Children are not Alienated, they are abused

'Deprogramming' alienated children is science fiction

Text Size: A | A | A

Print this Article Email this Article
Sign up for text alerts
Sign up for e-mail headlines
Respond to this Article

By JOAN DAWSON

June 10, 2009

In the past few decades, a term called Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) or Parental Alienation (PA) has been used in family courts to describe a situation where one parent poisons the mind of the child against the other parent.

While it is true that some mothers (and fathers) intentionally bad-mouth their spouses or partners, several reasons can explain why the child fears or distances him- or herself from a parent. It has long been recognized that children experiencing divorce can exhibit aggressive behavior or depression. Children can react angrily to their parents' separation and may even be reacting to the conflict and violence they've witnessed.

But there is another possible explanation for a so-called alienated child. The child may have been abused and, as a result, fears or exhibits hostility toward the "target" parent. PAS, then, can shift the attention from an abusive situation to that of a protective parent's "alienating" behavior. Abusers, who, not surprisingly, deny allegations or call them "false allegations" (and actually get the spouse punished with fines or jail time), are more likely to seek custody than nonviolent parents. And, often enough, they get it.

While PAS has many proponents, most credible agencies do not support it. The American Psychological Association says PAS "lacks evidence" and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges refers to it as a "discredited" syndrome. The American Prosecutor's Research Institute says, —¦ PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law." Despite opposition, PAS is still used widely in courtrooms across the country.

In the past decade judges have felt compelled to rectify claims of alienation. Some have sent children to "deprogramming" or reunification centers in attempts to undo hostile feelings. According to the Leadership Council on Child Abuse, therapy usually involves confining the child to a location away from home and isolating the child from the parent to whom the child is most attached. The attachment to the favored parent is challenged, while encouraging the child with intensive sessions to re-accept the rejected parent.

Since abusers can use PAS as an excuse, some children are reunified with a parent that physically, emotionally or sexually abused them. The child may react to this reunification with increased symptoms, suicidal ideation, or even suicide attempts.

Recently in Ontario, a judge ordered two teenage boys to undergo deprogramming treatment after allegedly being brainwashed by the father. An 18-year-old sibling stepped in and sought custody for his younger brothers, both of whom were diagnosed as suicidal. Newspapers reported him as saying, "My brothers have ended up being committed in a hospital against their wishes, committed to live somewhere where they do not want to live, exposed to psychiatrists, who have attempted to carry out experimental therapy with them at the risk of severe harm to them."

Deprogramming treatment raises important ethical and legal questions. Do children have a right to their own thoughts? Do they have a choice in forming their relationships? Do parents' interests trump children's? Can legal strategies be employed to challenge children's fear and hostility? These are complex issues that deserve careful evidence-based approaches that preserve the integrity of children's rights while balancing those of the parents. If any treatment is court-ordered, we owe it to our children to use the ethical guidelines set out by the American Psychological Association to guide us in our decisions.

Deprogramming treatment for children, at least for now, should be confined to the realm of science fiction and not to courtrooms.

Joan Dawson is a public policy assistant at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and is a member of the Family Court Reform Coalition, which seeks to help protective parents, including many battered women, gain custody of their children. The American Forum is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, educational organization that provides with the views of state experts on major public concerns in order to stimulate informed discussion. Dawson is a public policy assistant at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and is a member of the Family Court Reform Coalition.

Outrage: Sex Offender Dad Ordered, "Community Work" For 18 Months

Dad to be listed as sex offender

10/06/2009 11:29:00 PM

A 44-YEAR-OLD man found to have 14 child pornography movies on a computer he bought for his daughter will be listed on the sex offender registry for eight years, a court heard yesterday.

Mark Robison, of Sebastopol, pleaded guilty to knowingly possessing child pornography at Ballarat Magistrates Court in April.

Magistrate Kay Robertson yesterday convicted and sentenced him to an 18-month community-based order with 120 hours of unpaid community work.

Ms Robertson described the offence as very serious but told Robison he was not a hardcore child pornography user.

Police seized the computer after searching Robison's home on June 19, 2007.

The court had earlier heard Robison's daughter downloaded a type of software allowing networking

with other computer users.

Robison then searched for items including pornography but he did not know they would be saved.

In sentencing, Ms Robertson took into account Robison's guilty plea, his co-operation with police and the small number of files on the computer.

15,000 Children Forced Contact with violent dads

Calls for overhaul of family law system 

Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

• Font size:DecreaseIncrease
• Email article:Email
• Print article:Print

Laurie Nowell

June 07, 2009 12:00am

CHILD welfare campaigners have called for an overhaul of the family law system, citing statistics they claim show courts have forced children to spend time with abusive or violent parents.

Campaigner Barbara Biggs says an analysis of the latest Family Court statistics shows courts are forcing children to spend time with parents they fear.

A recent speech by the Family Court's Chief Justice, Diana Bryant, appears to confirm this. But the Family Court has rejected the analysis.

The court says each case is determined on its merits and much of the contact between parents and children under the court's orders is supervised.

The court data shows children in at least 267 separated families in 2007-8 were forced to spend time with parents who the court deemed abusive or violent.

Of fathers before the court, a third were awarded less than 30 per cent custody and in 29 per cent of those cases it was because of abuse or family violence.

Of the cases in which women were awarded less than 30 per cent custody, abuse or family violence was the reason in 16 per cent of cases.

Ms Biggs claims up to 15,000 children might have had forced contact with violent parents over the past five years.

In a public lecture at the Queensland University of Technology in April, Chief Justice Bryant said: "In a third of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30 per cent or less time with their father.

"Abuse and/or family violence was the major reason why this order was made. In 9 per cent of litigated cases, the Family Court ordered that children spend 30 per cent or less time with their mother, the major reason being the presence of health issues."

A spokesman for the Family Court said: "Each case is judged on its merits and statistics tend to make it look as though they are all the same. You need to see the individual orders to properly understand the situation and before you can draw conclusions."