<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: The Complex Tapestry of Parent-Child Relations </title> <atom:link href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/</link> <description>Understanding, preventing, and overcoming parental alienation</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 14:38:30 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.7</generator> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3184</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 14:38:30 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-3184</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3163">EC</a>. Indeed, I don't know of an alternative word, but if you try to describe the notion in any language you will encounter stiff resistance against even considering the idea, often on grounds that to do so could ``cost women their lives.'' However the `argument' I usually hear is that invoking parental alienation under any guise in court actually trumps the preclusion of custody which would normally follow from unrefuted proof of abuse, in that, it's claimed, it forces courts into awarding primary custody to abusers, despite their recognizing the abuse. I'll bet a near or clear majority of Americans do believe that technicalities or loopholes in the law not infrequently result in custody orders heavily favoring parents with violent criminal records, including child abuse and intimate partner battering, against the better judgment of the judges. I attribute this to the amount of unremitting repetition the claim has received, not the `logic' which usually accompanies it. The public understanding of parental alienation as the specific point of law supposedly responsible is somewhat cloudier. The desire seems to be having all accusations of abuse taken at face value and accepted immediately, with no rebuttal allowed, but also in some cases in which it has been claimed charges of parental alienation were involved, it appears they were not, and rather other issues such as child neglect and parental substance abuse figured prominently.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3163">EC</a>.</p> <p>Indeed, I don’t know of an alternative word, but if you try to describe the notion in any language you will encounter stiff resistance against even considering the idea, often on grounds that to do so could “cost women their lives.”</p> <p>However the `argument’ I usually hear is that invoking parental alienation under any guise in court actually trumps the preclusion of custody which would normally follow from unrefuted proof of abuse, in that, it’s claimed, it forces courts into awarding primary custody to abusers, despite their recognizing the abuse.</p> <p>I’ll bet a near or clear majority of Americans do believe that technicalities or loopholes in the law not infrequently result in custody orders heavily favoring parents with violent criminal records, including child abuse and intimate partner battering, against the better judgment of the judges. I attribute this to the amount of unremitting repetition the claim has received, not the `logic’ which usually accompanies it. The public understanding of parental alienation as the specific point of law supposedly responsible is somewhat cloudier.</p> <p>The desire seems to be having all accusations of abuse taken at face value and accepted immediately, with no rebuttal allowed, but also in some cases in which it has been claimed charges of parental alienation were involved, it appears they were not, and rather other issues such as child neglect and parental substance abuse figured prominently.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3171</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2011 14:00:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-3171</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3163">EC</a>. I do not think it matters what term is used to describe a child's irrational rejection of a parent, or a parent's behavior that can mislead a child into rejecting the other parent. The people who oppose the term parental alienation really oppose introducing the idea in court that this can occur. The state of the field has reached the point where it is very difficult for someone to dismiss this concept entirely. See my recent post <a href="http://warshak.com/blog/2011/05/17/existence-of-parental-alienation-is-now-beyond-debate/" rel="nofollow">Existence of Parental Alienation Is Now Beyond Debate.</a> Nevertheless, opponents of the use of this concept in court fear that the mere mention of it misleads judges into dismissing the validity of claims of domestic violence and child abuse whenever a litigant accuses the other side of alienating behavior. They also claim that the incidence of a child's irrational rejection of a parent is rare and thus does not justify using a concept in court that has, in their view, great potential to result in harm to children and mothers.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3163">EC</a>.</p> <p>I do not think it matters what term is used to describe a child’s irrational rejection of a parent, or a parent’s behavior that can mislead a child into rejecting the other parent. The people who oppose the term parental alienation really oppose introducing the idea in court that this can occur. The state of the field has reached the point where it is very difficult for someone to dismiss this concept entirely. See my recent post <a href="http://warshak.com/blog/2011/05/17/existence-of-parental-alienation-is-now-beyond-debate/" rel="nofollow">Existence of Parental Alienation Is Now Beyond Debate.</a> Nevertheless, opponents of the use of this concept in court fear that the mere mention of it misleads judges into dismissing the validity of claims of domestic violence and child abuse whenever a litigant accuses the other side of alienating behavior. They also claim that the incidence of a child’s irrational rejection of a parent is rare and thus does not justify using a concept in court that has, in their view, great potential to result in harm to children and mothers.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3163</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 22:50:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-3163</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-145">EC</a>. Most court appointed evaluators most of the time work within the decision making framework of the court---if they didn't they wouldn't get appointed---and that usually means parental alienation is seen first as evidence for intra-parental conflict, and then the `logic' I've described, by which the further details don't matter, kicks in. The DSM is at least intended to be mostly a system standardizing nomenclature: a schematic way of summarizing a diagnosis; it is not definitive as an arbiter of what is possible in human behavior. An evaluator claiming they can't take parental alienation into account in formulating a recommendation to the court because it's not enumerated in the DSM is pulling your leg. In many parts of California the term `parental alienation' is considered impolite or offensive language: the very best mention it can get is to be described as ``controversial.'']]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-145">EC</a>.</p> <p>Most court appointed evaluators most of the time work within the decision making framework of the court—if they didn’t they wouldn’t get appointed—and that usually means parental alienation is seen first as evidence for intra-parental conflict, and then the `logic’ I’ve described, by which the further details don’t matter, kicks in.</p> <p>The DSM is at least intended to be mostly a system standardizing nomenclature: a schematic way of summarizing a diagnosis; it is not definitive as an arbiter of what is possible in human behavior. An evaluator claiming they can’t take parental alienation into account in formulating a recommendation to the court because it’s not enumerated in the DSM is pulling your leg.</p> <p>In many parts of California the term `parental alienation’ is considered impolite or offensive language: the very best mention it can get is to be described as “controversial.”</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Ron Ligouri </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3148</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Ligouri]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 22:16:26 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-3148</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-145">EC</a>. You make some very good points regarding judicial discresion in family courts. However, it is my belief after years of dealing with the California courts on PAS, that under the current system the expert recommendations carry significant weight in the courts ultimate decision in PAS custody disputes. The most prevalent problem I have faced with appointed experts is the ambiguity associated with PAS. Most of the opposing therapists I have encountered have used the excuse of the absence of PAS in the DSM for supporting their unwillingness to recommend remedies to the court for what they openly acknowledge is wrongful and profoundly damaging behavior.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-145">EC</a>.</p> <p>You make some very good points regarding judicial discresion in family courts. However, it is my belief after years of dealing with the California courts on PAS, that under the current system the expert recommendations carry significant weight in the courts ultimate decision in PAS custody disputes. The most prevalent problem I have faced with appointed experts is the ambiguity associated with PAS. Most of the opposing therapists I have encountered have used the excuse of the absence of PAS in the DSM for supporting their unwillingness to recommend remedies to the court for what they openly acknowledge is wrongful and profoundly damaging behavior.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: [name withheld by admin] </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-3118</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[[name withheld by admin]]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 00:56:23 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-3118</guid> <description><![CDATA[I was with my ex for 14 years. He was very verbally and emotionally abusive. The alienation of my children towards me started during this high conflict marriage. It was one of the factors I had for divorce. So you are correct when you say the divorce itself has little to do with the alienation it is the narcissistic man I was married to.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was with my ex for 14 years. He was very verbally and emotionally abusive. The alienation of my children towards me started during this high conflict marriage. It was one of the factors I had for divorce. So you are correct when you say the divorce itself has little to do with the alienation it is the narcissistic man I was married to.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-2781</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 02:49:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-2781</guid> <description><![CDATA[The basic problem with custody order defiance is not court costs or counsel fees; rather it's how the courts respond to violations for which remedy is sought, or which otherwise come to its attention. There are a few aspects of legal procedure parents need to learn, but this is not an area especially fraught with technicalities: even parents with essentially unlimited resources to litigate cannot get meaningful relief. What courts see when a custody order is violated is that there's parental conflict, which by their standardized way of thinking changes the complexion of the case: conflict means the parents cannot cooperate and necessitates increasing one parent's timeshare and degree of control over decision making for the child. This incentivizes creating or intensifying intra-parental conflict---which often includes a campaign of alienation---more for unscrupulous mothers than for similarly minded fathers, since the courts' criteria for awarding sole custody---who's been the historical primary caregiver, and what's the status quo residence of the children---in most cases favors mothers. Many parents overestimate the value to their court cases of attaching DSM or DSM-like labels such as `narcissistic' to the other parent: the court looks predominantly although narrowly at the condition of the child and isn't automatically moved by even an expert diagnosis of a personality or mental disorder in a parent. Self-centered and self-serving behavior, that shows disrespect for its effects on others, is quite common and it appears to many, and I think is, largely arbitrary to call it symptomatic of mental illness. The PAS was originally formulated, on the other hand, to clarify what might be seen as enigmatic behavior in a child.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The basic problem with custody order defiance is not court costs or counsel fees; rather it’s how the courts respond to violations for which remedy is sought, or which otherwise come to its attention. There are a few aspects of legal procedure parents need to learn, but this is not an area especially fraught with technicalities: even parents with essentially unlimited resources to litigate cannot get meaningful relief.</p> <p>What courts see when a custody order is violated is that there’s parental conflict, which by their standardized way of thinking changes the complexion of the case: conflict means the parents cannot cooperate and necessitates increasing one parent’s timeshare and degree of control over decision making for the child. This incentivizes creating or intensifying intra-parental conflict—which often includes a campaign of alienation—more for unscrupulous mothers than for similarly minded fathers, since the courts’ criteria for awarding sole custody—who’s been the historical primary caregiver, and what’s the status quo residence of the children—in most cases favors mothers.</p> <p>Many parents overestimate the value to their court cases of attaching DSM or DSM-like labels such as `narcissistic’ to the other parent: the court looks predominantly although narrowly at the condition of the child and isn’t automatically moved by even an expert diagnosis of a personality or mental disorder in a parent. Self-centered and self-serving behavior, that shows disrespect for its effects on others, is quite common and it appears to many, and I think is, largely arbitrary to call it symptomatic of mental illness. The PAS was originally formulated, on the other hand, to clarify what might be seen as enigmatic behavior in a child.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Parental Alienation Part 2 </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-2738</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Parental Alienation Part 2]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 01:07:31 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-2738</guid> <description><![CDATA[[...] Warshak, R. A. (2010, November 23). The complex tapestry of parent-child relations. Dr. Richard Warshak’s Blog: Plutoverse. Retrieved from http://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/ [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[…] Warshak, R. A. (2010, November 23). The complex tapestry of parent-child relations. Dr. Richard Warshak’s Blog: Plutoverse. Retrieved from http://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/ […]</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-145</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:00:09 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-145</guid> <description><![CDATA[State laws instruct judges to consider various factors, and then gives them essentially unlimited discretionary power to decide what the custody order should say, allowing them to weight heavily or virtually ignore any particular factor as they choose. There's no legal mechanism to force a desired level of consideration for a factor, and no recourse for an unfavorable consideration is provided in the law. Very little in custody orders can be appealed since appeals have to be based on judicial error, and when it's a matter over which it has discretion the court cannot in a legal sense err---no matter how arguably it exhibits bad judgment or employs unsound reasoning. Typical standards of court practice or policy favor joint custody if the parents are cooperative enough, but if significant conflict is found the court will award sole custody on the basis of the very heavily weighted factors of what's status quo for the child, the historical primary caregiver, and political correctness, disregarding as irrelevant under its criteria which parent is the exclusive or more significant cause of the conflict, if it's not essentially mutual. What parental alienation being present will do is evince conflict, but by this scheme or `logic' it will not play a role in determining the form of the ordered custody arrangement Unless and until this practice somehow changes, elevating the appreciation of parental alienation as pathology within the psychiatric and psychological communities will have a negligible impact in family court. Litigating parents who think they presented insufficient evidence of parental alienation or didn t prove ``beyond a reasonable doubt''---which is not the evidentiary standard in civil court---that the other parent is inducing it, misunderstand how the judge reached their decision in their case. Parents who think that in order to get a better custody order their task is to show the other parent has a psychological disorder, when the child is showing no tangible signs of distress or arrested development, are barking up the wrong tree.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>State laws instruct judges to consider various factors, and then gives them essentially unlimited discretionary power to decide what the custody order should say, allowing them to weight heavily or virtually ignore any particular factor as they choose. There’s no legal mechanism to force a desired level of consideration for a factor, and no recourse for an unfavorable consideration is provided in the law. Very little in custody orders can be appealed since appeals have to be based on judicial error, and when it’s a matter over which it has discretion the court cannot in a legal sense err—no matter how arguably it exhibits bad judgment or employs unsound reasoning.</p> <p>Typical standards of court practice or policy favor joint custody if the parents are cooperative enough, but if significant conflict is found the court will award sole custody on the basis of the very heavily weighted factors of what’s status quo for the child, the historical primary caregiver, and political correctness, disregarding as irrelevant under its criteria which parent is the exclusive or more significant cause of the conflict, if it’s not essentially mutual.</p> <p>What parental alienation being present will do is evince conflict, but by this scheme or `logic’ it will not play a role in determining the form of the ordered custody arrangement</p> <p>Unless and until this practice somehow changes, elevating the appreciation of parental alienation as pathology within the psychiatric and psychological communities will have a negligible impact in family court.</p> <p>Litigating parents who think they presented insufficient evidence of parental alienation or didn t prove “beyond a reasonable doubt”—which is not the evidentiary standard in civil court—that the other parent is inducing it, misunderstand how the judge reached their decision in their case. Parents who think that in order to get a better custody order their task is to show the other parent has a psychological disorder, when the child is showing no tangible signs of distress or arrested development, are barking up the wrong tree.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-136</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:10:44 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-136</guid> <description><![CDATA[Depending on the context in which it is used, the term <I>parental alienation</i> can refer to the state of the child’s relationship with the parent, or it can refer to the behavior of the parent. I prefer to use it in the first sense because this is consistent with usage regarding other types of alienation, such as social alienation, which means feeling apart from society, and emotional alienation, feeling apart from one’s feelings. Used in this manner, the term carries no connotation about the roots of the alienation, or an evaluation about the reasonableness of a child’s alienation. The term PAS was originally proposed to refer to a sub-group of children who felt alienated from a parent – those for whom the alienation was not a proportionate response to the rejected parent’s behavior. When used to refer to parents’ behavior it is similar to the old legal phrase <i>alienation of affections.</i> But, one must still clarify whether it is the favored parent’s behavior that is contributing to the child’s alienation from the other parent, or whether it is the rejected parent’s own behavior that is alienating the child. An example of the latter would be a parent whose behavior is frightening, confusing, or harmful. By the time a case reaches the courtroom, it can be very difficult for the judge to sort out the various factors that contributed to a child’s rejection of a parent, desire to avoid a parent, or conflict with a parent. Often it is easier for the court to determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to continue to avoid a parent, regardless of conflicting accounts about why a child wants to do so. For instance, if the court finds serious deficiencies in a parent’s care of a child, the court may conclude that a child is better off remaining apart from a parent, until and unless the parent can change sufficiently to convince the court that the child would benefit from renewed contact. Or, the court may decide that a child will be better off healing the relationship rather than losing a parent. In some jurisdictions, one of the factors that courts consider in making a best interests determination is the extent to which each parent supports the child’s relationship with the other parent. Even when this is not an explicit factor, in judging the quality of parenting, the court may consider evidence that a parent is negatively influencing the children and undermining their ability to give and receive love from the other parent. Even if the court hears evidence about the various signs of a child’s rejection of a parent – e.g., treating the parent with contempt, offering frivolous reasons for the rejection, rejecting extended family, polarizing views of parents, etc. – the court would still need to hear evidence about the connection between each parent’s behavior and the emotional state of the child. That is, the court cannot conclude, merely on the basis of the child’s emotional state, how the child got to be this way. If research establishes that children who become alienated in large measure as a result of the favored parent’s manipulations show different signs than those who become alienated in large measure as a result of the rejected parent’s behavior, then, perhaps, the child’s emotional state can be used to reason backward about the causes. But until then, whether or not irrational rejection of a parent receives a label in the DSM (and it would be DSM-V, not IV), and which label it receives (for instance, Oppositional-defiant Disorder is a diagnosis in the current edition of DSM that describes the behavior of some alienated children), courts will still need to hear evidence about the association between each parents’ behavior and the state of the child’s relationship with each parent.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Depending on the context in which it is used, the term <i>parental alienation</i> can refer to the state of the child’s relationship with the parent, or it can refer to the behavior of the parent. I prefer to use it in the first sense because this is consistent with usage regarding other types of alienation, such as social alienation, which means feeling apart from society, and emotional alienation, feeling apart from one’s feelings. Used in this manner, the term carries no connotation about the roots of the alienation, or an evaluation about the reasonableness of a child’s alienation. The term PAS was originally proposed to refer to a sub-group of children who felt alienated from a parent – those for whom the alienation was not a proportionate response to the rejected parent’s behavior. </p> <p>When used to refer to parents’ behavior it is similar to the old legal phrase <i>alienation of affections.</i> But, one must still clarify whether it is the favored parent’s behavior that is contributing to the child’s alienation from the other parent, or whether it is the rejected parent’s own behavior that is alienating the child. An example of the latter would be a parent whose behavior is frightening, confusing, or harmful.</p> <p>By the time a case reaches the courtroom, it can be very difficult for the judge to sort out the various factors that contributed to a child’s rejection of a parent, desire to avoid a parent, or conflict with a parent. Often it is easier for the court to determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to continue to avoid a parent, regardless of conflicting accounts about why a child wants to do so. For instance, if the court finds serious deficiencies in a parent’s care of a child, the court may conclude that a child is better off remaining apart from a parent, until and unless the parent can change sufficiently to convince the court that the child would benefit from renewed contact. Or, the court may decide that a child will be better off healing the relationship rather than losing a parent.</p> <p>In some jurisdictions, one of the factors that courts consider in making a best interests determination is the extent to which each parent supports the child’s relationship with the other parent. Even when this is not an explicit factor, in judging the quality of parenting, the court may consider evidence that a parent is negatively influencing the children and undermining their ability to give and receive love from the other parent.</p> <p>Even if the court hears evidence about the various signs of a child’s rejection of a parent – e.g., treating the parent with contempt, offering frivolous reasons for the rejection, rejecting extended family, polarizing views of parents, etc. – the court would still need to hear evidence about the connection between each parent’s behavior and the emotional state of the child. That is, the court cannot conclude, merely on the basis of the child’s emotional state, how the child got to be this way. If research establishes that children who become alienated in large measure as a result of the favored parent’s manipulations show different signs than those who become alienated in large measure as a result of the rejected parent’s behavior, then, perhaps, the child’s emotional state can be used to reason backward about the causes. But until then, whether or not irrational rejection of a parent receives a label in the DSM (and it would be DSM-V, not IV), and which label it receives (for instance, Oppositional-defiant Disorder is a diagnosis in the current edition of DSM that describes the behavior of some alienated children), courts will still need to hear evidence about the association between each parents’ behavior and the state of the child’s relationship with each parent.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: cxf </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-134</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[cxf]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:40:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-134</guid> <description><![CDATA[Just to be clear, it's not parental alienation (acts by a parent) that needs to get into the DSM-IV, it is the syndrome, or the symptomatic emotional injury of parental alienation, PAS, that needs the designation. I don't believe the court system has to change, I believe the psychological industry that support courtrooms must catch up and educate the courts. The necessary elements in law are in place, at least in the State of Texas. See section Sec. 153.131. of the Texas Family Code. In family courts today, it is the act or omission of a parent rather than the diagnoses of the child that carries more probative weight in making a best interest of child determination, where it concerns parental alienation. Without a legitimate diagnosis for the child by an expert who commonly practices in a particular jurisdiction, a judge would give very little weight to the testimony evincing the very real symptoms of PAS. A DSM-IV entry for PAS would legitimize the diagnoses, and give legal practitioners the ability to take legal pleadings of parental alienation to a higher level - by associating the acts of a parent with the emotional damage those acts do to a child.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to be clear, it’s not parental alienation (acts by a parent) that needs to get into the DSM-IV, it is the syndrome, or the symptomatic emotional injury of parental alienation, PAS, that needs the designation. </p> <p>I don’t believe the court system has to change, I believe the psychological industry that support courtrooms must catch up and educate the courts. The necessary elements in law are in place, at least in the State of Texas. See section Sec. 153.131. of the Texas Family Code. In family courts today, it is the act or omission of a parent rather than the diagnoses of the child that carries more probative weight in making a best interest of child determination, where it concerns parental alienation. </p> <p>Without a legitimate diagnosis for the child by an expert who commonly practices in a particular jurisdiction, a judge would give very little weight to the testimony evincing the very real symptoms of PAS. A DSM-IV entry for PAS would legitimize the diagnoses, and give legal practitioners the ability to take legal pleadings of parental alienation to a higher level – by associating the acts of a parent with the emotional damage those acts do to a child.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-124</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 00:08:26 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-124</guid> <description><![CDATA[By the statements of the committee that's writing it, it appears parental alienation will not be explicitly listed in the forthcoming DSM-V, but its inclusion would have little effect in family court in any event. The personal pathologies that may be involved in a parent's campaign to alienate the child from the other parent don't figure in the practical scheme of family law, and enhancing its prestige by recognizing it in the canon of psychiatry won't change that. Parental alienation of course occurs outside situations in which family court is involved, but the context the court creates produces a specific, intensified form, and frequently engenders it when it otherwise would not occur: lawyers and therapists often recommend it as a winning strategy---which it often is---and communities accept it as a legitimate aspect of custody litigation. If one wants to prevent and limit, rather than just treat well developed parental alienation in its current, epidemic configuration, serious family court reform has to be contemplated.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the statements of the committee that’s writing it, it appears parental alienation will not be explicitly listed in the forthcoming DSM-V, but its inclusion would have little effect in family court in any event.</p> <p>The personal pathologies that may be involved in a parent’s campaign to alienate the child from the other parent don’t figure in the practical scheme of family law, and enhancing its prestige by recognizing it in the canon of psychiatry won’t change that.</p> <p>Parental alienation of course occurs outside situations in which family court is involved, but the context the court creates produces a specific, intensified form, and frequently engenders it when it otherwise would not occur: lawyers and therapists often recommend it as a winning strategy—which it often is—and communities accept it as a legitimate aspect of custody litigation.</p> <p>If one wants to prevent and limit, rather than just treat well developed parental alienation in its current, epidemic configuration, serious family court reform has to be contemplated.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: cxf </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/23/the-complex-tapestry-of-parent-child-relations/#comment-119</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[cxf]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:15:06 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=223#comment-119</guid> <description><![CDATA[I think the association between PAS and Divorce gained it some strength in the psychiatric community over the last decade and half. But the next step for elevating PAS is to understand that there is an ethos behind the problem, that it's root cause is NOT divorce, that the root cause goes right down to the core of a parent, who by pathology, enmeshes himself/herself to unhealthy alignments with the child. I believe that science and history have already bore that this happens whether divorce occurs or not. In divorces, Judges invoke the typical temporary restraining order that restricts the party of a divorce from bad mouthing parents - and this is the backdrop in which PAS competes - blended unfortunately in the mix of frustrated and emotional litigants in a divorce - and that isn't how PAS is going to gain any traction or respect as a diagnoses. Until this condition, gains the respect it deserves by getting on the list of DSM-IV diagnoses, taught in schools, etc.. the heroes of PAS will continue to struggle explaining to the world why this is a very real problem.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the association between PAS and Divorce gained it some strength in the psychiatric community over the last decade and half. But the next step for elevating PAS is to understand that there is an ethos behind the problem, that it’s root cause is NOT divorce, that the root cause goes right down to the core of a parent, who by pathology, enmeshes himself/herself to unhealthy alignments with the child. I believe that science and history have already bore that this happens whether divorce occurs or not.</p> <p>In divorces, Judges invoke the typical temporary restraining order that restricts the party of a divorce from bad mouthing parents – and this is the backdrop in which PAS competes – blended unfortunately in the mix of frustrated and emotional litigants in a divorce – and that isn’t how PAS is going to gain any traction or respect as a diagnoses.</p> <p>Until this condition, gains the respect it deserves by getting on the list of DSM-IV diagnoses, taught in schools, etc.. the heroes of PAS will continue to struggle explaining to the world why this is a very real problem.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>