<?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: Alec Baldwin&#8217;s A Promise to Ourselves	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/</link>
	<description>Understanding, preventing, and overcoming parental alienation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2024 16:13:24 +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/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/#comment-716</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Dec 2010 02:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=88#comment-716</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/#comment-681&quot;&gt;EC&lt;/a&gt;.

``In the long run we are all dead,&#039;&#039; according to Keynes, although as a believer in the Whig interpretation of history I&#039;m generally broadly optimistic, too.

Of course there are various factions: what you are saying is that those who would criticize the system at a deep level lack the clout to even get a debate going.

I appreciate your participation, Dr Warshak, in symposia of this type, but wonder what&#039;s being said about harm to children: what&#039;s being recognized as possible harm, and what specific types of harm are seen as occurring or slipping by unaddressed in family court?

Expressed differences over what&#039;s harmful, or more or most harmful, or less than in the best interest of the child, are the terms of much of the controversy, which also may focus in varying degrees on the immediate effects of the litigation process on children, or on the ramifications of what&#039;s decided in court for the entire remainder of their childhood and its outcome.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/#comment-681">EC</a>.</p>
<p>&#8220;In the long run we are all dead,&#8221; according to Keynes, although as a believer in the Whig interpretation of history I&#8217;m generally broadly optimistic, too.</p>
<p>Of course there are various factions: what you are saying is that those who would criticize the system at a deep level lack the clout to even get a debate going.</p>
<p>I appreciate your participation, Dr Warshak, in symposia of this type, but wonder what&#8217;s being said about harm to children: what&#8217;s being recognized as possible harm, and what specific types of harm are seen as occurring or slipping by unaddressed in family court?</p>
<p>Expressed differences over what&#8217;s harmful, or more or most harmful, or less than in the best interest of the child, are the terms of much of the controversy, which also may focus in varying degrees on the immediate effects of the litigation process on children, or on the ramifications of what&#8217;s decided in court for the entire remainder of their childhood and its outcome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak		</title>
		<link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/#comment-689</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:04:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=88#comment-689</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/#comment-681&quot;&gt;EC&lt;/a&gt;.

The ABA is serious. There is increasing recognition of the need to triage family law cases in order to minimize harm to children. But, change comes slowly and the ABA has to contend with various factions. I am optimistic for the long run, but I am not expecting reforms any time soon.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/#comment-681">EC</a>.</p>
<p>The ABA is serious. There is increasing recognition of the need to triage family law cases in order to minimize harm to children. But, change comes slowly and the ABA has to contend with various factions. I am optimistic for the long run, but I am not expecting reforms any time soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: EC		</title>
		<link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/#comment-681</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=88#comment-681</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Is the ABA serious, and are there any proposals with any substance being entertained?

The various task forces and panels that I&#039;ve seen in recent years have been extremely disappointing, in that they skirt examining the hard problems and end up proclaiming the current system basically just and succeeding in serving society.

I&#039;m not aware of any prominent legal scholars critiquing family court, aside from rare, en passant remarks.

Family courts are essentially unique in being largely immune from challenge in their work on due process and related grounds: they were completely left out of the 20th Century developments in American law which affected civil rights, privacy, criminal procedure, juvenile and dependency law, etc.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the ABA serious, and are there any proposals with any substance being entertained?</p>
<p>The various task forces and panels that I&#8217;ve seen in recent years have been extremely disappointing, in that they skirt examining the hard problems and end up proclaiming the current system basically just and succeeding in serving society.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not aware of any prominent legal scholars critiquing family court, aside from rare, en passant remarks.</p>
<p>Family courts are essentially unique in being largely immune from challenge in their work on due process and related grounds: they were completely left out of the 20th Century developments in American law which affected civil rights, privacy, criminal procedure, juvenile and dependency law, etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tweets that mention Alec Baldwin’s A Promise to Ourselves &#124; Dr. Richard Warshak's Blog: Plutoverse -- Topsy.com		</title>
		<link>https://warshak.com/blog/2010/12/15/alec-baldwins-a-promise-to-ourselves-2/#comment-656</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tweets that mention Alec Baldwin’s A Promise to Ourselves &#124; Dr. Richard Warshak's Blog: Plutoverse -- Topsy.com]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 01:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=88#comment-656</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Divorce Encouragist, Richard A. Warshak. Richard A. Warshak said: Review of Alec Baldwin&#039;s &#034;A Promise to Ourselves&#034; at Plutoverse. http://warshak.com/blog/?p=88 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Divorce Encouragist, Richard A. Warshak. Richard A. Warshak said: Review of Alec Baldwin&#039;s &quot;A Promise to Ourselves&quot; at Plutoverse. <a href="http://warshak.com/blog/?p=88" rel="nofollow ugc">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=88</a> [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>