These dynamics may continue long after the marriages cease. Risks of extreme violence, rape, and homicide are highest when victims seek freedom. Because both victims and abusers construct a veil of secrecy while married, even if abused wives disclose the violence during the separation process, there may be nothing to substantiate their claims. Restraining orders often fail to restrain obsessed husbands; other husbands may get revenge by using their children as pawns. Attitudes favoring fathers’ rights and joint custody may help win unfair financial advantages, and/or continued control over victims after divorce. Mandatory mediation in some states may give abusers additional advantages. Although some of these problems are being addressed with mechanisms to ameliorate them, the need to recognize problems facing battered wives in divorce and custody contexts has not received adequate attention. The purpose of this article is to provide a review and commentary on these issues.

Palmer, S. E. , Brown, R. A , Rae-Grant, N. I. , & Loughlin, M. J. (1999). Responding to children’s disclosure of familial abuse: What survivors tell us. Child Welfare, 78, 259-282.

This study is based on the reports of 384 adults who were abused physically, sexually, and/or emotionally in childhood by family members. It describes the survivors’ attempts, as children, to get help by disclosing the abuse to someone who might intervene; those who did not disclose explain their reasons. The results indicate that disclosure usually did not bring an end to the abuse, and that little action was taken to control the perpetrator, even after disclosure took place. The responses received by the children to their disclosure are linked to their levels of self-esteem and family functioning as adults.

Positive adult outcomes were associated with:

  • Having the abuse acknowledged by the nonoffending parent
  • Having the abuser removed form the home
  • Having the abuser convicted

Paquette, Catherine. (1991). Handling Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Cases. New England Law Review, 25, 1415.

Evaluating allegations of sexual abuse is one of the most challenging and difficult issues an attorney can face in a custody case.  Sexual abuse allegations must be dealt with on a case by case basis as no one theory or method can explain or account for these cases.

Paquette discusses myths of child sexual abuse including beliefs such as: all abuse leaves physical evidence, all abused children will some sign of psychological trauma, and children who are actually abused will not deny it later. The author addresses issues related to child witnesses including: the credibility of a child witness, a child’s competence to testify, and trauma to the child caused by testifying in court.

Suggestions are made concerning handling these cases such as utilizing a professionally trained evaluator to interview the child, and the coordination of all professional and legal participants to ensure an effective prosecution with the least amount of trauma to the child. The support of the family and the safety of the child is of utmost importance. Concern about ruining a man’s reputation should be outweighed by the harm of sending the child back to be abused. Furthermore, judicial systems should avoid punishing the accusing parent in a custody proceeding by changing the custody when an allegation of sexual abuse is deemed “unfounded.”  Unfounded does not mean false or fabricated; it only means that there was not enough evidence to determine whether sexual abuse occurred.

Paradise, J. E ., Rostain, A. L. & Nathanson, M. (1988). Substantiation of sexual abuse charges when parents dispute custody or visitation. Pediatrics, 81(6), 835-9.

Recent news reports have implied that charges of CSA during divorce are often deliberately falsified.  Because the media reports have primarily been antidotal, and because their implications could be harmful if they wrongfully biased practitioners who investigate allegations, CSA cases in a hospital-based consecutive series and one author’s practice were reviewed. Abuse allegations made within the context custody or visitation dispute (39% of the sample) were compared with cases in which custody or visitation was not an issue. Cases involving custody problems were found to involve younger children (5.4 vs. 7.8 years). Sexual abuse allegations were substantiated less frequently when there was concomitant parental conflict (nonsignificant) but were nevertheless substantiated more than half of the time.

Poliacoff, J. H., Greene, C. L., & Smith, L. (1999). Parental Alienation Syndrome: Frye v. Gardner in the family courts. Family Law Commentator (Florida Bar), 25(4), 19-20, 30-33.
http://www.gate.net/%7Eliz/liz/poliacoff.htm

This article explores the shortcomings of PAS under Frye and Daubert and reviews relevant case law pertaining to the admissibility of PAS in court. Ethical dilemmas that mental health professionals face when serving as experts in these cases are explored and alternative areas for inquiry into the source of impaired parent child relationships occurring in the context of child custody  litigation are offered.

Preidt, R. (2005, August 11). Custody Rulings Often Ignore History of Domestic Violence. Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center (news release).

Even though most U.S. states require courts to consider any history of domestic violence when deliberating child custody cases, this type of abuse is often unknown to courts making these important custody decisions, a new study finds.

The study was conducted by researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle. They believe evidence of domestic violence is important in making custody decisions because children who have been exposed to their mothers’ abuse by an intimate partner are also more likely to be victims of abuse themselves. These children are also more likely to suffer psychological problems, the researchers added.

Reporting in the August 2005 issue of the journal Violence Against Women, the Seattle team analyzed documentation on more than 800 local couples with young children who filed for divorce in 1998 and 1999. These included 324 cases with a history of domestic violence and 532 cases without such a history.

Mothers in general were more likely than fathers to be awarded custody of children, but mothers who were victims of domestic abuse were no more likely than other mothers to receive custody, the study found. In addition, fathers with a history of committing domestic violence were no more likely than other fathers to be required by the court to have a third party supervise child visitations, the researchers report.

Just 17% of fathers with a known history of domestic violence were denied child visitation. In 47.6% of divorce cases in which husbands displayed a history of partner abuse, no mention of this abuse was found in the divorce case files. The researchers estimate that at least 11.4% of Seattle divorce cases involving couples with dependent children involve a substantiated history of male-perpetrated domestic violence.

Quadrio, Carolyn. (2003). Parental Alienation Syndrome in Family Court Disputes. Paper presented at the Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Response or Alternative Resolution Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology and held in Adelaide, 1-2 May 2003.

The Parental Alienation Syndrome is sometimes invoked in family law proceedings. It is said to explain false allegations made by one parent against another – usually the allegations refer to sexual abuse of a child and usually it is the mother who is said to be alienating the children from the father. This paper, by an author who has many years experience preparing family assessments for the Family Court, many of which involve allegations of sexual abuse, reviews the syndrome as defined by Gardner and its utility or otherwise in legal proceedings. The paper also reviews the issue of false allegations of sexual abuse, which have been shown by various studies to be uncommon, and the credibility of children making disclosures.

Ragland, E. R. & Fields, H. (2004). Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know. NCPCA Update, 16(6-7). Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Part one: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 6, 2003
Part two: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 7, 2003

The purpose of this article is to briefly discuss the major premises upon which PAS is based, and to identify key weaknesses. Part 2 of this Update considers case law and strategies for meeting PAS defenses.

Rosen, L. N., & Etlin, M. (1996). The Hostage Child: Sex Abuse Allegations in Custody Disputes. Bloomington, IN, Indiana Univ. Press.
http://www.indiana.edu/~iupress

This book challenges the presumption that allegations of child sexual abuse that arise during custody disputes are usually fabricated. Five cases are described in which children were not protected from their abuser during custody disputes, despite the existence of medical evidence of sexual abuse. In these cases, the allegations were not believed, and the children were returned to the parent who abused them.

Literature on the veracity of sexual abuse allegations is reviewed, specifically in the context of divorce. Evidence is presented that suggests the mental health community, as well as society, is denying the existence of sexual abuse and minimalizing the problem. The book highlights problems with the legal process and the current child protection system, including an anti-mother bias that frequently emerges in custody battles. The final chapter proposes a system that protects children from the risk of abuse based on medical evidence, including a Child at Risk Classification Office that would preside over child abuse cases and determine risk to the child. Alleged offenders would not be punished unless the evidence is found to be conclusive, but the child would be protected if any risk were found.

Rockey, Arlaine. (2003). Custody Cases: Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse.
article available at http://www.arlainerockey.com/

This article is written in plain language and explains the legal system for non-lawyers. It has been universally praised for giving practical legal advice to protective parents who are involved in complex custody cases and covers these issues:  1) Why aren’t the children protected; 2) Navigating the Minefield; 3) Writing a chronological history and gathering evidence for your lawyer; 4) Documentation; 5) Doctors & Therapists; 6) How you Play the Game; 7) Combating Allegations of Parental Alienation (PAS); 8) Child Protective Services; 9) Domestic Violence; 10) The Guardian ad Litem; 11) The Custody Evaluation; 12) Hiring a Sexual Abuse Expert; 13) The Abuser’s Testimony; 14) The Child’s Testimony; 15) Other Witnesses at Trial; 16) Your Testimony; and 17) Living with the Outcome in your Case.

Ross, S. M. (1996). Risk of physical abuse to children of spouse abusing parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(7), 589-98.

The purpose of this study is to estimate the gender-specific probability of a violent spouse also physically abusing his or her child within a representative sample. The study is based on a sample of 3,363 American parents interviewed for the 1985 National Family Violence Survey. The study shows that marital violence is a statistically significant predictor of physical child abuse. The greater the amount of violence against a spouse, the greater the probability of physical child abuse by the physically aggressive spouse. This relationship is stronger for husbands than for wives. The probability of child abuse by a violent husband increases from 5% with one act of marital violence to near certainty with 50 or more acts of marital violence. The predicted probability of child abuse by a violent wife increases from 5% with one act of marital violence to 30% with 50 or more acts of marital violence. Implications for divorce custody proceedings are discussed.

Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). Child custody mediation’s failure to protect: Why should the criminal justice system care? National Institute of Justice Journal, 251, p. 21-23.
Available at http://ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/jr000251.pdf

The researchers looked at mediations in which the parties could not reach a mutual agreement. They compared 200 mediations involving charges of DV with 200 non-DV mediations.

Attorneys who represented mothers at these proceedings said that they often advised their clients not to tell the mediator about domestic abuse. After looking at the results of such mediations, the researchers determined that the attorneys’ advice may well be justified; women who informed custody mediators that they were victims of domestic violence often received less favorable custody awards.

Salansky, C., Ericksen, J., & Henderson, A. (1999). Abused women and child custody: The ongoing exposure to abusive ex-partners. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29, 416-26.

This research study using the qualitative methodology of phenomenology was conducted on abused women’s experiences with custody and access and the ongoing exposure to abusive ex-partners. Six single mothers who had left abusive relationships and were at the time sharing custody of and/or access to their children with their abusive ex-partners participated in the study. Unstructured, non-directive interviews were conducted. Data analysis revealed that all of the women were living in great fear for their safety and that of their children. The ongoing danger and stress of living with the restrictions of the law took its toll on the women and ultimately affected their physical health and psychological well-being. The women described their experiences as having four components: (1) safety — living with ongoing danger; (2) stress — living with the restrictions of the law and the legal system; (3) coping — social support systems; and (4) to heal and move forward in life.

Saunders, D. G. (2007). Child custody and visitation decisions in domestic violence cases: Legal trends, research findings, and recommendations . Violence Against Women Online Resources. http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_CustodyRevised.pdf

EXCERPT: It may be hard to believe that an abusive partner can ever make good on his threat to gain custody of the children from his victim. After all, he has a history of violent behavior and she almost never does. Unfortunately, a surprising number of battered women lose custody of their children (e.g., Saccuzzo & Johnson, 2004). This document describes how this can happen through uninformed and biased courts, court staff, evaluators, and attorneys and how the very act of protecting ones’ children can lead to their loss.

Schudson, Charles B. Antagonistic parents in family courts: False allegations or false assumptions about true allegations of child sexual abuse? Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1(2), 1992, 113-6.

Judge Schudson examines whether there is any basis for viewing skeptically the allegation of one parent accusing the other parent of CSA during a divorce, custody or visitation dispute.  Contrary to what many assume, most allegations of CSA are valid, and false allegations remain rare, even in family court. When antagonistic parents are locked in legal disputes it is reasonable to be concerned about their motives when allegations are made.  However, an unsupported conclusion that the parents will falsely allege sexual abuse should not be reached. All allegations of CSA must be evaluated in a thorough and sensitive manner to separate the few false allegations from the many that are true.

Sherman, Rorie. (Aug. 16, 1993). Gardner’s Law: A Controversial Psychiatrist and Influential Witness Leads the Backlash Against Child Sex Abuse ‘Hysteria,’ National Law Journal, 15, at 1, 45.

This article notes that forensic child psychiatrist Richard Gardner is one of the most prominent experts who is speaking out against what he considers to be child abuse hysteria.  Most of Gardner ‘s court testimony is devoted to defending men accused of child sexual abuse.  Gardner ‘s theories, most of which have never been tested empirically, are influencing court-appointed therapists around the country.  Gardner has been certified to testify in at least 70 sex-abuse cases, both criminal and civil. He is an outspoken media commentator and has hired his own publicist to help him gain access to more media outlets. Gardner calls child abuse allegations the “third-greatest wave of hysteria” that nation has seen, with the first two being the Salem witch trials and the McCarthy hearings. Many of his colleagues state that there is little scientific evidence to support his theories.  They also note that his ideas are not filtered through the peer-review system before they reach the courts because he publishes them himself.

To help cure society of false allegations, Gardner suggests that courts should appoint therapists familiar with his theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) to evaluate custody cases. This theory suggests that there is an epidemic of vindictive women accusing fathers of child sex abuse to gain leverage in child-custody disputes.  The only way to deal with severe cases of PAS, according to Gardner , is to take the children away from their brainwashing mother until they can be deprogrammed.  Gardner claims that the vast majority of sex-abuse accusations made during custody disputes are false, in-spite of numerous research studies which show the opposite is true. There is no research that confirms that PAS even exists, yet Gardner recommends that children be removed from their mother’s care based on it.  Critics state that Gardner almost always sides with a man against his wife, and even testified that a man who murdered his wife during a custody dispute should be found not guilty because his wife had driven him temporarily insane.

Gardner also developed a psychological test called the Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale (SALS) which is a checklist of criteria that Gardner claims will help determine whether child sex-abuse accusations are credible.  Since 1987, therapists nationwide started using this scale even though there was no research documenting that it was valid.  Recently the SALS has been discredited by academics, rejected by one appellate court and withdrawn from the market by Dr. Gardner.  One researcher used Gardner ‘s SALS to evaluate confirmed cases of child sexual abuse and found that the scale produced inaccurate assessments. A lawyer commented that under the theories expounded by Gardner , no matter what a woman who discovers her child is being sexually abused does, she is going to do something wrong unless she disbelieves her child. If a mother goes to an attorney or a doctor for help, the SALS finds the child’s allegations less credible. When asked to explain why all of the men who hire him to testify for them in sexual abuse cases are confirmed innocent by him, Gardner says that guilty men don’t ask him to testify for them.  Gardner states: “People who are falsely accused are more likely to come to me…Pedophiles recognize that I am not so easily fooled.”

Silverman, J. G., Mesh, C. M., Cuthbert, C. V., Slote, K., & Bancroft, L. (2004). Child custody determinations in cases involving intimate partner violence: A human rights analysis. Am J Public Health, 94 (6), 951-957.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/94/6/951

Intimate partner violence and child abuse are recognized both as public health concerns and as violations of human rights, but related government actions and inactions are rarely documented as human rights violations in the United States. Men who abuse female partners are also highly likely to abuse the children of these women. However, family courts are reported to often ignore risks posed by abusive men in awarding child custody and visitation. Battered women involved in child custody litigation in Massachusetts (n = 39) were interviewed. A recurring pattern of potential human rights violations by the state was documented, corresponding to rights guaranteed in multiple internationally accepted human rights covenants and treaties. The human rights framework is a powerful tool for demonstrating the need for legal, social, and political reform regarding public health concerns.

Sleek, S. (1998, February). Is psychologists’ testimony going unheard? Some judges don’t understand psychologists’ research, while others discount their findings. APA Monitor, 29(2).
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb98/test.html

Legal experts say adjudicators are ignoring well-founded evidence while buying into feeble testimony: “For example, family-law judges have denied some divorced mothers custody of their children, based on a `diagnosis’ of `parental  alienation syndrome,’ says Robert Geffner, PhD, a San Diego psychologist and expert on family-violence issues.”

Smith, R., & Coukos, P. (1997, Fall). Fairness and Accuracy in Evaluations of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Custody Determinations. The Judges Journal, 1997, 38-56.

EXCERPT “. . .Although both common sense and the prevailing legal standard dictate careful consideration of evidence in domestic or family violence when determining custody, allegations of domestic violence and/or child sexual abuse made during a divorce or custody proceeding are not always taken seriously. These allegations often are wrongly perceived as false because they are asserted in a contentious environment and because of the widespread myth that parents fabricate domestic violence and child abuse allegations in order to gain an advantage in court. When combined with the misuse of psychological syndrome evidence, the perception that a parent has fabricated the allegations often results in unfair retribution against the reporting protective parent. (p. 39)

Stahly, G. B. (1990, April). Battered women’s problems with child custody. In G. B. Stahly (Chair), New directions in domestic violence research. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Los Angeles. [Cited in Liss, M. B., & Stahly, G .B. (1993). Domestic violence and child custody. In M. Hansen, & M. Harway (Eds.), Battering and family therapy: A feminist perspective (175-187). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.]

Sociologist Geraldine Stahly, PhD., surveyed battered women’s shelters in order to gather information on extent of custodial problems encountered by women seeking shelter services. Of the more than 100,000 women reported on by the shelter staff, 34% reported the batterer threatened to kidnap their children; and 11% of batterers had actually kidnapped a child. In 23% of cases batterers had threatened legal custody action, and in 7% of the cases known to the shelter staff, such actions had already been filed.

In 24% of the cases, the battering man used court-ordered visitation as an occasion to continue verbal and emotional abuse of the woman, and in 10% of the cases, physical violence continued. Shelter staff reported numerous cases in which courts granted unsupervised visitation in spite of evidence of physical abuse of the child (12,401 reported cases) and child sexual abuse (6,970 reported cases).

Stahly, G. B., Krajewski, L., Loya, B. Uppal, K., German, G., Farris, W., Hilson, N., & Valentine, J. (2004). Protective Mothers in Child Custody Disputes: A Study of Judicial Abuse. In Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and Their Allies Take on the Family Law System (a collection of essays), electronic download available at http://store.canow.org/products.php?prod_id=3

To better understand the problems that protective parents face in the legal system, researchers at California State University, San Bernardino, are performing an on-going national survey. To date, over 100 self-identified protective parents have completed the 101-item questionnaire. The study found that prior to divorce, 94% of the protective mothers surveyed were the primary caretaker and 87% had custody at the time of separation. However, as a result of reporting child abuse, only 27% were left with custody after court proceedings. 97% of the mothers reported that court personnel ignored or minimized reports of abuse and that they were punished for trying to protect their children. 45% of the mothers say they were labeled as having Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Most protective parents lost custody in emergency ex parte proceedings (where they were not notified or present) and where no court reporter was present. 65% reported that they were threatened with sanctions if the “talked publicly” about the case.

The average cost of the court proceedings was over $80,000 and over a quarter of the protective parents reported being forced to file bankruptcy as a result of filing for custody of their children. 87% of the protective parents believe that their children are still being abused; however, 63% have stopped reporting the abuse for fear that contact with their children will be terminated. Eleven percent of the children were reported to have attempted suicide.

Stark, Evan. (2009). Rethinking Custody Evaluation in Cases Involving Domestic Violence. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 287-321.

Abstract: This article was prompted by the publication of “Assessing Allegations of Domestic Violence,” by Gould, Martindale and Eidman (2007). It critically reviews the family court response to domestic violence cases, highlighting evidence that most partner abuse consists of coercive control rather than physical assault alone. After outlining what is known about the prevalence and dynamics of domestic violence in the custodial context, I summarize findings from studies of the family court response, contrast this response with public expectations and the response by other courts and institutions, and argue that the failure to provide protective remedies is systemic rather than the result of individual factors or a lack of information. Basic reforms are required in assessment, adjudication, and accountability in these cases if the family court is to retain its legitimacy as an arbiter of family matters in disputed cases.

Straton, Jack C. (1992). What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men? Paper originally presented at What About the Kids? Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/nomas.html

This paper criticizes the “best interests of the child” criterion as being so vague that it requires us to rely upon the opinions of adults as to what “best interest” means. And the norms behind these opinions are seldom acknowledged, and thus not refutable.Courts who apply this criterion have disregarded the severe effects of domestic violence on children, even to the extent of saying that killing a child’s mother is not a sufficiently depraved act so as to deny a man custody. If it is possible for a custodial criterion to allow such twisted result to result from a jurists value system, that criterion itself is severely flawed. Argues that that a cessation of contact with the abuser is the only way to minimize demonstrable and foreseeable harm to children.

St. Charles , E. L., & Crook, L. (Eds.) (1999). Expose: The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes – A Resource Book for Lawmakers, Judges, Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals. Los Gatos, CA: Our Children Our Future.

This book is a collection of essays, academic thesis, research papers and newspaper articles contributed by professionals from the fields of law, mental health, sociology, journalism, medicine, civil rights, the media and child advocacy. Expose is being widely acclaimed as the first publication to put into perspective many of the factors that are influencing the tragic placement of children by the family court system. Expose is endorsed by over 70 organizations nationwide.

Sutherland, P. K., & Henderson, D. J. (1998). Expert Psychiatrists and Comments on Witness Credibility, Trial.

This article argue that policies that prohibit positive commentary on credibility or witness “bolstering,”  should also apply to negative commentary on witnesses’ credibility in the form of pejorative and false diagnoses.

Sutherland, T.J. (2004). High-conflict divorce or stalking by way of family court? The empowerment of a wealthy abuser in family court litigation. Linda v. Lyle – A case study. Massachusetts Family Law Journal, 22(1&2) 4-16. http://www.mincava.umn.edu/reports/linda.asp

Virtually all coverage of high-conflict divorce assumes both parents are the source of the conflict. This article argues that some high-conflict divorces are actually the manifestation of stalking behaviors by wealthy domestic abusers. Provides a case analysis of Linda v. Lyle – Linda was married to Lyle for 22 years. He was a violent spousal and child abuser. Despite the fact that a volume of CPS reports had accumulated against Lyle, he obtained sole custody of their son. Linda was given visitation but Lyle frequently prevented her from seeing her child. To date, the case has litigated for approximately 6 years without respite. Lyle is quite wealthy and Linda, who was a homemaker, has been left homeless and is a pro per litigant facing two attorneys. The court blamed her for the protracted litigation because she attempted to reestablish a relationship with her child.

Thoennes, N. (1988, Summer). Child Sexual Abuse: Whom Should a Judge Believe? What Should a Judge Believe? The Judges’ Journal, 27, 14-.

This article provides an overview of the results of a 2-year study completed by the Denver-based Research Unit of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts which explored the incidence and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody cases.  Though nation-wide reports of sexual abuse made to child protective service agencies have increased dramatically, those in custody disputes have not. Contrary to the popular myth that sexual allegations in custody cases are relatively common, between 1985 and 1987 the study found that only 2 to 6% of custody cases in the 12 states participating in the study involved allegations of sexual abuse.

The categorization that these allegations are typically false was also challenged by the present study. Half of the allegations were believed by the investigators to be true, and in another 17% determination of the validity could not be made with any degree of certainty. The remaining third of the cases were not believed to involve abuse. However, in most of the cases which were not substantiated, the allegations were believed to have been made in good faith and based on genuine suspicions.  This study refutes the notion that sexual abuse allegations in the context of custody and visitation cases are now epidemic, as well as the idea that these cases are commonly motivated by a reporting parent who is vindictive or seriously impaired. There is no evidence from the present research to suggest that a significant number of parents are using fabricated reports to win custody battles.

Thoennes, N., & Pearson, J. (1988). Sexual Abuse Allegations in Domestic Relations Cases: The Research Perspective, 9 Children’s Legal Rights Journal 16.

Presents findings from The Abuse Allegations Project conducted by the Research Unit of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and the National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection of the American Bar Association. This article explores the following issues: the nature of the allegations, estimates on the incidence of such charges, issues facing court personnel in reporting the case, evaluations resulting from the report, the perceived veracity of the charges and methods of managing cases as they proceed in the CPS agency and the courts.  It is noted that the validity of sexual abuse allegations heard in family court has increasingly become a source of contention.  The project found that in general the incidence of substantiated reports of child abuse is high and that the incidence of false allegations in custody and visitation case is low.

Trocme, N., & Bala, N. (2005). False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333. (PDF)

Abstract
The 1998 Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-98) is the first national study to document the rate of intentionally false allegations of abuse and neglect investigated by child welfare services in Canada. This paper provides a detailed summary of the characteristics associated with intentionally false reports of child abuse and neglect within the context of parental separation.

Method: A multistage sampling design was used, first to select a representative sample of 51 child welfare service areas across Canada. Child maltreatment investigations conducted in the selected sites during the months of October-December 1998 were tracked, yielding a final sample of 7,672 child maltreatment investigations reported to child welfare authorities because of suspected child abuse or neglect.

Results: Consistent with other national studies of reported child maltreatment, CIS-98 data indicate that more than one-third of maltreatment investigations are unsubstantiated, but only 4% of all cases are considered to be intentionally fabricated. Within the subsample of cases wherein a custody or access dispute has occurred, the rate of intentionally false allegations is higher: 12%. Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and noncustodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently make intentionally false reports. Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.

Conclusions: While the CIS-98 documents that the rate of intentionally false allegations is relatively low, these results raise important clinical and legal issues, which require further consideration.

The Voices of Women Organizing Project (VOW). (2008). Justice Denied: How Family Courts in NYC Endanger Battered Women and Children. Brooklyn, NY: Battered Women’s Resource Center. (Executive Summary)

EXCERPT: 80% of women said their abuser threatened to take away their children and used the court to follow through with that threat. 10% of women said they stopped reporting abuse for fear of losing contact with their children.

Mothers were told by their lawyer, the law guardian or the judge not to oppose visitation, even when they felt it was unsafe or when their children protested.

Nancy Ver Steegh. (2005). Differentiating Types of Domestic Violence: Implications for Child Custody. Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 65, p. 1379.
Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=910270

Current statutes are not drawn with sufficient precision to adequately protect children. There are different types of domestic violence that require different types of interventions. Child custody courts could more effectively protect children through identification and consideration of the type of domestic violence experienced by the family. Three significant procedural and substantive law reforms are recommended. First, courts should adopt Differentiated Case Management in order to identify cases involving domestic violence and to the extent possible, distinguish the type of violence experienced. Second, child custody court procedures and services should vary depending on the needs of the individual family and type of violence experienced. Under the current one-size-fits-all approach, some families are referred to procedures and services that are unsafe for them while other families, who could benefit from those very procedures and services, are discouraged from using them. Third, current domestic violence-related child custody statutes should be amended to include language that targets perpetrator patterns of coercive control.

Waldon, K. H., & Joanis, D. E. (1996). Understanding and collaboratively treating parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Law, 10, 121-133.
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/waldron.htm

EXCERPT: ” Gardner’s conceptualization of the problem and the dynamics underlying the problem proved at best incomplete, if not simplistic and erroneous. He portrays the alienating parent as virtually solely responsible for the dynamic, turning the vulnerable child against the innocent target parent. More extensive research on the topic has more clearly established the complex involvement and motives of all of the actors in this disastrous family drama. Each of the family members takes a role in the alienation process, which usually begins well before the divorce event. It should be kept in mind that not all instances in which a child is rejecting a parent following a parental separation reflect PAS. In some families, the child rejects a parent based on the child’s actual experiences with that parent. There are very likely many children in intact families who wish to avoid or reject one of the parents based on that parent’s behavior. A parental separation may simply raise such a wish to the public level.” (p. 121).

Walker, L. E., Brantley, K. L., & Rigsbee, J. A. (2005). A Critical Analysis of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Its Admissibility in the Family Court. Journal of Child Custody, 1(2), 47-74. [download from Haworth $]

ABSTRACT: Over the past three decades, a syndrome, titled Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), has been proposed to explain behaviors by a child who refuses to spend time with a parent and actually denigrates that parent within the context of a child custody dispute. The association of certain negative behaviors by one parent (called the ‘alienator’) towards the other parent (called the ‘target parent’) are said to be the cause of the child’s (called ‘alienated child’) behavior. Although some mental health professionals and child custody evaluators, attorneys, and judges have been quick to accept and admit PAS as evidence in these disputes, especially in those that have cross-complaints alleging family violence, there has been no consistent empirical or clinical evidence that PAS exists or that the alienator’s behavior is the actual cause of the alienated child’s behavior towards the target parent.

It is argued here that the PAS construct itself is flawed and its use by custody evaluators to justify placement with the rejected parent may result in more serious damage to the child who is taken away from the parent to whom the child has bonded. These authors suggest that the PAS argument has been accepted by some courts that seem almost eager to punish the so-called alienating parent without regard for the immediate or long-term impact on the child. PAS has had difficulty meeting Daubert or Frye admissibility standards in criminal courts but few family courts have held hearings to determine its scientific integrity. This article attempts to help those working with custody issues understand how the PAS construct fails to meet scientific standards and should not be admissible in courts.

Weiner, Merle H. (2000). International Child Abduction and the Escape from Domestic Violence. Fordham Law Review

This article provides an in-depth exploration of the Hague Convention’s application to parents who take their children across international borders to escape from domestic violence. Presently, the Convention offers too little hope for the domestic violence victim who flees with her children to escape domestic violence and then faces her batterer’s petition for the children’s return.

EXCERPT: “. . .a general perception existed when the Hague Convention was drafted that the abductors were men who had lost or feared losing custody to the children’s mothers. To the extent that domestic violence was considered at all by policy makers, fathers were sometimes thought to abduct their children as a way of abusing the children’s mothers. Against this backdrop, the Hague Convention’s quick ‘right of return’ remedy and its limited defenses made perfect sense. However, the Hague Convention framework makes far less sense as a remedy for abductions by primary caretakers, often women, who take their children with them when they flee from domestic violence.”

Wilson, R. F. (2001). Children at Risk: The Sexual Exploitation of Female Children After Divorce. Cornell Law Review, 86(2), 253-327.

After dispelling common misconceptions about the nature of sexual abuse, the author marshals overwhelming empirical evidence more than 70 social science studies showing a connection between family disruption and child sexual abuse of girls. This evidence shows that a female child, after her parents divorce, faces a significantly elevated risk of being sexually abused by either a parent, a parent’s partner, or a person outside of the home. The author argues that family law deals inadequately with this disturbing phenomenon because courts in custody proceedings generally neglect to address the increased statistical probability of sexual abuse after divorce. She then maps out three possible routes to prevention of sexual abuse by using custody determinations to increase parental awareness and encourage parents to take affirmative steps to mitigate the risk to their daughters. The author recognizes that acting in anticipation of risks rather than after demonstrated conduct is not without controversy. She examines, therefore, whether tailoring prevention efforts to children at divorce will stigmatize single parents, discourage remarriage or encourage non-custodial parents to later fabricate charges of abuse. She concludes that integrating the increased risk of child sexual abuse in custody proceedings is ultimately a commonsense way to address a pervasive problem. More broadly, she contends that judicial decision-makers can intelligently address the challenges facing fractured families only if guided by substantial evidence of how these families function.

Wood, C. L. (1994). The parental alienation syndrome: A dangerous aura of reliability. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1367-1415.
http://fact.on.ca/Info/pas/wood94.htm

Attorney Cheri Wood (1994) suggests that although Gardner’s self-published theories do not have any empirical grounding, they have been given a “dangerous and undeserved aura of reliability and trustworthiness” in the courtroom. Wood concludes that PAS should not be admissible in court for the following reasons: (1) because it has not gained acceptance among experts in the field, (2) because of difficulties in determining causation, and (3) because it endangers children.

Zirogiannis, L. (2001). Evidentiary issues with parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 334-343.

Zorza, Joan. (2009). On Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases With Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide. Journal of Child Custody. 6(3), 258–286.

Abstract: In 2006, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges issued a revised and improved edition of Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide, which now focuses on safety for victims and their children. This new edition explains the dynamics of domestic violence, that parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation have been discredited, and why psychological tests are largely useless and unreliable in domestic violence cases. The guide, however, is still too optimistic about the success of batterer programs. The guide is sometimes misleading and gender biased as it uses gender neutral language and because what men and women do differs and usually affects them differently.

Zorza, J., & Rosen, L. (2005). Editors Intro To Custody and Abuse Issue. Violence Against Women. 11(8), 983-990.

This issue reports the results of four studies -all funded by the National Institute of Justice- that, for the first time, present systematically collected empirical evidence on the custody crisis facing battered women in America.

This introduction to the special issue of Violence Against Women notes that the question as to how many battered women lose custody of their children cannot be answered simply because the custody laws and practices governing normal custody arrangements vary from state to state, with the result that there are many different standards of comparison among the different jurisdictions. The studies in this issue include data collection having occurred in 9 of the 50 states. They suggest that battered women continue to be be disadvantaged in custody disputes with their abusers.

Zorza, Joan. (2006). Child Custody Cases, Incest Allegations and Domestic Violence: Expert Insights and Practical Wisdom, 4 The ABA Commission on Domestic Violence Quarterly e-Newsletter. (download pdf)

EXCERPTS: The sad reality is that not enough therapists or custody evaluators are knowledgeable about domestic violence or able to identify it even when clearly presented to them. These same individuals probably are even less knowledgeable about child molestation and incest, including how to diagnose it or how to properly treat it.

One study has found that some form of child abuse occurs in 30-60% of families where domestic violence is present, and that the occurrence rate is much higher when it is the father abusing the mother. The same study reports that the incidence of child abuse by a battering husband increases from 5% with one act of marital violence to nearly 100% with 50 incidents of marital violence.1 Other studies show that 44.5% to 73% of incest perpetrators are known to be battering the children’s mother.2

Zorza, Joan. (2007). The “Friendly Parent” Concept–Another Gender Biased Legacy from Richard Gardner, 12 Domestic Violence Report 65. (download pdfrepublished with permission of Civic Research Institute)

Many people know that Richard Gardner created “Parental Alienation Syndrome” – an unscientific theory that has been used to deprive countless mother of custody of their children and to force children to live with an abusive parent. What has largely slipped through the cracks is the “friendly parent” concept (FPC) is related to PAS. Some version of the FPC has been enacted by 32 states in their custody laws. It gives custody preference to the parent who will better encourage a good relationship between the child and the other parent. The FPC is based on many of the same myths as PAS, and leads to many of the same punitive outcomes for children.

According to this article:

“Although every state has made domestic violence (“DV”) a factor that courts must consider in custody cases, and at least 24 have a presumption that batterers not be given custody, studies show that batterers still win custody in states with the FPC unless a statute clarifies that it does not apply when there is DV. The FPC is based on many of the same myths as PAS, namely that (1) DV is rare, not that serious, often mutual, raised by mothers for tactical gain, and ends following the divorce or custody case; and (2) incest is rare and raised by mothers for tactical gain” (p. 75).

Return to Page: Abuse and Custody Disputes: Scientific and Legal Issues

Find a Broken Link? Have a New One to Suggest? Contact Us

 

EditRegio
The Leadership Council © 2005

Alfred Kinsey: The American Lysenko by Judith Reisman at nafcj.net by Liz Richards

http://www.drjudithreisman.org/Many articles on the Father’s Rights Propaganda at this link

A biopic and a PBS documentary whitewash the life and record of this fraudulent pervert.

By Edward Feser
City Journal, March 8, 2005

Alfred Kinsey is back in vogue. One of the fathers of the sexual revolution, he seemed for a time to have slipped into the margins of public memory, eclipsed by the more colorful avant-gardists of the flesh who succeeded him–Hugh Hefner, say, or even Larry Flynt. Yet those in the business of overthrowing taboos are, in their own way, as capable of honoring the past as any conservative, and it seems Kinsey’s spiritual children have deemed him overdue for the greatest of honors that liberals bestow upon their heroes: the Hollywood biopic. Kinsey’s admirers already regularly compare him to Darwin and Einstein. With Liam Neeson in the film’s starring role, we will doubtless soon be hearing that Kinsey was also a sexual Oskar Schindler, selflessly risking life and reputation to save us from evil Victorian forces.

A new PBS documentary on Kinsey also premiered this month. Both the film and the documentary present the standard liberal “dispassionate man of science versus the forces of prejudice” morality tale–or rather, fairy tale. True, they allow that Kinsey had his faults. But then, the “flawed giant” shtick has now become the customary method of damage control among liberal historians and filmmakers, desperate to restore luster to their tarnished idols. What’s obvious to anyone who examines Kinsey’s life and work dispassionately–indeed, obvious to anyone who watches the documentary itself and sifts the facts it reports from the breathless hagiography–isn’t conceded for a moment: that Kinsey was a fraud whose work did absolutely nothing to provide a genuinely scientific or rational justification for the revolution in morals he nevertheless helped foster.

The worthlessness of Kinsey’s method of carrying out “sex research” ought to have been evident from the start. It involved collecting a vast number of “sexual histories,” detailed accounts of the sex lives of various individuals, revealed to Kinsey and his associates in lengthy interviews. Kinsey would then arrange the data culled from the interviews in tables purporting to show how common various sexual behaviors were within the American population as a whole. The tables went public in Kinsey’s two famous volumes, on male and female sexuality respectively, which alleged that certain behaviors widely regarded as immoral or otherwise deviant–adultery, fornication, homosexual acts of various kinds, pederasty, and so on and on–were far more common than the common man thought (or wanted to think).

That this whole approach is statistically dubious should go without saying. (Some of Kinsey’s nervous financial backers said it anyway, but Kinsey wasn’t of a mind to listen.) People willing to recount the intimate details of their sex lives to perfect strangers are bound to be more likely to engage in other risqué activities. Any account of the sexual behavior of the population at large that rests on such a skewed sample will inevitably overstate the frequency of deviant behavior. But this is far from the end of the story, or of the problems that plague Kinsey’s method. Notoriously, he derived his “sexual histories” largely from persons on the fringes of society–prison inmates and the denizens of gay bars, the latter being in the 1940s and fifties much farther outside the mainstream of American life than they are now.

Then there’s Kinsey’s strange fascination with pedophiles, with the horrific data on the frequency of orgasms in infants and children he derived from interviewing child molesters blandly recorded in his volumes alongside the more ordinary perversions. One particularly monstrous pedophile, a man who had sexual relations with various of his family members and molested hundreds of children, kept regular contact with Kinsey and his associates. They assured him that they wouldn’t turn him in to the authorities, despite the fact that he continued to molest children throughout the time of their correspondence. Kinsey justified such aiding and abetting of criminality in the name of “science,” of course. Never mind that his technique was utterly contemptuous of the science of statistics. Kinsey could not have chosen a less representative sample of American society if he had intentionally set out to do so. (Ahem.)

All of this would be bad enough if Kinsey’s work merely sought to convey some unusual facts and figures. But of course, Kinsey took that work, and his admirers still take it, to have far greater significance. In their view, it amounts to nothing less than a refutation of traditional sexual morality. Kinsey had shown–or so he claimed–that adulterers, homosexuals, and pederasts were as common as rain. How could anyone ever again regard such behavior as abnormal?

This sort of non sequitur might have been forgivable had it come from one of Kinsey’s hapless undergraduates. It is inexcusable coming from the professor himself, or from his more academically inclined followers. Certainly the great sexual moralists of the Western tradition would have found Kinsey’s argument singularly unimpressive. Thomas Aquinas would have patiently explained to Dr. Kinsey and his acolytes that “normal,” as traditional moralists use that term, has nothing to do with frequency of occurrence and everything to do with the natural function of bodily organs and psychological inclinations. Augustine would have explained that if the use of these organs and inclinations in a manner contrary to their natural functions really were as common as Kinsey claimed, this would merely corroborate his thesis that original sin stains human nature, infecting it with concupiscence. Kant would have scratched his head in puzzlement at any suggestion that an appeal to widespread inclinations might justify behaviors that could only amount to the use of other human beings as means to one’s own carnal ends. And even Kinsey’s own mother could have advised him that “everyone does it” proves exactly nothing where morality is concerned.

But seriously to engage the opponents of the sexual revolution at the appropriate moral and philosophical level would be to reveal how contingent, how open to debate, are that revolution’s intellectual foundations. Far better for the revolutionaries, then, to maintain the simple-minded fiction that the revolution took merely another inevitable step in the long March of Science. That way the opponents of the revolution would appear the spiritual heirs of William Jennings Bryan, and everyone could get on with looking for Mr. Goodbar. To complete the picture, however, requires that someone play the role of Clarence Darrow, the cool and collected man of reason whose very sobriety will, by virtue of its contrast with the fevered ravings of the prudish Bryans of the world, bolster the case for sexual “liberation.” Cue Alfred Kinsey. The Neeson movie is, in its way, a remake of Inherit the Wind.

This dispassionate-man-of-reason myth might account for the reluctance of liberals to pay too much attention to just how “liberated” Kinsey was in his own personal life. Even the PBS documentary concedes how controversial Kinsey’s methods were, but it only vaguely alludes to the grislier details of the good doctor’s sexual habits. Some have argued that Kinsey may have been a pedophile himself, though that charge is controversial. He was certainly promiscuously bisexual. He cajoled his male staff members and their wives regularly to sleep with him and with each other, in an ongoing regime of wife-swapping and homosexual experimentation. He arranged for the filming of these antics, and those of any other volunteers he could find, producing a vast collection of pornography to aid him in his “research.”

His masochism knew no bounds. He had a lifelong habit of sticking toothbrushes into his urethra, bristle end first. He circumcised himself with a pocketknife in his bathtub. He liked to suspend himself by a rope tied around his testicles, an activity that once landed him in the hospital. He had pierced his own genitals in so many places that they wound up almost entirely perforated by the end of his life. One can understand why Neeson opted not to recreate all of these tender moments in the life of the “Second Darwin,” but such omissions mean that his performance achieved something less than verisimilitude.

That liberals would dismiss such disturbing details as irrelevant to an evaluation of Kinsey’s work only makes manifest their hypocrisy. If a conservative scholar happens to be religious, liberals reflexively take this to be sufficient reason to doubt the objectivity of his work. If he is white and writes about racial issues, or male and writes about women, they take for granted that he cannot be truly impartial. Such a scholar has an “agenda,” the liberal assures us, and for that reason, whatever he produces is suspect. And should the slightest weakness in his argumentation ever reveal itself, this is taken infallibly to demonstrate that his true concern really was, after all, the rationalization of prejudice rather than the disinterested pursuit of truth.

Yet Kinsey, we’re expected to believe, was never anything less than a scientist. Being personally as far outside the sexual mainstream as one could imagine, Kinsey had every incentive to rig his results in a way that would seem to justify sexual license. Many now acknowledge the serious flaws in his methods; many of his specific results have met with challenges. But none of this matters. He was, we hear again and again and again, right about all the essentials, a pioneer and a liberator, a Jonas Salk of the soul who has made us all healthier and happier.

In fact, Kinsey was nothing more than an American Lysenko, his work as ideologically driven and scientifically insignificant as that of the infamous Soviet hack, who scientifically “proved” that acquired characteristics could be inherited and thus that the commissars really could engineer a “New Man.” The only “beneficiaries” of Kinsey’s revolution, if that’s what they are, are people pretty much like him: oversexed men, now free to use other human beings as sexual playthings and then toss them aside like so much rubbish as they move on to the next conquest, unconstrained by any legal, financial, or moral obligations to the objects of their lust. Every unborn child scraped out of its mother’s womb, every AIDS patient wasting away in suffering, testifies to Kinsey’s true legacy. And among the living, it is those whom liberals claim to champion–the poor, especially fatherless black teenagers; unwed mothers; lonely women abandoned by husbands who’ve decided to trade down for something more Paris Hiltonish–who have perhaps suffered the most from Kinsey’s transvaluation of values.

Kinsey minions continue child sex abuse by Judith Resiman at nafcj.net by Liz Richards

Posted: October 11, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

While Obama and Hillary apologize for the American scientists who conducted  vicious sex experiments on Guatemalans, the followers of the American scientist  responsible for the rapes of thousands of infants and children continue his  child abuse legacy untainted.

The Kinsey Institute just announced its collaboration with another agency of sex and “condom use,” using nearly  6,000 subjects. The new Kinsey study continues its old drum beat: “Sex” any  way and wherever you get it.

My latest volume, “Sexual  Sabotage,” documents the Kinsey team’s sexual crimes inflicted on up to  2,035 infants and children. After five decades denying its sexual abuse of  babies and children for “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1948) and “Sexual  Behavior in the Human Female” (1953), in 1998 the Kinsey Institute again published both books without apology for these barbaric child  sex crimes.

Riding high on their fame and fortune, in 2003 Kinsey pedagogues then  distributed another sham child sex guidebook, “Sexual Development in Childhood.”

Now, this October, Kinsey’s Institute continues its tradition of lying about  sex and children in yet another “sexual health survey.”

Funded by Trojan condoms’ “Church & Dwight Co.,” Kinsey’s minions claim  condoms are comfortable and safe for child and adult use.

Using the Internet for its survey, Kinsey’s “researchers” say they “interviewed” people from age 14 to retirees age 94. The Trojan team claims they found teenagers use condoms much more than adults and that seven percent of females and eight percent of males click “gay, lesbian or bisexual.”

The leftist “sexologists” note that since 1994 people have more multiple sex  partners, including the elderly. The survey, of course, ignores the  doubling of STD rates among older adults “in less than a decade” and the  price in taxes paid for engaging in “multiple” sex partners.

“Researcher” Dr. Dennis Fortenberry says they aim to show that “everything in  there is normal,” knowing that what people think is normal is viewed as  harmless.

Read more: Kinsey minions continue child sex abuse http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=213741#ixzz1Rct7pcMO

Yet, before the Trojan company paid to ask 14-year-old children to describe  their alleged sex lives, Dr. Fortenberry admitted that sex studies are seldom  valid.

Our history as [sexuality] professionals over the past 100 years has  been to be wrong more often than we’ve been right. … I’m just very nervous about  succumbing to the temptation to speak as arbiters of normalcy.

– “Sexual Development in Childhood”

One-hundred years of bad sex research defines sexology as an unscientific sex  cult, not a “profession.” However, by this October, Fortenberry’s Trojans seemed  to relieve his anxiety and nervousness.

Instead he wrote “as arbiters of normalcy” saying “fourteen percent of  14-year-old” boys and nine percent of girls had sex. The Trojan study ignored  what percent was forced – since the government  data find 64 percent of forcible sodomy victims boys under age 12 with girl  victims even more common.

Kinsey’s Trojans say “about 70 to 80 percent” of sexually active youths said  they used condoms in a last “intercourse.” Of course, while the “study” merrily  finds sodomies ever more common, it ignores condoms as rare in non-intimate sex.

In this author’s research, mainstream homosexual journals seldom market  condoms while the only purportedly  safe “pouch style” is ignored by “gay and bisexual men by HIV prevention  organizations.”

So what is not in a sex study is as important as what is.

The Kinsey Institute’s personal and financial ties to pornography (funds from  Playboy) means that pornography in sex is ignored despite its role in sexual  mayhem, crime, divorce, child abuse, etc.

Fortenberry’s colleague Debra Herbenick, responsible for much of the “woman”  sex data here,  seems pleased that sex is increasingly solo, via “partnered” solo sex and  sodomite. She reports one-third of women have pain during sex, but doesn’t say  if the pain is due to marital coitus or to sodomite conduct – as one  doesn’t see the companion’s eyes. Are the eyes no longer the window to the soul  or do the “researchers,” who do not mention it, find “love” irrelevant to sex?

In their Kinsey “Childhood” book, Herbenick asked children about “unwanted  sexual experiences with adults,” not about “sexual experiences with adults.”  Strange. Since children are commonly told they “wanted” sex with adult  predators, as a typical Kinsey clone, Herbenick’s data trivializes child sex  abuse, also counting only children under 16 as abused, and only if the offender  is over “five years older.”

Like magic, Kinsey’s Herbenick OKs all “wanted” abuse and abuse of children  over age 15. (Eighteen is commonly the legal age of consent.) She also pried  children about consensual sodomite conduct. No Kinseyan “Childhood” participant  challenged Herbenick’s invasive, unreliable, unscientific queries or later  untoward effects on her child “subjects.”

Fortenberry (who admitted sexologists are more wrong than right) is newly  pleased that the “data” find condoms don’t impede pleasure and “have become  normative” for children. Kinseyans, paid by pornographers and Trojans, find  “data” similar to Big Tobacco’s scientific studies that proved cigarettes too  were harmless pleasure.

Unfortunately, all institutional sex “researchers” are Kinseyans. What is  “normative” about sex is that researchers and respondents both lie (for fun or  profit). This would include the alleged high rate of condom use “among black and  Hispanic men.”

These newest Kinseyan “findings” will support more bogus HIV-AIDS, homosexual  schoolroom propaganda – and Trojans – to cruelly brainwash children.

Claiming the study was a “nationally representative sample of adolescents and  adults” repeats Kinsey’s lies. His “subjects,” prisoners, sex offenders,  homosexual radicals, pedophiles and prostitutes, were relabeled a “random  sample” of World War II Americans – a lie that crippled our nations sex laws and  our lives.

Until their blood-curdling criminal history is finally exposed in our  courtrooms, legislatures and the court of public opinion, the Kinsey crusade to  destroy the normal love lives of Americans, and thus our self-governing moral  power, continues unchecked.

The Kinsey Institute must be investigated!

Read more: Kinsey minions continue child sex abuse http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=213741#ixzz1RctQkrXW

Child Abuse and Child Custody by Judith A. Reisman at nafcj.net by Liz Richards

Posted: March 09, 1999
1:00 am Eastern

By Judith A.  Reisman, Ph.D.
© 2011 WND

On June 25, 1996, noting that “criminals have more rights than victims,” Bill Clinton called for a “Victim’s Right’s Amendment” to the U.S.  Constitution. Fifteen years prior, Ronald Reagan prefaced the 1981 California  DoJ Crime Victims Handbook saying, “For most of the past thirty years …  justice has been unreasonably tilted in favor of criminals and against their  innocent victims … a tragic era … when victims were forgotten and crimes  were ignored.”This “tragic era” of U.S. justice was working overtime March 1, at 8 p.m., at  the Texas Senate, where Bill 208 was on the fast track for passage. The bill,  purported as a tool to further protect battered women and children, would  actually permit criminal abusers — yes, violent offenders and incest abusers — to receive sole legal custody of the children they desert, batter and sexually  violate. Elizabeth Richards, director of the National Alliance for Family Court  Justice, believes this bill is circulating nationwide. She explains: “The  divorce data show that most normal, loving, dads want to share their children,  with mom the main caregiver. But, especially once the state began attaching the  incomes of ‘deadbeat dads’ for child support, many such deserters, even  convicted child abusers, took revenge by demanding, and getting, sole custody.  The jurisdiction of irresponsible judges is now being extended into  legislation.”

Jan Barstow, director of the Texas Women’s and Children’s Coalition asked  that I appear as an expert witness, testifying against “Family Violence Bill No.  208,” sponsored by Sen. Mike Moncrief (D-Dallas-Ft. Worth). Reviewing the bill,  it seemed impossible for children to be so brazenly harmed by the American  justice system. But, you decide. Read the contested section of Bill No. 208.  Then, I will discuss several words which turn a purportedly child-friendly law  into a child-abusers law. The relevant portion of the bill addresses: “past or  present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed  against the other parent, a spouse or a child.”

      (c) The court shall not appoint as sole managing conservator a party who has  a history of committing family violence as defined by Section 71.004 unless the  court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) the party has successfully completed a battering intervention and prevention program as provided by Section 85.022 or, if such a program is not  available, has successfully completed a course of treatment pursuant to Section  153.010;

(2) the party is not currently abusing alcohol or a controlled substance as  defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code; and

(3) appointing the other party as sole managing conservator would endanger  the physical or emotional welfare of the child.

 

First, note the term “party” equalizes victim and abuser as mere parties in a controversy, rather than a parent protecting a child from one with  a “history” of sexual or physical violence against the “parent, a spouse or a  child” victims. “Party” annuls decades of effort by Victims’ Rights advocates to  standardize terms in the family violence literature which establish “fault” in  domestic crimes. For example, the seminal 128 page Attorney General’s Task Force  on Family Violence, Final Report (September 1984) describes “victims” and  “abusers,” not the parties in family violence crimes.

Next, look at other key words and phrases. The bill says “sole” child custody  will be denied an abuser with a “history of committing family violence …  unless” the “preponderance of evidence” finds an abuser “successfully completed  a course of treatment,” and is not “currently abusing” drugs and alcohol (what  of “joint” custody?).

The “unless” disclaimer grants abusers with a history of “physical or sexual  abuse” sole child custody if abusers (a) pass a violence course (b) appear  “currently” to not be “abusing” alcohol and/or illicit drugs, if (c) the  protecting parent “would endanger the physical or emotional welfare of the  child.” The first problem: no credible data exist showing a “course of  treatment” (allegedly six to twelve weeks) succeeds in permanently pacifying  violent abusers, while the professional literature on child molestation confirms  there is no known cure for pedophiles.

On point, Jan Barstow, testifying on the bill said, “Wording about abusers  attending court-assigned classes doesn’t consider the extreme denial and need  for control that is part of an abuser’s character. This becomes a revolving door  in which the offender abuses, submits to a protective order including assignment  to classes, and is legally eligible for sole custody six weeks later.”

The second problem: the bill says abusers cannot be “currently abusing”  alcohol and drugs, later adding they should “abstain” from consumption. However,  Moncrief should know, as a practical matter, that incest commonly takes place  while the offender is “under the influence” and the data also confirm that drug  and alcohol abuse are commonly addictive behaviors unresponsive to cures.  Alcohol use is verified too late as it is rapidly excreted in urine and it is  impossible to prove the use of many addictive chemicals without court-ordered  daily testing and monitoring.

Finally, if a judge decides the protective parent might “endanger the physical or emotional welfare of the child,” the bill grants sole child custody, not joint custody, to the criminal abuser. The bill does not require  that the protecting parent be similarly convicted of endangering the child,  “child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse,” no evidential requirements, no  trial, no confessions of abuse are mandatory before wresting child from the  protecting parent and awarding sole custody to the child’s abuser. At best, the  bill assumes endangering children at the hands of a proven abuser is a better  plan than placing such betrayed children in a carefully monitored orphanage.  Protecting parents would best be tried in a court of law, since the justice  system is awarding their battered and abused children to convicted child  molesters.

Barstow adds “current and proposed wording enables defense attorneys to  accuse parents of emotional abuse when they seek protection for an abused child.  The very act of seeking a protective order or raising concerns about abuse  exposes the protective parent to charges of ‘alienating the child from the  father’ (emotional abuse) and ‘false allegations’ (emotional abuse), removing  the child from the protective parent and placing them in the sole care of the  offender. The penalty for emotional abuse in the Texas family code is losing  custody or total parenting rights.”

Barstow cites judicial training as misguided, commonly “relying upon such  child custody experts” as Dr. Richard Gardner, whose “Parental Alienation  Syndrome” (PAS) trivializes pedophilia and incest. Gardner writes, “If the  mother has reacted to the [incestuous] abuse in a hysterical fashion, or used it  as an excuse for a campaign of denigration of the father, then the therapist  does well to ‘sober her up.'” Barstow asserts that under threat of PAS mothers  are indeed being “sobered up.” Mothers reporting incest become “guilty” of PAS (denigrating and alienating the father). That is, “emotional abuse” of the  child.

Thus, women nationwide who follow the law and seek protective custody orders  from the state after battery or child sexual abuse, are increasingly labeled the  “emotionally” harmful “party.” One such PAS mom writes, “I am only allowed to  see her 4 hours a month, I am being charged $100.00 an hour to visit my own  daughter … and I pay $600.00 a month child support [to the incest offender]. I  cannot believe that this can happen in America.”

Richards also claims to have fully documented the fact that such fathers have  organized “fathers groups such as Children’s Rights Council, National Congress  for Fathers and Children, and Fathers for Equal Rights, who carry out “covert”  federal custody programs intentionally designed to give them litigation  advantages against mothers, eliminating most or all visitation contact between  the mother and the children.” In “the best interests of the child” a full  federal inquiry is required to establish the truth of falsity of such serious charges.

She and other women have testified under oath to the forced removal of their  babies and children, based on the bogus PAS, suggesting few judges have read the  report of the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence: “Judges should  treat incest and molestation as serious criminal offenses. … Incarceration,  whether in hospitals, treatment centers or prisons, is absolutely essential to  the protection of the nation’s children. The only true protection for children  from a pedophile is incapacitation of the offender.” Yet, this bill would grant sole custody, sole power over their vulnerable children to criminals who take a  class and say they don’t use drugs.

It should be mentioned that the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family  Violence found pornography involved in battery as well as a common stimulant for  incest and child sex abuse. While Bill 208 would allow sole child custody to  incest offenders, pornography users are not (like batterers) required to attend  courses to stop them from “currently abusing” pornography. Yet, the Task Force  State Legislative Recommendation 5 requires that “States should enact  legislation to enable … access to sexual assault, child molestation or  pornography arrest or conviction records” in order to remove all such persons  from “contact with children.”

Senate Bill No. 208 would create a kind of “no fault” battery and “no fault”  child sex abuse, akin to the judicially enacted “no fault divorce” laws which  have driven hundreds of thousands of full-time homemakers and their children  into poverty. Indeed, the justice system has been stripping away protections for  law abiding American citizens since the early 1950s, when Alfred Kinsey’s  fraudulent Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) changed what has been called  “the stream of law.”

Although Sen. Moncreif temporarily withdrew his bill following the March 1  public testimonies, it appears it has been brushed off and is ready to sail  through, looking like a national “model” for all the world. Ever since Indiana  University’s zoologist, Kinsey, compromised our child protection laws by  classifying children as the “partners” of their rapists in his phony sex  studies, attempts at leveling abusers and victims via language has been a common  ploy in shifting laws to favor criminals. The malevolent turn of events in  current child custody courts and legislation is one more disgraceful consequence  of a corrupted science swaying law and public policy.

Read more: Child abuse and child custody http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16076#ixzz1RcrgX700

Child Custody for Sex Offenders by Judith A. Reisman from the nafcj.net site by Liz Richards

Posted: April 20, 1999
1:00 am Eastern

By Judith A.  Reisman, Ph.D.
© 2011 WND

Kelly O’Meara released an expose entitled, “Pedophiles Get Child Custody — Has Psychiatry Gone Psycho?” in a recent edition of The Washington  Times’ weekly newsmagazine, Insight.The press often cheers the judicial award of children from normal homes to  that of homosexuals and AIDS carriers. Now, O’Meara documents a series of  “bizarre” cases in which convicted child sex offenders are being awarded sole  custody of the children they abused.

How could this happen? O’Meara cites “court acceptance” of a pop-psychology  fad, parental alienation syndrome (PAS) which has emerged as a judicial backlash  to the escalation of child sex abuse charges in custody disputes.

According to PAS theory, if a parent (usually mom) accuses the other (usually  dad) of sexual abuse, this “turns the child against the father,” hence, mom’s  “influence over the child should be halted.” That is, even when the accused is a  convicted sex offender, mom has lost custody and visitation rights.

The theory, based on Gardner’s observations during child custody disputes,  largely discredits incest charges.

PAS was invented by Richard A. Gardner. Gardner is a Columbia University  clinical professor of child psychiatry and he defends his theory in his 749  pages of “True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse” (1992).

Inevitably, Gardner’s sole experimental authority for this PAS theory is  Alfred C. Kinsey. In fact, Gardner largely plagiarizes Chapters 5 in Sexual  Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Female (1953) to show child molestation is  normal.

No reputable scientific organization has validated PAS. Even the American  Psychiatric Association rejects the scientific reliability of Gardner’s PAS.  O’Meara further quotes numerous professional critics of PAS, typified by of Jon  Conte, University of Washington psychologist, “PAS is not research-based, and it  has done a great injustice to the family and the justice system.”

Legal scholars are also aware of PAS’ danger. To quote John E.B. Myers, a  professor at McGeorge School of Law, University of Pacific, California, PAS  “increases exponentially the skepticism of society generally about whether child  abuse exists.”

As a further indication that PAS is nothing but pseudo science we need only  look at some of Gardner’s other “scientific findings.” Gardner uses recent  “sonograms that showed baby boys holding their penises in utero” as an example  of such boys’ sexual desire or activity.

Gardner, a medical doctor who would know better, not only completely discounts the infant’s common grasp of toes, arm, foot and nose, he also seems  to project his own desires or imaginations onto infants when he says that “most,  if not all, children have the capacity to reach orgasm at the time they are  born” and “children are not only naturally sexual but that they may be the  initiators of sexual activities.”

Like his mentor, Kinsey, pathologically suspect, Gardner implies that infants  sexually seduce their caregivers.

Having testified successfully in hundreds of custody cases, Gardner’s PAS is  cited by many in the justice system who make life and death decisions for  children.

Some mothers now hide the incest in a custody case lest the judge declare she  is “emotionally” abusing the child by reporting the offender. Gardner told  Insight his personal life and sexual orientation “aren’t relevant.”

But the personal life of a court sex expert is indeed “relevant.” Because his  closeted life was relevant to his data, Kinsey, a sexual psychopath, told the  world he was a conservative family man. Indeed, claims of sexually lusty fetuses  suggests that Gardner is significantly disordered. His PAS testimony in child  custody rulings can and should be challenged and reversed.

Gardner’s website identifies a PAS lecture due June 5, 1999 at New York’s Mt.  Sinai Hospital, another sponsored by the South Carolina Association of Marriage  and Family Counselors, then off to the Open University to teach PAS in Breda,  The Netherlands (the home of the international academic pedophile movement).

Let’s hope that both the legal and health professions will soon take PAS for  what it really is, pseudo scientific garbage.

Read more: Child custody for sex offenders http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16109#ixzz1RcqigLBU

Article on Richard Gardner by The Leadership Council

Richard Gardner is a scientist and a forensic expert who introduced Parental Alienation Syndrome to the Family Court System.  He is recognized by Fathers Rights Groups and America’s family court system.  How can his theories be accepted in our society?  But they are.  Children are stolen from their mothers and given to pedophiles by family court every day using these theories to back their decision.

Dr. Richard Gardner: A Review of His Theories and Opinions
on Atypical Sexuality, Pedophilia, and Treatment Issues

by Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, FNP

Reference: Dallam, S. J. (1998). Dr. Richard Gardner: A review of his theories and opinions on atypical sexuality, pedophilia, and treatment issues. Treating Abuse Today, 8(1), 15-23.

Introduction

Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is a prominent forensic expert with an extensive career of evaluating children, especially during custody disputes between parents. He is considered a leading authority in the field and has even been described as the “guru” of child custody evaluations (Quinn, 1991). Gardner has developed numerous theories and instruments on issues related to children and his work continues to serve as a basis for decisions affecting the welfare of children in courtrooms across the nation. In 1992, an article in The National Law Journal described Gardner “as one of the most prominent–some say dangerous–voices espousing the ‘backlash’ theory that there is an epidemic of vindictive women falsely accusing fathers of child sex abuse to gain leverage in child-custody disputes” (Sherman, 1993, p. 1). While Gardner ‘s theories about mass sexual abuse hysteria have been widely criticized, his views on bona fide child sexual abuse and his treatment recommendations for working with incestuous families have largely been ignored. This article provides an in-depth exploration of Gardner ‘s views on pedophilia and his therapeutic approach to working with families in which a child has been molested by a parent.

Gardner ‘s Background

Gardner is a practicing child psychiatrist, adult psychoanalyst, and clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University . He has authored more than 250 books and articles with advice directed towards mental health professionals, the legal community, divorcing adults and their children (Sherman, 1993, p. 45). Gardner ‘s private publishing company, Creative Therapeutics, publishes his many books, cassettes, and videotapes. Gardner also has his own agent and maintains a website [1] which advertises his materials. Information available on Gardner ‘s website indicates that he has been certified to testify as an expert in approximately 300 cases, both criminal and civil, in more than 24 states. Gardner typically testifies for the defense in child sexual abuse cases.

Gardner ‘s Theory of Atypical Sexuality

“The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity …”

Gardner (1992, pp. 18-32) has developed his own theory concerning the evolutionary benefits of deviant sexual practices or paraphilias. Gardner proposes that many different types of human sexual behavior, including pedophilia, sexual sadism, necrophilia (sex with corpses), zoophilia (sex with animals), coprophilia (sex involving defecation), klismaphilia (sex involving enemas), and urophilia (sex involving urinating), can be seen as having species survival value and thus do “not warrant being excluded from the list of the `so-called natural forms of human sexual behavior.'” Such paraphilias may serve nature’s purposes by their ability to enhance the general level of sexual excitation in society and thereby increase the likelihood that people will have sex, which then contributes to the survival of the species (Gardner, 1992, p. 20).

As part of his theory, Gardner (1992, pp. 24-5) proposes that pedophilia serves procreative purposes. Although the child cannot become pregnant, a child who is drawn into sexual encounters at an early age is likely to become highly sexualized and thus will crave sexual experiences during the prepubertal years. Such a “charged up child” is more likely to transmit his or her genes in his or her progeny at an early age. Gardner (1992, pp. 24-5) states: “The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity, and the greater the likelihood the individual will create more survival machines in the next generation.”

Gardner ‘s Views on Pedophilia

“The sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim,” though the child may initiate sexual encounters by “seducing” the adult.

Despite Gardner ‘s emphasis on false allegations of sexual abuse, he admits that genuine sexual abuse of children is widespread and that the vast majority (“probably over 95%”) of all sex abuse allegations are valid (Gardner, 1991, p. 7, 140). In fact, Gardner (1992, p. 670) considers sexual activities between adults and children to be a universal phenomenon which exist to a significant degree in every culture in the world. Similarly, “intrafamilial pedophilia (that is, incest) is widespread and … is probably an ancient tradition” (Gardner, 1991, p. 119).

Gardner (1991, p. 118) suggests that Western society’s is “excessively moralistic and punitive” toward pedophiles. Gardner maintains that “the Draconian punishments meted out to pedophiles go far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime.” The current prohibition of sex between adults and children is an “overreaction” which Gardner traces to the Jews.

It is of interest that of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive toward pedophiles. Early Christian proscriptions against pedophilia appear to have been derived from the earlier teachings of the Jews, and our present overreaction to pedophilia represents an exaggeration of Judeo-Christian principles and is a significant factor operative in Western society’s atypicality with regard to such activities (Gardner, 1992, pp. 46-7).

Gardner (1992, p. 15) states: “There is good reason to believe that most, if not all, children have the capacity to reach orgasm at the time they are born.” In addition, some children experience “high sexual urges in early infancy” and “the normal [italics in original] child exhibits a wide variety of sexual fantasies and behaviors, many of which would be labeled as `sick’ or `perverted’ if exhibited by adults” (Gardner, 1991, p. 12). Gardner (1986, p. 93) notes that “the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim,” though the child may initiate sexual encounters by “seducing” the adult. Gardner (1986, p. 93) suggests that if the sexual relationship is discovered, “the child is likely to fabricate so that the adult will be blamed for the initiation.”

The view that pedophilia is a sickness and a crime is a reflection of Western society’s present position on this subject. As a product of Western culture, Gardner (1992, p. 49) states: “I too have come to believe that sexual activity between an adult and a child is a reprehensible act. However, I do not believe that it is intrinsically so; in other societies and other times it may not be psychologically detrimental.” “The determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters” (Gardner 1992, pp. 670-1).

Gardner ‘s Treatment Recommendations for Sexually Abused Children

Gardner (1991, p. 66) notes that he does not conduct therapy for sex abuse, unless he is “100 percent convinced that the abuse has indeed taken place.” In addition, Gardner (1992, p. 535) states: “It is extremely important for therapists to appreciate that the child who has been genuinely abused may not need psychotherapeutic intervention” [italics in the original].

There is a whole continuum that must be considered here: from those children who were coerced and who gained no pleasure (and might even be considered to have been raped) to those who enjoyed immensely (with orgastic responses) the sexual activities. (Gardner, 1992, p. 548).

Treatment is only warranted if the child is symptomatic in important areas of his or her life, such as in home, school or in relationships with peers (Gardner, 1992, p. 536). If treatment is needed, Gardner (1992, p. 536) recommends that a single therapist should be used and the whole family (including the perpetrator) should be included in the therapy. Gardner (1992, p. 528) warns against choosing a therapist who assumes that a sexual encounter between an adult and a child will necessarily cause the child to suffer severe psychiatric disturbances, as such a therapist will be “compromised in the treatment of these children.”

Of relevance here is the belief by many of these therapists that a sexual encounter between an adult and a child–no matter how short, no matter how tender, loving, and non-painful–automatically and predictably must be psychologically traumatic to the child. (Gardner, 1992, pp. 670-1)

According to Gardner : “The determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters” (Gardner, 1992, pp. 670). Although children should be protected from further abuse, Gardner (1992, p. 537) recommends that special care should be taken by the therapist to not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home “should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile” (Gardner, 1991, p. 119). Even pedophiles who abuse children outside of the home should first be given the opportunity for community treatment. “If that fails then and only then should some kind of forced incarceration be considered” (Gardner, 1991, p. 119). Conversely, Gardner (1992, p. 590) notes that people who have exhibited an ongoing pattern of pedophilia are not likely to be cured, and that meaningful therapy cannot occur with either the child or the father if there is a high risk of recurrence.

Therapy with the Child

Gardner (1992, p. 535) views post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as “nature’s natural form of systemic desensitization.” Gardner recommends that the mother be discouraged from involving herself with litigation [2]  as “it will interfere with the natural desensitization process and will subject the child to a wide variety of interrogations that will inevitably be damaging” (Gardner,1992, p. 577). Moreover, legal and psychiatric investigation of the trauma may cause more psychological damage to the child than that done by the abuse (Gardner, 1988, p. 75). The PTSD-desensitization process involves repetition of the trauma verbally, emotionally, and during fantasy play (Gardner, 1992, p. 532). The child becomes preoccupied with thoughts and feelings about the trauma. Each time the child relives the experience, it becomes a little more bearable (Gardner 1988, p. 75). Over time “the preoccupations diminish often to the point where they may be entirely forgotten” (Gardner, 1992, p. 536). Eventually, the process may help the child to “bury the whole incident” (Gardner, 1988, p. 75). According to Gardner (1992, p. 536): the goal of therapy should be to “facilitate the desensitization process, not artificially prolong it” with psychotherapeutic “muckraking.”

If the child feels guilt about participating in the sexual activities with adults, Gardner (1992, p. 549) recommends that the child be told that in other societies such behavior is considered normal and that our society has an exaggeratedly punitive and moralistic attitude about adult-child sexual encounters.

Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who said, “Nothing’s either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” (Gardner, 1992, p. 549)

Gardner notes that the child may exhibit strong sexual urges when the abuse discontinues. These children should be encouraged to masturbate (1992, pp. 580, 585).

Therapy with the Mother

“Perhaps she can be helped to appreciate that in the history of the world his behavior has probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children.”

Treatment for the mother should center around defusing her anger at her husband and helping her to become more sexually responsive to him.

If the mother has reacted to the abuse in a hysterical fashion, or used it as an excuse for a campaign of denigration of the father, then the therapist does well to try and “sober her up”…. Her hysterics … will contribute to the child’s feeling that a heinous crime has been committed and will thereby lessen the likelihood of any kind of rapproachment with the father. One has to do everything possible to help her put the “crime” in proper perspective. She has to be helped to appreciate that in most societies in the history of the world, such behavior was ubiquitous, and this is still the case. (Gardner, 1992, pp. 576-7)

According to Gardner (1992, p. 584-5), mothers of sexual abuse victims are often passive, masochistic, social isolates who were often themselves sexually molested during childhood. As a result, residual anger toward her sexual molester may be interfering with her relationship with her husband. Gardner suggests that the therapist should help her to reduce such residual anger. Gardner (1992, p. 585) states: “Perhaps she can be helped to appreciate that in the history of the world his behavior has probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children.” In addition, the mother is likely to have sexual problems and may consciously or unconsciously sanction the abuse because of her own sexual inhibitions.

She may never have achieved an orgasm–in spite of the fact that she was sexually molested, in spite of the fact that she had many lovers, and in spite of the fact that she is now married. (Gardner, 1992, p. 585)

Gardner (1992, pp. 585) suggests that the therapist should help her achieve sexual gratification. Gardner notes that “verbal statements about the pleasures of orgastic response are not likely to prove very useful. One has to encourage experiences, under proper situations of relaxation, which will enable her to achieve the goal of orgastic response.” Gardner (1992, p. 585) suggests that vibrators can be extremely useful in this regard, and “one must try to overcome any inhibition she may have with regard to their use.” Gardner (1992, p. 585) states: “Her own diminished guilt over masturbation will make it easier for her to encourage the practice in her daughter, if this is warranted. And her increased sexuality may lessen the need for her husband to return to their daughter for sexual gratification.”

Therapy with the Pedophilic Father

“He has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, [pedophilia] is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people.”

Gardner (1992, p. 588) does not believe in doing therapy with fathers who deny committing sexual molestation. If father desires treatment, the therapist should focus on enhancing his self-esteem. This is accomplished by helping him to appreciate that “there is a certain amount of pedophilia in all of us” and that “pedophilia has been considered the norm by the vast majority of individuals in the history of the world” (Gardner 1992, pp. 592-3).

He has to be helped to appreciate that, even today, it is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people. He has to appreciate that in our Western society especially, we take a very punitive and moralistic attitude toward such inclinations. He has had a certain amount of back (sic) luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia. (Gardner, 1992, p. 593)

In addition to feeling sorry for his own misfortune, the father should be helped to feel pity for the child for having been “a victim in a society that considers his [the father’s] behavior a heinous crime and/or a mortal sin” (Gardner 1992, p. 592). If the father feels no guilt, then the therapeutic goal is to increase it. Gardner (1992, p. 594) notes that the father may rationalize that pedophilia is an ancient tradition, a worldwide practice, and that there is nothing at all to be guilty about.

Such fathers have to be helped to appreciate that although what they say on this point is true, this does not justify its practice in our [italics in original] society, even though our society overreacts to it. It is because our society overreacts to it that children suffer. (Gardner, 1992, p. 594-5)

Despite the molesting father’s “bad luck” regarding the place and time he was born, he “must learn to control himself if he is to protect himself from the Draconian punishments meted out to those in our society who act out their pedophilic impulses” (Gardner 1992, p. 594). However, therapy with the father should not be spent focusing on the primary problem –sexual molestation. Instead, therapy should be spent “talking about other things” as the goal of therapy is “to help people forget about their problems” (Gardner, 1992, p. 592).

Case Example: The Girl and the Bus Driver

“. . . except for a certain amount of sexual frustration that was not gratified … the 4-year-old had not been significantly traumatized by these encounters.”

In his book, True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse , Gardner (1992, pp. 608-12) provides a case example of his treatment of a 4-year-old child (“Jane”) who was the victim of extra-familial child sexual abuse. Jane’s mother consulted Gardner because her daughter was sexually acting out. The child later revealed to her mother that she was being molested by her nursery school bus driver. The driver had rearranged her route so that the little girl was the last child dropped off. Prior to taking the child home, the bus driver would park in an abandoned parking lot and sexually molest the child. The mother brought the situation to the attention of the school authorities and the bus driver reluctantly admitted that she had indeed molested the child. The school dismissed the driver. The mother sought Gardner ‘s opinion on whether she should report the bus driver to the police.

Gardner strongly discouraged reporting the child molester to the police. (According to Gardner , this event happened in the late 1970s — before mandated reporting.) Gardner states: “I discouraged the mother from doing so with the argument that the child would be subjected to a series of police investigations and might possibly be involved in a criminal trial. Although such reporting might be of some benefit to society, there was no question that Jane herself would be psychologically damaged. Furthermore, I told the mother that it would make it much more difficult for me to treat Jane because such exposures would interfere with the natural desensitization process, would be likely to enhance guilt, and would have other untoward psychological effects.” The mother complied and the bus driver was not reported.

Gardner determined that the child had been molested at a frequency of two to three times a week over a period of two to three months. The bus driver would masturbate Jane, but not to orgasm. Gardner (1992, p. 612) concluded that “except for a certain amount of sexual frustration that was not gratified, the 4-year-old had not been significantly traumatized by these encounters.”

Comparison of Gardner ‘s Views with Those of NAMBLA

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a political, civil rights and educational organization that advocates sex between adult males and male children. Mary De Young (1989), associate professor of sociology at Grand Valley State University , outlined the arguments used by NAMBLA to justify, normalize, and/or rationalize sex between adults and children. NAMBLA members were found to utilize four major strategies: denial of injury; condemnation of the condemners; appeal to higher loyalties; and denial of the victim. Although literature by NAMBLA is not cited by Gardner , similar strategies are mirrored throughout his writings (See Figure 1).

Figure 1: How Gardner ‘s Views Compare with Those of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)

NAMBLA

GARDNER

1. Denial of Injury

Redefines adult sexual behavior with children in positive terms. Contrary to popular belief, no injury or harm is incurred by children from engaging in sex with adults. Any harm that follows is due to the inappropriate and prejudicial reactions of ignorant people and society.(De Young, 1989).

 

Sexual activities between adults and children are a universal phenomenon which may be part of the natural repertoire of human sexual activity. Such encounters are not necessarily traumatic; the determinant as to whether the experience will be traumatic is the social attitude toward these encounters.  (Gardner, 1992, pp. 1-43; 1992, p. 525; 1992 pp. 670-71).

2. Condemnation of the Condemners

Redirects the condemnation and censure it has received from larger society back on the society itself. Thus, those who condemn sex between adults and children are characterized as hypocritical and deserving of condemnation themselves. Professionals in the field of child sexual abuse, criminal justice and mental health systems are mocked and accused of engaging in the same or even more victimizing or exploitative acts as those for which NAMBLA members are accused. The “protectors” of children are the real perverts, the real child abusers, who take advantage of the innocence and inexperience of children to spread guilt and fear of sex with adults. (De Young, 1988; 1989). Therapists and lawyers are motivated by a combination of money, sex and power to fuel a national sexual abuse hysteria. Professionals who do child sexual abuse evaluations are portrayed as poorly trained, ill-qualified, and incompetent people who ask leading questions and utilize coercive techniques which are likened to physical torture. Many unlicensed therapists are “charlatans, and/or psychopaths, and/or incompetents.” Investigation of sexual abuse claim may cause greater damage than that done by the abuse. (Gardner, 1988, p. 75; 1991, p. 126; 1991, pp. 45-89; 1992, p. 526 ).

3. Appeal to Higher Loyalties

Normalizes pedophilia by insisting that the interests of a higher principle are being served. This higher principle is the liberation of children from what it characterizes as the repressive bonds of society. NAMBLA portrays itself as an organization that promotes the freedom of children to live and love as they please. (De Young, 1989). Gardner claims pedophilia is the norm in most cultures and our Western culture is excessively inhibited. Gardner believes that, in the history of the world, men who sexually abuse their children have “probably been more common than the restrained behavior of those who do not sexually abuse their children.” Gardner theorizes that pedophilia is a natural phenomenon which may enhance the survival of the species. (Gardner, 1992, pp. 1-43; 585).

4. Denial of the Victim

The child is reconceptualized as having deserved or brought on the deviant behavior. Children are viewed as seducing adults and thus the responsibility of offending individuals for their behavior and its consequences is diminished. (De Young, 1989). “Normal children exhibit a wide variety of sexual fantasies and behaviors, many of which would be labeled as ‘sick’ or ‘perverted’ if exhibited by adults.” Gardner believes that most children have the capacity to reach orgasm at the time they are born, and may develop strong sexual urges during the first few years of life and initiate sexual encounters with adults. “At the present time, the sexually abused child is generally considered to be the victim,” though the child may initiate sexual encounters by “seducing” the adult. If the sexual relationship is discovered, “the child is likely to fabricate so that the adult will be blamed for the initiation.” (Gardner, 1986, p. 93; 1992, p. 12; 1992, p.15).

Conclusion

Dr. Richard A. Gardner is a prominent forensic expert whose work has served as a basis for courtroom decisions affecting the welfare of children across the nation. His theories regarding pedophilia and paraphila as well as his recommendations regarding therapeutic treatment for the sexually abused child, the child’s mother, and the pedophiliac father are unique and do not appear to fall within the mainstream of generally accepted clinical practice.

ENDNOTES

1.   http://www.rgardner.com

2.  Gardner is an ardent critic of mandated reporting and has lobbied Congress to abolish mandated reporting and immunity for those who report abuse (Gardner, 1993).

REFERENCES

De Young, Mary. (1988). The indignant page: Techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(4), 583-91.

De Young, M. (1989). The world according to NAMBLA: Accounting for deviance. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 16(1), 111-126.

Gardner, R.A. (1986). Child Custody Litigation: A Guide for Parents and Mental Health Professionals . Cresskill , NJ : Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R.A. (1988). Clinical evaluation of alleged child sex abuse in custody disputes. In P.A. Keller & S.R. Heyman (Eds). Innovations in Clinical Practice, Vol. 7. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange, Inc., pp. 61-76.

Gardner, R.A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and false accusations of child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R.A. (1993) Revising the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act: Our best hope for dealing with sex-abuse hysteria in the United States . Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 5(1), 25-27.

Quinn, K.M. (1991). Family evaluation in child custody mediation, arbitration, and litigation (Book Review). Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 19(1), 101-02.

Sherman, R. (1993, August 16) Gardner ‘s law. The National Law Journal, pp. 1, 45-46.

AUTHOR NOTE

Stephanie Dallam, R.N., M.S.N., is a Family Nurse Practitioner and Legal Nurse Consultant. She is currently an officer and researcher for the Leadership Council of Mental Health, Justice and the Media, a nonprofit organization that promotes the ethical application of psychological science to the public welfare. She worked in pediatric intensive care for 10 years at University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, and is a former nursing instructor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has written numerous articles on issues related to the welfare of children

Program Produces Motherless Kids by Liz Richards nafcj.net

I have been organizing litigating mothers since 1995, when certain Northern Virginia fathers’ rights leaders told me they were using a federal custody program for scorched-earth retaliation against mothers.

My databank of more than 850 “intake” callers includes 80 Northern Virginia case complaints, many of whom have been affected by the fathers’ rights agenda. While they talk “joint custody” and “co-parenting,” what they really produce is legal harassment and motherless children.

People assume courts are biased in favor of mothers, but there is a deep hostility toward mothers who complain. Counterintuitive sympathy toward men as underdogs frequently results in backlash attacks.

Men use this phenomena to win custody and reduced support obligations – even instigating altercations to provoke complaints. Men have learned they can lie in court and blame their own misconduct on the woman. Few challenge them, while mothers are told to shut up – even by their own family law attorneys.

The men who are organized as fathers’ advocates are actually a branch of a secretive, California-based judicial organization, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, which set them up for the purpose of instigating litigation. The Children’s Rights Council and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children are Virginia-based groups prominent in this
movement.

The CRC is heavily cross-affiliated with, and get members’ cases steered to, AFCC judges and court professionals. This conflict of interest is never disclosed by the AFCC professionals.

CRC is also affiliated with pro-pedophilia psychologists Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager, who devised highly discredited pro-abuser/pedophilia court methodologies for covering up abuse and awarding custody to fathers.

The AFCC and CRC set up a federal “model custody” program based on Gardner’s methodologies, even though he is condemned as a pedophile advocate by many legal professionals.

Family Law Quarterly, the California National Organization for Women and Wellesley University have published reports confirming the widespread practice of courts awarding sole custody to abusive men, while restricting the victimized mother to limited visitation.

The fathers’ custody programs are funded through the federal Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Support Enforcement office, which has been controlled by fathers’ rights allies for 10 years.

Both former OCSE Commissioner David Gray Ross and current Assistant HHS Secretary Wade Horn have turned the department into a father custody agency through “Access/Visitation Enforcement” and “Responsible Fatherhood” programs incorporating the Gardner methodologies.

While publicly touted as encouraging “responsible fathering,” official federal documents say the purpose is to provide noncustodial fathers with free attorneys to litigate for custody.

These state-run programs are so pro-abuser that the Tacoma, Wash., project paid for the attorney who handled accused Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad’s custody case – and sent him east to search for his ex-wife.

The Virginia Department of Health runs several of these programs, giving the CRC a grant for visitation centers.

But a whistle-blower has identified these centers as engaging in dishonest practices, such as padding enrollee counts to justify funding and concealing a violent father’s conduct in court testimony to get him custody.

Horn started the Virginia Fatherhood Campaign, and his former organization (National Fatherhood Initiative) is paid substantial annual consulting fees. After I identified major inconsistencies from interviewing most VFC grantees, a state audit report confirmed that Horn’s wife works for NFI and that the program refers men to fathers’ groups for “help” with
their support and custody problems.

The Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement runs another program that collaborates with the VFC program in providing special “help” to the fathers. In doing so, this state agency is violating legal ethics by providing legal assistance to the adversaries of their congressionally mandated custodial-parent clients.

The DCSE mission is to enforce the child support laws, not to provide “secret” tips to the other side on how to evade the support laws. If the lawmakers and Health Department officials think men need a little extra help so they won’t lose in court, then they should set up a bureau for men’s advocacy, and not hide behind names such as “responsible fatherhood” and
other misleading claims of encouraging fathers to pay support.

The fatherhood programs are producing great harm to children and their mothers. They should be stopped immediately – and investigated.

Authorized reproduction. Email LIZGOAL@aol.com

Northern Virginia, Opinion Section 14-Jan-03