<?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: Children Don’t Always Say What They Need </title> <atom:link href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/</link> <description>Understanding, preventing, and overcoming parental alienation</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2024 16:00:31 +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/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2547</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 23:57:26 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2547</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2458">LK</a>. I don't think it's overwhelming in the sense of being impossible, but just that reform will take a more focused, better informed, and more sustained commitment than it's currently receiving. I don't see in particular any quick fixes or silver bullets that are likely to work, and that seems to discourage many would-be activists. The legal system as it is gives a parent or their representative little recourse---essentially no legal tools---in the courtroom. Some attorneys and experts will uncourageously restrain or adapt their pleadings and recommendations to not offend community values, which may regard parental alienation as `controversial,' for example, but even if they don't the law doesn't supply the handles to force a just outcome.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2458">LK</a>.</p> <p>I don’t think it’s overwhelming in the sense of being impossible, but just that reform will take a more focused, better informed, and more sustained commitment than it’s currently receiving. I don’t see in particular any quick fixes or silver bullets that are likely to work, and that seems to discourage many would-be activists.</p> <p>The legal system as it is gives a parent or their representative little recourse—essentially no legal tools—in the courtroom. Some attorneys and experts will uncourageously restrain or adapt their pleadings and recommendations to not offend community values, which may regard parental alienation as `controversial,’ for example, but even if they don’t the law doesn’t supply the handles to force a just outcome.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: LK </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2458</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[LK]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2011 00:48:37 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2458</guid> <description><![CDATA[EC: Thank you for so clearly and eloquently describing the bind that so many target parents find themselves in. Personally, my husband and I have been trying, through the courts, for nearly 2 years to re-establish contact with his now 15 year-old daughter. Everything you've described has happened to us. Lawyers and counsellors that we've consulted all sympathize and make half-hearted attempts to help but quickly give up and advise us to do the same. They all agree that 1) the only thing that will help in our case is a change of custody and 2) we will never get a judge to order it. The story is the same for members of the PA support groups I belong to. So many are frustrated and often further victimized by a completely ineffectual legal system. I don't wish to minimize what Dr. Warshak and others are doing in this regard. We so appreciate that there are people who are trying so hard to bring about changes. But I agree with you that it must happen at a more fundamental level and it's an overwhelming prospect.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EC:</p> <p>Thank you for so clearly and eloquently describing the bind that so many target parents find themselves in. Personally, my husband and I have been trying, through the courts, for nearly 2 years to re-establish contact with his now 15 year-old daughter. Everything you’ve described has happened to us. Lawyers and counsellors that we’ve consulted all sympathize and make half-hearted attempts to help but quickly give up and advise us to do the same. They all agree that 1) the only thing that will help in our case is a change of custody and 2) we will never get a judge to order it. The story is the same for members of the PA support groups I belong to. So many are frustrated and often further victimized by a completely ineffectual legal system.</p> <p>I don’t wish to minimize what Dr. Warshak and others are doing in this regard. We so appreciate that there are people who are trying so hard to bring about changes. But I agree with you that it must happen at a more fundamental level and it’s an overwhelming prospect.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2336</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:28:34 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2336</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>. The ordered counseling is usually at best only token, and not unfairly even described as a sham in the way it meticulously skirts the root cause of the alienation. The therapists who administer it all seem to ``know better'' than to overtly criticize the count-anointed parent: there's rarely need for a diabolically inclined parent to do anything specific to sabotage the counseling. Target parents often feel the counseling worsens the situation and adds to the harm---increases the bind---to the child. These cases typically feature intra-parental conflict pronounced enough that the timeshare between the child and the target parent would not be large in any event, i.e., even without the child's expressed wariness of the relationship---so there seems to be a `let it go' sentiment: that if the child is resistant it isn't worth working too hard at treatment, since the larger context wouldn't have allowed much of a parent-child relationship anyway.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>.</p> <p>The ordered counseling is usually at best only token, and not unfairly even described as a sham in the way it meticulously skirts the root cause of the alienation. The therapists who administer it all seem to “know better” than to overtly criticize the count-anointed parent: there’s rarely need for a diabolically inclined parent to do anything specific to sabotage the counseling. Target parents often feel the counseling worsens the situation and adds to the harm—increases the bind—to the child.</p> <p>These cases typically feature intra-parental conflict pronounced enough that the timeshare between the child and the target parent would not be large in any event, i.e., even without the child’s expressed wariness of the relationship—so there seems to be a `let it go’ sentiment: that if the child is resistant it isn’t worth working too hard at treatment, since the larger context wouldn’t have allowed much of a parent-child relationship anyway.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2327</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:49:31 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2327</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2319">EC</a>. Although I do not know the proportion of cases in which the court allows the child's exposure to badmouthing to continue unabated, I do know of decisions, and they are more frequently being brought to my attention, where the court regards a child's rejection of a good parent as enough of a problem to warrant the child's protection from negative influences even when this means overturning the status quo. From what I have seen, It is true that a court's first step in attempting a remedy often is to appoint a counselor to assist in repairing the relationship. If a parent successfully sabotages treatment efforts, or fails to comply with the court orders, or for some other reason the treatment fails, the court is then faced with the decision of whether to capitulate to the child's demands to avoid a parent or find some way to shield the child from harmful influences.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2319">EC</a>.</p> <p>Although I do not know the proportion of cases in which the court allows the child’s exposure to badmouthing to continue unabated, I do know of decisions, and they are more frequently being brought to my attention, where the court regards a child’s rejection of a good parent as enough of a problem to warrant the child’s protection from negative influences even when this means overturning the status quo. From what I have seen, It is true that a court’s first step in attempting a remedy often is to appoint a counselor to assist in repairing the relationship. If a parent successfully sabotages treatment efforts, or fails to comply with the court orders, or for some other reason the treatment fails, the court is then faced with the decision of whether to capitulate to the child’s demands to avoid a parent or find some way to shield the child from harmful influences.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2319</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:46:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2319</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>. I'm definitely not saying the situation is hopeless, but rather that reform needs to be approached at a fairly fundamental level, with a critical awareness of the core assumptions regarding how custody disputes are in their view to be decided, especially how intra-parental conflict is to be handled, which the courts currently and it appears essentially universally, make. It's that the child has to be doing _very_ badly in tangible developmental terms---presenting much more than simply an aversion to spending time with the noncustodial parent---for the effect of the heavy weight given to residential status quo (and the historical primary caregiver) to be trumped. The court's concern for the alienated child is otherwise usually limited to at most ordering therapy for the child, while the campaign of badmouthing is allowed to continue unabated. It's not so much that the courts ``fail to recognize the importance'' or fail to detect the factual occurrence of emotional abuse, as it's that reasonable responses to it don't fit into the decision reaching framework they use, which is the reason the courts have ``a long way to go.'' I'll give it more thought, but as I replied in the discussion of the Goldman case, although alienation was recognized by the court, it wasn't dispositive: in particular it didn't drive a change in primary custody or an order curbing the alienator's behavior.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>.</p> <p>I’m definitely not saying the situation is hopeless, but rather that reform needs to be approached at a fairly fundamental level, with a critical awareness of the core assumptions regarding how custody disputes are in their view to be decided, especially how intra-parental conflict is to be handled, which the courts currently and it appears essentially universally, make.</p> <p>It’s that the child has to be doing _very_ badly in tangible developmental terms—presenting much more than simply an aversion to spending time with the noncustodial parent—for the effect of the heavy weight given to residential status quo (and the historical primary caregiver) to be trumped.</p> <p>The court’s concern for the alienated child is otherwise usually limited to at most ordering therapy for the child, while the campaign of badmouthing is allowed to continue unabated. It’s not so much that the courts “fail to recognize the importance” or fail to detect the factual occurrence of emotional abuse, as it’s that reasonable responses to it don’t fit into the decision reaching framework they use, which is the reason the courts have “a long way to go.”</p> <p>I’ll give it more thought, but as I replied in the discussion of the Goldman case, although alienation was recognized by the court, it wasn’t dispositive: in particular it didn’t drive a change in primary custody or an order curbing the alienator’s behavior.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2303</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:32:16 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2303</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2266">EC</a>. From my vantage point, the situation does not look as hopeless as it does to you. I do not recommend that courts base a custody decision on only one factor. But I have seen quite a few cases in which the court does place a great deal of weight on the harm caused by an alienating parent. In these cases, the court does not memorialize the status quo by granting sole custody to the alienating parent. To learn about some of these cases, <a href="http://www.warshak.com/alienation/pa-references/paslegal.html" rel="nofollow">click here.</a> You may be correct that courts are more likely to place children with the rejected parent when the children are doing very poorly in other aspects of their lives, such as having trouble in school or running afoul of the law. But in many cases, despite a child's apparent good adjustment in other spheres, the court determines that the child's inability to give or accept love from one parent is a significant enough problem to warrant the court's concern. At the same time, the court may agree with mental health experts who regard the behavior of an alienating parent as emotionally abusive. In such cases, the courts want to protect a child from further abuse, just as the court would do when children need protection from physical abuse. Anticipating your objection I will agree that courts have a long way to go in this respect, and that many courts fail to recognize the importance of rescuing children from the bind of having to reject one parent to earn the approval of the other.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2266">EC</a>.</p> <p>From my vantage point, the situation does not look as hopeless as it does to you. I do not recommend that courts base a custody decision on only one factor. But I have seen quite a few cases in which the court does place a great deal of weight on the harm caused by an alienating parent. In these cases, the court does not memorialize the status quo by granting sole custody to the alienating parent. To learn about some of these cases, <a href="http://www.warshak.com/alienation/pa-references/paslegal.html" rel="nofollow">click here.</a> You may be correct that courts are more likely to place children with the rejected parent when the children are doing very poorly in other aspects of their lives, such as having trouble in school or running afoul of the law. But in many cases, despite a child’s apparent good adjustment in other spheres, the court determines that the child’s inability to give or accept love from one parent is a significant enough problem to warrant the court’s concern. At the same time, the court may agree with mental health experts who regard the behavior of an alienating parent as emotionally abusive. In such cases, the courts want to protect a child from further abuse, just as the court would do when children need protection from physical abuse. Anticipating your objection I will agree that courts have a long way to go in this respect, and that many courts fail to recognize the importance of rescuing children from the bind of having to reject one parent to earn the approval of the other.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2266</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:36:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2266</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>. When the court sees badmouthing or false allegations it `reasons' that there's more intra-parental conflict than it thought when it issued its order, and therefore the order needs to be modified rather than enforced. The apportionment of parenting time must be made more asymmetric since the parents cannot cooperate, they say, and the parent with whom the child has been predominately residing and who has been historically the primary caregiver will gain. The parent who can expect the sole custody award when joint custody is ruled out of the question, and who desires that outcome, is incentivized to violate the order under this, the scheme we have, and is often advised to do so by attorneys, unscrupulous therapists, and other parents who have found the technique to `work.' Many states have language in their family codes annunciating facilitating the child's relationship with the other parent as a factor to be considered in formulating custody orders: in practice it's not on the same level as---does not receive comparable weight to---residential status quo and the historical primary caregiver. Primary custody is sometimes reversed, but in my experience never because of alienation: there are always other circumstances or conditions, usually the child manifestly doing very badly, on the order of falling several years behind in school or being in ongoing trouble with juvenile authorities, although parental alienation may also be present. Without specifically addressing how the courts and the therapeutic community view and handle intra-parental conflict, and weights the factors it considers in setting sole custody, it's hard to see how the current treatment of parental alienation in a judiciary context will significantly change.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>.</p> <p>When the court sees badmouthing or false allegations it `reasons’ that there’s more intra-parental conflict than it thought when it issued its order, and therefore the order needs to be modified rather than enforced. The apportionment of parenting time must be made more asymmetric since the parents cannot cooperate, they say, and the parent with whom the child has been predominately residing and who has been historically the primary caregiver will gain.</p> <p>The parent who can expect the sole custody award when joint custody is ruled out of the question, and who desires that outcome, is incentivized to violate the order under this, the scheme we have, and is often advised to do so by attorneys, unscrupulous therapists, and other parents who have found the technique to `work.’</p> <p>Many states have language in their family codes annunciating facilitating the child’s relationship with the other parent as a factor to be considered in formulating custody orders: in practice it’s not on the same level as—does not receive comparable weight to—residential status quo and the historical primary caregiver. Primary custody is sometimes reversed, but in my experience never because of alienation: there are always other circumstances or conditions, usually the child manifestly doing very badly, on the order of falling several years behind in school or being in ongoing trouble with juvenile authorities, although parental alienation may also be present.</p> <p>Without specifically addressing how the courts and the therapeutic community view and handle intra-parental conflict, and weights the factors it considers in setting sole custody, it’s hard to see how the current treatment of parental alienation in a judiciary context will significantly change.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2255</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:23:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2255</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2227">EC</a>. This is why I mentioned the importance of effective enforcement of parenting plans. Judges and therapists understand that bad-mouthing a parent is not good for children. But they may not understand the importance of rapid responses to early warning signals of alienation. Courts need to do a better job of deterring litigants from noncompliance with orders. It is important that those who may breach court orders have a firm sense of what to expect from the court, and the certainty that the court will follow through with consequences. I plan to post an article about this sometime within the next few months. If a court addresses parental alienating behavior early in the process, and the court determines that an adjustment to a shared custody arrangement is necessary, the court may lessen the children's time with the parent who is found to be emotionally abusive. That is, the shift away from shared custody does not have to be in the direction favored by an alienating parent. But, you are correct that the longer the child is out of touch with a parent, the more reluctant the court may be to enforce contact. Thus, an unhealthy status quo may become entrenched.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2227">EC</a>.</p> <p>This is why I mentioned the importance of effective enforcement of parenting plans. Judges and therapists understand that bad-mouthing a parent is not good for children. But they may not understand the importance of rapid responses to early warning signals of alienation. Courts need to do a better job of deterring litigants from noncompliance with orders. It is important that those who may breach court orders have a firm sense of what to expect from the court, and the certainty that the court will follow through with consequences. I plan to post an article about this sometime within the next few months.</p> <p>If a court addresses parental alienating behavior early in the process, and the court determines that an adjustment to a shared custody arrangement is necessary, the court may lessen the children’s time with the parent who is found to be emotionally abusive. That is, the shift away from shared custody does not have to be in the direction favored by an alienating parent. But, you are correct that the longer the child is out of touch with a parent, the more reluctant the court may be to enforce contact. Thus, an unhealthy status quo may become entrenched.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2227</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:34:52 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2227</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>. Most courts will initially try a parenting plan that includes a substantial amount of coparenting, but if conflict erupts between the parents, rather than enforce it, will modify the plan to reduce the extent to which the custody is joint. Sometimes that's done in a de facto way, in that a pattern of, say, one parent not receiving their timeshare, is simply allowed to continue with little or no chastening of the parent responsible. This way of handling cases is not accidental or just a bad habit judges may fall into, but is a central doctrine of most court practice, conforming to the therapeutic advice (illustrated for example by the discussion in Robert Emery's THE TRUTH . . . book) that intra-parental conflict is bad for the child---which it is---and that that some parental couples apparently cannot coparent necessitates abandoning joint custody and giving one parent the bulk of the power over caring for the child in those cases. The more time that passes with sparse contact between the child and a parent---for whatever reason, whether it's one parent's interference with the other, or pending the outcome of a court ordered evaluation or of mediation---the more likely the court is to regard that low level as the status quo, and the experience of it as showing the diminished parent's inessentiality. Education is a pretty lame word in this context: it's not that that many parents, judges, lawyers, and therapists don't know and never imagine that gratuitous badmouthing of a parent to a child is harmful to that child. If the system were to take it seriously, and follow through and take action against a campaign of alienation, reminding parents in the midst of dissolving their relationship with each other of the long term consequences for the child would probably help. The coparentng classes and workshops that are now often required of litigants can however be insidiously misleading: deluding a parent new to family court into thinking the court will support joint custody if the other parent contests it.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>.</p> <p>Most courts will initially try a parenting plan that includes a substantial amount of coparenting, but if conflict erupts between the parents, rather than enforce it, will modify the plan to reduce the extent to which the custody is joint. Sometimes that’s done in a de facto way, in that a pattern of, say, one parent not receiving their timeshare, is simply allowed to continue with little or no chastening of the parent responsible.</p> <p>This way of handling cases is not accidental or just a bad habit judges may fall into, but is a central doctrine of most court practice, conforming to the therapeutic advice (illustrated for example by the discussion in Robert Emery’s THE TRUTH . . . book) that intra-parental conflict is bad for the child—which it is—and that that some parental couples apparently cannot coparent necessitates abandoning joint custody and giving one parent the bulk of the power over caring for the child in those cases.</p> <p>The more time that passes with sparse contact between the child and a parent—for whatever reason, whether it’s one parent’s interference with the other, or pending the outcome of a court ordered evaluation or of mediation—the more likely the court is to regard that low level as the status quo, and the experience of it as showing the diminished parent’s inessentiality.</p> <p>Education is a pretty lame word in this context: it’s not that that many parents, judges, lawyers, and therapists don’t know and never imagine that gratuitous badmouthing of a parent to a child is harmful to that child. If the system were to take it seriously, and follow through and take action against a campaign of alienation, reminding parents in the midst of dissolving their relationship with each other of the long term consequences for the child would probably help. The coparentng classes and workshops that are now often required of litigants can however be insidiously misleading: deluding a parent new to family court into thinking the court will support joint custody if the other parent contests it.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dr. Richard A. Warshak </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2215</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr. Richard A. Warshak]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:49:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2215</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>. For the most part, judges show avid interest in learning how to effectively manage cases where parental alienation issues are raised. As an example, recently I was the featured speaker at a Bench/Bar conference sponsored by the <em>Dallas Bar Association Family Law Section</em>. Nearly 400 judges and lawyers were in the audience. In Canada, I was the featured speaker at the <em>Ontario Bar Association</em>’s annual Family Law Institute. A year later the <em>National Judicial Institute</em> invited me to be a keynote speaker at their annual national conference, the second time I was privileged to address this prestigious organization of judges in Canada. I don’t take on many such speaking engagements each year because of other commitments. But I hear from judges who inform me that they require child custody litigants to read my book and view<a href="http://www.plutodvd.com" rel="nofollow"> Welcome Back, Pluto</a>. As for other trainers, the <em>Association of Family and Conciliation Courts </em>sponsors training programs for professionals whose work brings them in contact with children who reject parents. I do not know how many judges attend such programs. I think two keys to prevention of severe alienation are 1) education early in the life of a family law case, and 2) effective enforcement of parenting plans. In terms of prevention, I think you are correct that the system needs basic reform. In particular, family courts need to identify and fast-track cases that put children’s welfare at risk, whether from a physically abusive, neglectful, or emotionally abusive parent. Too many cases are allowed to languish with children being out of touch with one parent for long periods of time. In some of these cases, pending the outcome of an evaluation and hearing, the court wants to protect the children from the possibility of harm. But in cases where the child is kept from a good parent, the lack of contact can make the child more likely to see the absent parent through the eyes of the other parent, who may regard the absent parent is unnecessary or harmful to the child. In such cases, the sooner normal parent-child contacts are restored, the better the courts serve the genuine needs of the family.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169">EC</a>.</p> <p>For the most part, judges show avid interest in learning how to effectively manage cases where parental alienation issues are raised. As an example, recently I was the featured speaker at a Bench/Bar conference sponsored by the <em>Dallas Bar Association Family Law Section</em>. Nearly 400 judges and lawyers were in the audience. In Canada, I was the featured speaker at the <em>Ontario Bar Association</em>’s annual Family Law Institute. A year later the <em>National Judicial Institute</em> invited me to be a keynote speaker at their annual national conference, the second time I was privileged to address this prestigious organization of judges in Canada.</p> <p>I don’t take on many such speaking engagements each year because of other commitments. But I hear from judges who inform me that they require child custody litigants to read my book and view<a href="http://www.plutodvd.com" rel="nofollow"> Welcome Back, Pluto</a>. As for other trainers, the <em>Association of Family and Conciliation Courts </em>sponsors training programs for professionals whose work brings them in contact with children who reject parents. I do not know how many judges attend such programs.</p> <p>I think two keys to prevention of severe alienation are 1) education early in the life of a family law case, and 2) effective enforcement of parenting plans. In terms of prevention, I think you are correct that the system needs basic reform. In particular, family courts need to identify and fast-track cases that put children’s welfare at risk, whether from a physically abusive, neglectful, or emotionally abusive parent. Too many cases are allowed to languish with children being out of touch with one parent for long periods of time. In some of these cases, pending the outcome of an evaluation and hearing, the court wants to protect the children from the possibility of harm. But in cases where the child is kept from a good parent, the lack of contact can make the child more likely to see the absent parent through the eyes of the other parent, who may regard the absent parent is unnecessary or harmful to the child. In such cases, the sooner normal parent-child contacts are restored, the better the courts serve the genuine needs of the family.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: EC </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2169</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[EC]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:48:32 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2169</guid> <description><![CDATA[How do judges respond to the training you offer, and how much such training do you actually do, i.e., how many courts are interested? And beside yourself, how many other such trainers are there in the country? As I've posted here before, my observations of family court in the US are that it's not so much that judges don't understand, reasonably readily recognize, or care about parental alienation, as it's that by widespread standard bench practice---particularly in the way intra-parental conflict is handled---it's in a sense irrelevant, and the most a judge will usually do is order therapy for the child. It often perversely works out under this scheme that the alienating parent's litigational position benefits from a badmouthing campaign or related false allegations leveled in court against the target parent, which unsurprisingly engenders and intensifies a great deal of the PA which occurs in families heavily involved in family court. It seems to me to really attack parental alienation on the level of prevention, the decision making framework currently used in family court has to be reconsidered at a fairly basic level and reformed, which will probably require making it a public issue.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do judges respond to the training you offer, and how much such training do you actually do, i.e., how many courts are interested? And beside yourself, how many other such trainers are there in the country?</p> <p>As I’ve posted here before, my observations of family court in the US are that it’s not so much that judges don’t understand, reasonably readily recognize, or care about parental alienation, as it’s that by widespread standard bench practice—particularly in the way intra-parental conflict is handled—it’s in a sense irrelevant, and the most a judge will usually do is order therapy for the child. It often perversely works out under this scheme that the alienating parent’s litigational position benefits from a badmouthing campaign or related false allegations leveled in court against the target parent, which unsurprisingly engenders and intensifies a great deal of the PA which occurs in families heavily involved in family court.</p> <p>It seems to me to really attack parental alienation on the level of prevention, the decision making framework currently used in family court has to be reconsidered at a fairly basic level and reformed, which will probably require making it a public issue.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Cindy </title> <link>https://warshak.com/blog/2011/03/08/children-dont-always-say-what-they-need/#comment-2155</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Cindy]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:43:19 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://warshak.com/blog/?p=417#comment-2155</guid> <description><![CDATA[This article shows that children want love from the abusive parent. Alienated children choose their abusers as well, leaving behind the parent that chooses to take the high road. The parent who can not imagine manipulating a child into hating their other parent. The parent who prays that truth will prevail. I want to say to all alienated children that it is truth that they should seek. If something does not feel right, seek out counsel, someone who will help you think critically. Let the love that you once felt for your parent surface to the top and let their love touch your heart. You may have said and done some terrible things to your parent to release the stress you were feeling. Remember, it is/was not totally your fault. We, as target parents probably did not know whow to react/respond to what was coming from the alienating parent's environment through you. We were/are at a loss concerning how to deal with the poison that has been embedded in your minds. I know I speak for many parents by saying we are sorry. Please empower yourself with the fact that truth can help heal you and our broken relationships. God is love...........]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article shows that children want love from the abusive parent. Alienated children choose their abusers as well, leaving behind the parent that chooses to take the high road. The parent who can not imagine manipulating a child into hating their other parent. The parent who prays that truth will prevail. I want to say to all alienated children that it is truth that they should seek. If something does not feel right, seek out counsel, someone who will help you think critically. Let the love that you once felt for your parent surface to the top and let their love touch your heart. You may have said and done some terrible things to your parent to release the stress you were feeling. Remember, it is/was not totally your fault. We, as target parents probably did not know whow to react/respond to what was coming from the alienating parent’s environment through you. We were/are at a loss concerning how to deal with the poison that has been embedded in your minds. I know I speak for many parents by saying we are sorry. Please empower yourself with the fact that truth can help heal you and our broken relationships. God is love………..</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>