When Kids Need to Know Bad Things About a Parent
FREE tips. Enter email address:

Click to Connect with Twitter or Facebook. Click to connect with Dr. Warshak on Twitter. Follow Dr. Warshak on Facebook.

Featured & Top Selling


Excerpt Taken from transcript of Frye Test Hearing

Kilgore v. Boyd, Circuit Court oaf the 13th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Hillsborough County, Family Law Division. Case no. 94-7573, Div. D) Nov 22, 2000.

THE COURT: ... If I do have to apply a Frye test he has passed the Frye test. And I find that parental alienation syndrome has passed the Frye test in my courtroom, which is a Circuit Court Courtroom in the Family Law division, based on the evidence and the argument before me. The evidence and the argument before me, the testimony and the CV of Dr. Gardner, together with an excerpt of his writings. There was also proffered an article from the Florida Bar Journal which, quite frankly, I read when it came out and at the time I read it I placed some credibility in it.
I'm also impressed by the fact that Dr. Gardner is cited in the footnote in at least one of the cases, I believe it's Schultz vs. Schultz hang on a second. Off the record a second.
(There was a discussion off the record.)

THE COURT: It has also been proffered that the state of Texas gives it credence in its book of evidence and as Dr. Warshak testified the-I cannot cite exactly the group, but it's some national psychologist organization, cites it approvingly and cites Dr. Gardner's writings approvingly in its child custody evaluation criteria.

Weighed against that was the testimony of Dr. Carter, who is a psychologist who seems to have no national criteria and whose opinion was bolstered by Dr. Whyte. I know Dr. Whyte, I have a very high opinion of Dr. Whyte's capabilities and quite frankly, based on their testimony I could see only that there only seems to be some sort of disciplinary turf battle between psychologists and psychiatrists, and just because psychologists don't approve of the parental alienation syndrome and because they cite that it's not in the DSM-IV doesn't mean that his test is not widely accepted in the relevant scientific community of child psychiatrists. Based on the evidence before me I have every reason to believe that it does.

Furthermore, Dr. Gardner's argument that it's not in the DSM-IV his argument is it's not in there yet because the DSM-IV hasn't been updated since 1994. Both of the examples cited, that is the fact that AIDS was widely discussed and treated and diagnosed before it was included in the DSM-IV, as was Tourette's syndrome, is persuasive.

The study by Dr. Gardner has been around since 1985, which is fifteen years. He testified that he's had some successful results, he's run some studies. His testimony was bolstered by Dr. Warshak, who is a psychologist and is also a full professor at a fairly prestigious university.

So based on the totality or that I find that even though I might not have to have the test meet the Frye criteria that it does meet the Frye criteria, and therefore I'm denying the former wife's motion to strike the testimony and evidence in the reference to parental alienation syndrome.

(Excerpts taken from Frye Test ruling: Kilgore v. Boyd, Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, Hillsborough County, Family Law Division. Case no. 94-7573, Div. D) Jan 30, 2001.

5. There was sufficient evidence that Dr. Gardner's theory of the Parental Alienation Syndrome was sufficiently accepted by the community of child psychiatrists and forensic psychiatrists so as to satisfy the Frye criteria.

6. The purpose of the Frye test is to prevent the fact finder from giving undue weight to that which appears to be infallible but which has not yet been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.

7. (...) It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Daphne Boyd's motion to Prohibit or Strike the Testimony of Dr. Richard Gardner and Parental Alienation Syndrome is DENIED.

Boyd v. Kilgore, Dist. Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, 2d Dist. Case no. 2d00-5251. Feb. 6, 2001 (cert. denied)

< back to top