EXCERPTA compilation of court rulings that have contested the controversial Parental Alienation Syndrome

Court Rulings Against Parental Alienation

(A compilation of court rulings that have contested the controversial Parental Alienation Syndrome) ... The credibility of Dr Richard Gardner, originator of Alienation/Parental Alienation should be given serious consideration before his views are adopted in by this court, especially when determining the best interests...

parentingabusedkids.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/court-ruli...

A compilation of court rulings that have contested the controversial Parental Alienation Syndrome)

The credibility of Dr Richard Gardner, originator of Alienation/Parental Alienation should be given serious consideration before his views are adopted in by this court, especially when determining the best interests of vulnerable children. Dr. Gardner has used Parental Alienation Syndrome “PAS” as a career opportunity while the lives of women and children are put at risk and families are torn apart.
Dr. Gardner worked as a paid court witness, earning up to $500 and hour to promote alienation in custody litigation. Parental Alienation is the theory in which one parent (almost exclusively used on mothers) brainwashes a child and attempts to destroy the relationship with the other parent through purposeful acts of denigration. Dr. Gardner believed a mother will go to these lengths because she is expressing sexual frustration–she is desiring her former partner but after he has refused her affections, she seeks revenge by using the children as a weapon against him. According to Gardner, a mother may even invent allegations of abuse in order to alienate the children from their father. PAS creates suspicion and an almost natural bias against any mother alleging domestic violence during divorce or custody proceedings, and in cases where PAS is used, child are almost never believed when they come forward with their own allegations of abuse.
Gardner’s cure for PAS is cutting off contact with the “alienator”–the mother–through forcible separations and other legal manipulations. A child may also endure “threat therapy” and other methods designed to force a relationship with the other parent upon them. When a mother is accused of PAS, it is virtually impossible to overcome the predjudice this creates against her–when she asserts concerns about her ex partner, or concerns for safety, it will inevitably be used as evidence that she is suffering from PAS.
Much of Gardner’s work on PAS was cut and pasted from an earlier theory, the “Sexual Abuse Legitimacy Scale” (SALS). After SALS was thrown out of a Florida court for lack of admissibility, Gardner went on to reinvent this theory under a new name: Parental Alienation.
During the last 25 years of his career Dr. Gardner had no hospital admitting privileges. Dr. Gardner died by suicide, over dosing on medication and stabbing himself in the chest and neck. When Dr. Gardner’s body was found a 7” butcher knife plunged into his chest, ripping into his heart. In all Dr. Gardner had four stab wounds in the chest and three in his neck. After Gardner’s death, controversy over the validity of PAS remains. Today, it is at best an undiagnostic, still undefined syndrome–and scientifically, remains a dangerous idea that when practised puts children at risk and prolongs the trauma of familial separation.
Many courts are battling the question of whether PAS meets the Frye test, whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community, or not. The Frye rule came from a 1923 Federal Court of Appeals (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014, D.C. Cir. 1923) decision, createing a standard in which scientific evidence can be used in courts, and considered admissible. That standard is based on whether the evidence is generally accepted by others in the field including judicial opinions, scientific or legal writings and other expert opinion (excluding the source who offered the contended evidence). Another aspect of the Frye ruling is whether the contended evidence can be tested.
1988: A Florida court refused to admit PAS because “no determination was made in the order or on the record as to general professional acceptance of the ‘parental alienation syndrome’ as a diagnostic tool“.
Further, the Court found that “when considering the theory of expert testimony…it is vitally important to avoid the confusion engendered by reference to syndromes…At the present time experts have not achieved consensus on the existence of a psychological syndrome…use of the word syndrome leads only to confusion, and to unwarranted and unworkable comparisons to battered child syndrome”.
In the Interest of T.M.W., 553 So. 2nd 260, 262 Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 1988)
1990: The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected an appellate court’s creation of the “Intentional interference with custody rights” noting that “children can be devastated by divorce” and further finds that “the law should not provide a means of escalating intrafamily warfare” but that other remedies exist when a parent or other relative interferes with custody arrangements, and that “creating a tort of this nature is the job of the legislature, not the court.”
(Larson v. Dunn, 460 N.W. 2nd 39, 45-46 Minn. 1990)
1992: Even with expert testimony by a psychologist who says that the situation in question was the” worst case of PAS he had ever seen,” a Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that there was “limited research data” to support, as “a successful cure” for children suffering from PAS, the removal of such children from their mother’s custody. The Court ruled that taking the children from their mother’s custody was risky, uncertain and may cause psychological damage. Further, the appellate court held that the lower court did not have to to accept the opinion of the father’s expert, Dr. Wellen, who contended that PAS is only cured when the father is granted custody. (Weiderholt v. Fischer, 485 N.W. 2nd 442, 444, Wis. Ct. App. 1992).
2000: In the County of Nassau County, NY, a Frye hearing was done and the Court found the defendant in the case had “not established general acceptance of Parental Alienation Syndrome within the professional community which would provide a foundation for its admission at trial”. The Court went onto to explain its ruling, based on that Dr. Gardner’s had failed to have PAS undergo a necessary peer review and went on to quote some of Gardner’s writings, including, “…We spin off the most fantastic explanations for human behavior and often come to believe our own delusions.”
(The People v. Fortin, 184 Misc.2d 10,14 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 2000)
2002: Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the Family division, (the top UK family court judge) remarks that “There is, of course, no doubt that some parents, particularly mothers, are responsible for alienating their children from their fathers without good reason and thereby creating this sometimes insoluble problem. That unhappy state of affairs, well known in family courts, is a long way from recognized syndrome requiring mental health professionals to play an expert role.“
(Re L, V, M, H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2002] 2 FLR 334 at 351)
2006: the American Bar Association’s Children’s Legal Rights Journal published an article that conducted a thorough study of the scientific, legal and policy issues involved in the scientific admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome when used in the courts, and found that there was evidence to support its use.
2006: The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges declares Parental Alienation as “junk science, and at least four states have passed legislation to stop its use in custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence because of difficulties in determining its cause and because it endangers children.
2007: A New York Court finds, “This court does not believe that there is a generally accepted diagnostic determination or syndrome known as ‘parental alienation syndrome’. Terminology such as inappropriate parental influence would be far more appropriate.” (NK v. MK, 851 N.Y.S.2d 71 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. 2007)
2008: Clinical psychologist William Wrigley is strongly reprimanded and disciplined by The Psychologists Board of Queensland (Australia) for acting unprofessional in giving evidence about PAS to the court. Dr. Wrigley’s testimony resulted in a mother losing custody of two children, the Board found that, Dr. Wrigley exercised “professional conduct that demonstrates incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care”. The Board found that Dr. Wrigley violated a code of ethics in that, “It was inappropriate for the registrant (Dr Wrigley) to either diagnose the children or state there was a likelihood the children could develop parental alienation syndrome, as it is not a recognised syndrome.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23495760-2702,00.html
When children are unexpectedly, and forcibly separated from a parent and by extension, from their community, family, friends and other sources of nurturing they endure trauma and often, the damage inflicted is lifelong. Some children are known to suffer from “maternal deprivation”—meaning the loss of a primary caregiver causes emotional distress and behavioral problems. Hence, the pretend symptoms of “alienation” can be explained by very real the stressors caused by ongoing custody litigation—not to mention being victims of alleged abuse.
_________________
This is a work in progress…I am open to add any links, rulings or further information you may have.
I have previous postings on the history of PAS, and other research as well. If you would like more info, just let me know.
Evanlee J. Perth, 2009
RESOURCES:
Parental Alienation Syndrome: Frye v Gardner in the Family Courts (Part 1, Part 2). By Jerome H. Poliacoff, Ph.D., P.A., Cynthia L. Greene, Esq., and Laura Smith, Esq:http://expertpages.com/news/parental_alienation_syndrome.htm
“Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know
Part 1 of 2″ By Erika Rivera Ragland & Hope Fields. American Prosecutors Research Institute, Update – Volume 16, Number 6, 2003:
http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003.html
“Update on Parental Alienation Syndrome” by Paul L. Feinstein, Esq.
http://www.divorcemag.com/IL/proforum/parental-alienation-syndrome.html