<?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: Kudos to Critics </title> <atom:link href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/</link> <description>Understanding, preventing, and overcoming parental alienation</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:11:47 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.7</generator> <item> <title> By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-1057</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:11:47 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=269#comment-1057</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-1056">Concerned Grandma</a>. Thank you for your kind remarks about my book. Your very well-written comment is important for several reasons. 1) It gives direct examples of how parents and other relatives poison children's affections toward other adults. 2) It counters the myth that only fathers are victims of divorce poison. 3) It makes the point that a remarriage can escalate the problems. 4) It shows how the problem of irrational parental alienation has ripple effects beyond the parent-child relationship. As in your family, often the child's rejection extends to grandparents. And, when alienated children grow up and have children of their own, if they have not overcome their negative attitudes, they will deny their own children a relationship with the children's grandparent. Anyone looking at this from a reasonable perspective cannot help but see this as a great tragedy and loss for the alienated children, their rejected parent, and other relatives whom the children are manipulated into disowning.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-1056">Concerned Grandma</a>.</p> <p>Thank you for your kind remarks about my book. Your very well-written comment is important for several reasons. 1) It gives direct examples of how parents and other relatives poison children’s affections toward other adults. 2) It counters the myth that only fathers are victims of divorce poison. 3) It makes the point that a remarriage can escalate the problems. 4) It shows how the problem of irrational parental alienation has ripple effects beyond the parent-child relationship. As in your family, often the child’s rejection extends to grandparents. And, when alienated children grow up and have children of their own, if they have not overcome their negative attitudes, they will deny their own children a relationship with the children’s grandparent. Anyone looking at this from a reasonable perspective cannot help but see this as a great tragedy and loss for the alienated children, their rejected parent, and other relatives whom the children are manipulated into disowning.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Concerned Grandma </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-1056</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Concerned Grandma]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 19:59:21 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=269#comment-1056</guid> <description><![CDATA[Dr. Warshak: My daughter recently loaned your book Divorce Poison to me, and I read it practically non-stop. Your book has been such a blessing; it is information that I wished we had known about when my two grandchildren were pre-school age, the time of my daughter's divorce. (The kids are now in their late teens.) When my daughter remarried a few years later, the brainwashing became worse, not only by the kids' father, but his mother and sister as well. Although it's not as extreme as some cases I know about, it took a toll on my daughter, her husband, the children and me. After each visitation to the father's home, and upon returning to the home of their mother and step-father, actions and comments from the children were very obvious that brainwashing was occurring. I've heard the following comments when my grandson was four years old and my granddaughter was six: Grandson: "Grandma, Aunt _____ and Granny say bad things about you and momma. They cuss you and call you names." (Granny is speaking of their father's mother.) Also, he stated to me, "Aunt ______ is mean to us." Granddaughter: "Granny trashed the clothes you bought us, Grandma." (These were articles of clothing sent with the children during visitation time with their dad. The trashing of their clothes happened on more than one occasion!) My granddaughter also stated, "Daddy said momma just married for money." At one point, before visitation time had ended, my grandson informed his father that he wanted to go home to his momma. My granddaughter was telling me about the incident, and her exact words were, "Boy! Dad set his butt on fire!!" When my grandson was six, he stated to me, "Daddy said if _____ (my son-in-law) wanted kids, why doesn't he have some of his own." Some comments by the children during that time are unprintable; comments they overheard their dad, granny and aunt say about my daughter, her husband and me. My daughter, son-in-law and I have been very careful over the years as to what we say to the kids in regards to this brainwashing. I don't agree with the quote: It takes two to fight, as there can be one-sided jealousy, one-sided hate, one-sided war, etc., but it takes TWO to make PEACE. I've witnessed my daughter and son-in-law handle this situation in a civil manner and have gone to extremes in learning all they can about brainwashing. It is definitely a form of abuse! This is just a small version of what we've been through with my daughter's ex-relatives. Evidently, the ex-relatives do not want to take responsibility and be mature for the kids and stop the brainwashing -- even to this day. My prayer is that the courts would take a more serious look at this emotional abuse. It needs to stop, as it is causing great harm to the children.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Warshak: My daughter recently loaned your book Divorce Poison to me, and I read it practically non-stop. Your book has been such a blessing; it is information that I wished we had known about when my two grandchildren were pre-school age, the time of my daughter’s divorce. (The kids are now in their late teens.) When my daughter remarried a few years later, the brainwashing became worse, not only by the kids’ father, but his mother and sister as well. Although it’s not as extreme as some cases I know about, it took a toll on my daughter, her husband, the children and me. After each visitation to the father’s home, and upon returning to the home of their mother and step-father, actions and comments from the children were very obvious that brainwashing was occurring. I’ve heard the following comments when my grandson was four years old and my granddaughter was six: Grandson: “Grandma, Aunt _____ and Granny say bad things about you and momma. They cuss you and call you names.” (Granny is speaking of their father’s mother.) Also, he stated to me, “Aunt ______ is mean to us.” Granddaughter: “Granny trashed the clothes you bought us, Grandma.” (These were articles of clothing sent with the children during visitation time with their dad. The trashing of their clothes happened on more than one occasion!) My granddaughter also stated, “Daddy said momma just married for money.” </p> <p>At one point, before visitation time had ended, my grandson informed his father that he wanted to go home to his momma. My granddaughter was telling me about the incident, and her exact words were, “Boy! Dad set his butt on fire!!” When my grandson was six, he stated to me, “Daddy said if _____ (my son-in-law) wanted kids, why doesn’t he have some of his own.” Some comments by the children during that time are unprintable; comments they overheard their dad, granny and aunt say about my daughter, her husband and me. </p> <p>My daughter, son-in-law and I have been very careful over the years as to what we say to the kids in regards to this brainwashing. I don’t agree with the quote: It takes two to fight, as there can be one-sided jealousy, one-sided hate, one-sided war, etc., but it takes TWO to make PEACE. I’ve witnessed my daughter and son-in-law handle this situation in a civil manner and have gone to extremes in learning all they can about brainwashing. It is definitely a form of abuse! This is just a small version of what we’ve been through with my daughter’s ex-relatives. Evidently, the ex-relatives do not want to take responsibility and be mature for the kids and stop the brainwashing — even to this day. My prayer is that the courts would take a more serious look at this emotional abuse. It needs to stop, as it is causing great harm to the children.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-176</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:47:03 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=269#comment-176</guid> <description><![CDATA[I still observe that to take literally the often made remark that both parents are responsible for high conflict is to misunderstand the way family courts usually `work': when they see significant inta-parental conflict judges immediately turn to deciding which parent gets sole custody, considering all factors. Discerning which parent may have been more productive of the conflict becomes of minor import if it is not entirely superfluous to the court order. Speaking of both parents as comparably culpable, or of a losing target parent as the principal agent of the conflict, is typically part of a smokescreen or facade that's sometimes thrown up, usually more by court ancillaries than the judge themselves. Some of my letters to local papers critical of family court that have included the words `parental alienation' have been rejected on the grounds that publishing them with that reference stands to ``cost women their lives.'' In some contexts it's expeditious to describe the phenomenon but avoid the term, especially affixing `syndrome' to it.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still observe that to take literally the often made remark that both parents are responsible for high conflict is to misunderstand the way family courts usually `work’: when they see significant inta-parental conflict judges immediately turn to deciding which parent gets sole custody, considering all factors. Discerning which parent may have been more productive of the conflict becomes of minor import if it is not entirely superfluous to the court order. Speaking of both parents as comparably culpable, or of a losing target parent as the principal agent of the conflict, is typically part of a smokescreen or facade that’s sometimes thrown up, usually more by court ancillaries than the judge themselves.</p> <p>Some of my letters to local papers critical of family court that have included the words `parental alienation’ have been rejected on the grounds that publishing them with that reference stands to “cost women their lives.” In some contexts it’s expeditious to describe the phenomenon but avoid the term, especially affixing `syndrome’ to it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-171</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:48:29 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=269#comment-171</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-170">Monika</a>. You provide important information to supplement the thesis of Stop Divorce Poison, by giving examples of situations where one spouse can be much more responsible for conflict than the other. Perhaps others will add to this list with explanations of other situations where it is clear that one spouse drives the conflict to which the other must respond. You are correct about stepping out of my comfort zone. Most of the critics of my Huffpost article seem to be driven by an agenda that blinds them to an accurate perception of my work and of me. Some seem determined to demonize me and to view me as unsympathetic to victims of violence. Yet, they can cite only smears and misrepresentations. You will note that they never quote my writing in context. I understand the concern that the idea that one parent can poison the children against the other parent could be used to cast doubt on a protective mother's claims of child abuse and domestic violence. My book is the first to include an entire section on false accusations of parental alienation and on how protective parents can defend themselves against false accusations. I have also written an article for professionals on the misdiagnosis of this problem. I truly think my detractors have not read my work, but instead rely on biased accounts, some of which are written by attorneys who represent fathers against the mothers whom I help. At last count, 46% of the parents who write to me seeking help with their children's rejection are mothers. Several have sought help from groups who claim to advocate on behalf of women. The response they get from these groups is that the idea that children can be irrationally alienated from a parent is bogus, and that all children who reject a parent do so for good reasons. Most of these women are not claiming that their husbands abused them or the children. So they do not use the label, domestic violence, or domestic violence by proxy, to describe their problem. They do believe that my book, <em>Divorce Poison</em>, describes their situation. Their children reject them -- that is, their children are alienated from them -- and the rejection is not a proportionate response to anything the mother has done. It may be that one source of the discomfort my detractors feel about this idea is that in their own personal situations, they believe their protective stance toward their children has been thwarted by accusations of parental alienation. They then generalize from their perceptions of their own case, to all parents who express concern about alienated children - even mothers who are victims.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-170">Monika</a>.</p> <p>You provide important information to supplement the thesis of Stop Divorce Poison, by giving examples of situations where one spouse can be much more responsible for conflict than the other. Perhaps others will add to this list with explanations of other situations where it is clear that one spouse drives the conflict to which the other must respond.</p> <p>You are correct about stepping out of my comfort zone. Most of the critics of my Huffpost article seem to be driven by an agenda that blinds them to an accurate perception of my work and of me. Some seem determined to demonize me and to view me as unsympathetic to victims of violence. Yet, they can cite only smears and misrepresentations. You will note that they never quote my writing in context. I understand the concern that the idea that one parent can poison the children against the other parent could be used to cast doubt on a protective mother’s claims of child abuse and domestic violence. My book is the first to include an entire section on false accusations of parental alienation and on how protective parents can defend themselves against false accusations. I have also written an article for professionals on the misdiagnosis of this problem. I truly think my detractors have not read my work, but instead rely on biased accounts, some of which are written by attorneys who represent fathers against the mothers whom I help.</p> <p>At last count, 46% of the parents who write to me seeking help with their children’s rejection are mothers. Several have sought help from groups who claim to advocate on behalf of women. The response they get from these groups is that the idea that children can be irrationally alienated from a parent is bogus, and that all children who reject a parent do so for good reasons. Most of these women are not claiming that their husbands abused them or the children. So they do not use the label, domestic violence, or domestic violence by proxy, to describe their problem. They do believe that my book, <em>Divorce Poison</em>, describes their situation. Their children reject them — that is, their children are alienated from them — and the rejection is not a proportionate response to anything the mother has done. It may be that one source of the discomfort my detractors feel about this idea is that in their own personal situations, they believe their protective stance toward their children has been thwarted by accusations of parental alienation. They then generalize from their perceptions of their own case, to all parents who express concern about alienated children – even mothers who are victims.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Monika </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/11/29/kudos-to-critics/#comment-170</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Monika]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:41:03 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=269#comment-170</guid> <description><![CDATA[Dr. Warshak: I appreciate your article, Stop Divorce Poison. For too long, rejected parents have been depicted as having high-conflict personalities. The message to rejected parents has been: “try harder” and with the right amount of work, alienation and estrangement will not exist. Rejected parents are unfairly blamed and burdened. It is overlooked, as you noted, that all parents should not be painted with the same brush. Rejected parents cannot force an unwilling ex-spouse to change. And, contrary to popular thought, individuals do not always marry a like-minded person. Perhaps, they were young or married after a non-normative life event. It is not true that it always “takes two- to- tango.” Your article helped dispel this detrimental opinion. Your efforts hopefully will not only reach parents, but will also inform professionals. Thank you for stepping out of a comfort zone and into the Huffington Post-- even in the face of unjustified criticism. A scholar who loves comfort is not fit to be called a scholar. ~Confucius, Analects Social Worker, Texas]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Warshak:<br /> I appreciate your article, Stop Divorce Poison. For too long, rejected parents have been depicted as having high-conflict personalities. The message to rejected parents has been: “try harder” and with the right amount of work, alienation and estrangement will not exist. Rejected parents are unfairly blamed and burdened. It is overlooked, as you noted, that all parents should not be painted with the same brush. Rejected parents cannot force an unwilling ex-spouse to change. And, contrary to popular thought, individuals do not always marry a like-minded person. Perhaps, they were young or married after a non-normative life event. It is not true that it always “takes two- to- tango.” Your article helped dispel this detrimental opinion. Your efforts hopefully will not only reach parents, but will also inform professionals. </p> <p>Thank you for stepping out of a comfort zone and into the Huffington Post– even in the face of unjustified criticism. </p> <p>A scholar who loves comfort is not fit to be called a scholar. ~Confucius, Analects</p> <p>Social Worker, Texas</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>