Showing posts with label children's rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children's rights. Show all posts

Friday, December 18, 2009

Brazil court supports US dad in son's custody case

Brazil court supports US dad in son's custody case


RIO DE JANEIRO — A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a 9-year-old boy living in Brazil should be returned to his American father, but the case will likely be appealed again, officials said. U.S Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton praised the decision.

A panel of three Brazilian judges ruled the boy must be handed over to his father, David Goldman, at the U.S. Consulate in Rio de Janeiro within 48 hours, said Ricardo Zamariola, Goldman's attorney.

"He's really happy but he is worried about any eventual future decision that could block the boy being handed over to him," said Zamariola, who added that he didn't expect a final resolution until at least the first half of next year.

Clinton thanked Brazil's government for assistance and said she was encouraged by the court's decision "that Sean Goldman, a young American boy wrongfully retained in Brazil for more than five years, should be reunited with his father David in New Jersey."

In a statement, she also said: "It is my hope that this long legal process is now complete and that the Goldman family will be reunited quickly. They will be in my thoughts and prayers today and throughout this holiday season."

Goldman's lengthy court battle to get custody of his son, Sean, has gained international attention as President Barack Obama, the U.S. Congress and Clinton have all weighed in, seeking the child's return.

The decision by the federal appeals court in Rio de Janeiro upheld a Brazilian federal judge's earlier ruling.

But Zamariola said he was certain lawyers for Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, the Brazilian stepfather with whom Sean is living, would appeal, perhaps to the Supreme Court.

Lins e Silva's attorney, Sergio Tostes, declined to comment.

Goldman was not present for the ruling Wednesday and didn't return a request for comment made to his U.S.-based attorney, Patricia Apy. Zamariola said he spoke with Goldman and that he was expected to arrive in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday morning.

The case began in 2004, when Goldman's wife, Bruna Bianchi, took then-4-year-old Sean to her native Brazil. Goldman says it was to be a two-week vacation.

But she stayed and so did the boy. She eventually was divorced there and remarried. Last year, she died giving birth to a daughter.

Goldman, who lives in Tinton Falls, New Jersey, had already been seeking his son's return under an international treaty that covers cross-border child abductions.

Bianchi's death generated more interest in the case, which has been discussed this year by top-level diplomats in Washington and the Brazilian capital, Brasilia. It also has been the subject of congressional hearings in the U.S. and has prompted protests in both countries.

Previous rulings favorable to Goldman have been scuttled by other Brazilian courts.

But U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, who has traveled to Brazil with Goldman and held congressional hearings on the issue, said he was optimistic Sean would soon be in the U.S.

"It's outstanding news," the New Jersey congressman said of Wednesday's ruling. "Even if there is an appeal, the order is to deliver Sean to the Embassy Friday."

Meanwhile, Sean's Brazilian maternal grandmother has said that Sean wants to stay in Rio. She has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking that the boy's statements be taken into consideration. A similar request from the Brazilian family was denied earlier this year. The child, who has dual citizenship, has been shielded from speaking directly to the news media.

Both Goldman, a former model who now has a fishing charter business, and members of Bianchi's family, including her second husband, have appeared on television talk shows to make their case.

Goldman and his son reunited in February for the first time since the child was taken to Brazil. They have not seen each other since June.

Associated Press Writers Alan Clendenning in Sao Paulo and Geoff Mulvihill in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

The Associated Press: Brazil court supports US dad in son's custody case.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

What children want most is a ban on divorce, says poll - Telegraph

A ban on divorce is what most children would introduce if they ruled the world, according to a poll.


By Alastair Jamieson
Published: 8:52PM GMT 14 Dec 2008

Marital splits were also named the second-worst thing in the world in the survey of under-10s, behind being fat.

The annual survey of 1,600 youngsters found X Factor judge Simon Cowell was more famous than God or Her Majesty the Queen and that the very best things in the world are 'good looks'.

Asked what rules they would make if they were king or queen of the world, most children replied they would ban divorce – the first time it has come at the top of the list.

Bullying would also be banned and has risen to the number two slot from number three last year and number five the year before.

Around two thirds of the children who took part said they were happy, but 27 per cent were not and a further seven per cent were unsure.

Over 80 per cent of the children questioned thought they would probably marry when they grow up although 17 per cent gave a definite "no" on the subject.

Sixty six per cent wanted to have children, with most of them stopping at one or two. Nearly one third were unsure about becoming parents.

Saturday remains the best day of the week for most, because there is no school and they can stay up late to watch television.

Nearly all of those surveyed had a best friend who was kind, but many said they were in love - the number two reason for having a best friend this year, rising from number five last year and seven the year before.

Being fat topped the list of worst things in the world, rising from number three last year. It was number nine in 2006, but was not featured in the 2005 list.

The nationwide research was carried out by Luton First, sponsors and organisers of the fourth annual National Kids' Day.

Patricia Murchie, of Luton First, said: "It seems clear that many pre-teens are more concerned than ever with their looks and weight - possibly reflecting media images of glamour, and new educational initiatives in nutrition and healthy eating."

She said: "This particular age group has some very clear ideas on how the world could be changed for the better, but are very rarely given the opportunity to express them."

What children want most is a ban on divorce, says poll - Telegraph.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Culture Wars - Why Is Government Destroying Families?

Why Is Government Destroying Families?

By Mike McManus
July 22, 2009

Frank Hatley was released from a Georgia jail after more than a year for failure to pay child support even though a DNA test nine years ago proved that he was not the father, reported columnist Phyllis Schlafly this week.

Judge Dane Perkins acknowledged in an August 21, 2001 court order, that Hatley was not the father, but ordered him to pay child support anyway. Although he was freed from making future payments in 2001, Judge Perkins forced Hatley to continue making payments on the $16,000 that he owed.

Why? Because a 1986 federal law prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged child support, even if a DNA test proved he was not the father. Also, when a man is sent to jail for five years, his child support arrearages continue to pile up while he is in prison, when he is incapable of paying.

This law, known as the Bradley Amendment (after then Sen. Bill Bradley), refuses to allow a person who owes back child support to declare bankruptcy, like GM was allowed to do, paying only a fraction of the debt it owed to bondholders.

The Bradley Amendment also forbids judicial consideration of a person's clear inability to pay. In Frank Hatley's case, he paid $6,000 he did not owe before being laid off from his job of unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers. Although he ended up living in his car, he made another $3,500 of payments from his Unemployment Insurance.

Neither Republican nor Democratic Administrations have proposed to repeal the patently unjust Bradley Amendment. Why? The $28 billion collected from largely non-resident fathers, reimbursed the government for $24 billion of its cost of welfare payments to mothers.

They are a source of revenue from an avaricious government, who views every father who falls behind as a "dead-beat dad."

Child support payments are reasonable. If a man fathers a child, he has an obligation to pay for it. And nine out of ten fathers are current in child support if they have joint custody, as are eight of ten with visitation rights.

Relatively few are deadbeat dads.

However, if DNA proves the man is not the father, not only should all child support payments cease, but any past debt should be waived, and past unjust payments should be returned.

A judge should have the freedom to decide whether a man is too poor to make back payments. Certainly, no one's child support arrearages should mount up if he is in prison.

Furthermore, if the parent without child custody is making child support payments, the parent deserves regular access to children. I know of one father who has only seen his child five times in a year. He went to court to get regular access, but lost.

The heavy hand of the law targets the presumed "deadbeat dad," but never lands on the deadbeat mom who refuses dad's access to his children. As Frank Hatley, 50, put it, "Out of it all, I just feel like justice should be served for me in this case," he told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution after his release. "I shouldn't have to keep being punished for a child that is not mine."

Admittedly, Hatley's case is extreme in that his DNA proved him innocent. However, it is not extreme that he was sent to jail for non-payment. Students of American history think debtors prison was abolished in America before slavery was abolished.

However, there are 30,000 to 50,000 fathers in jail for non-payment of child support, according to Mike McCormick, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

Dr. Michael Ross, an emergency room physician in Detroit who created the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan to fight for fairer laws, charges "The American dream has been aborted...Our laws and systems have been jerry-rigged to destroy our family lives in the name of individual freedom.

"It is time to proclaim the vision of our founders and reestablish mankind's biological institutions: marriage and parenting.

"Marriage is the answer for America and for the world."

He notes that only 44 percent of U.S. teenagers live with both married parents. The marriage rate has plunged 50 percent since 1970. Divorce has terminated 44 million marriages shattering the lives of 42 million children. Nearly 40 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock.

Why? Often government programs subsidize cohabitation, not marriage. No Fault Divorce laws reward the destruction of marriage, not its preservation. In four out of five divorces, one spouse wants to preserve the marriage, but is not given an equal voice in court to preserve it.

When will political leaders of either party fight unjust laws that are destroying marriage, and enact laws to restore it?

---Michael J. McManus is a syndicated columnist writing on "Ethics & Religion". He is President & Co-Chair of Marriage Savers. He lives with his wife in Potomac MD.

VirtueOnline - News - Culture Wars - Why Is Government Destroying Families?.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Parental Alienation Syndrome

What is Parental Alienation Syndrome?

By Cathy Meyer, About.com

Question: What is Parental Alienation Syndrome?
Answer:

Parental Alienation Syndrome is the deliberate attempt by one parent to distance his/her children from the other parent. The motivation is to destroy the parental bond between his/her children with the other parent. The alienation process develops over time and some of the symptoms of the syndrome include some or all of the following:

A parent will speak badly of or criticize the other parent directly to the child or children. Negative statements about the other parent may be direct or indirect.
  • For instance, the parent may say, “We can’t afford a new dress for the school dance because your father/mother decided to spend the money on vacation with their new friend.” A more direct comment would be, “your father/mother left because he/she didn’t care enough about you to try and make the marriage work.” Either statement is meant to cause the child to feel anger toward the other parent. It is an attempt to use the child to get back at the other parent for causing emotional pain.
  • A parent will speak badly of the other parent within the hearing range of the child or children. There are parents who say they would never say anything negative to their child or children about the other parent. They don’t seem to have any problem saying negative things to other people though and if their child or children happen to be within hearing distance the better. These people hold themselves up as a “good person.” They want to instill anger in their children toward the other parent without looking bad. It’s easy to say they had no idea the child was listening so they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. I like to say they are being very aggressive in a passive way.
  • A parent will make the child privy to the details of the divorce and the ongoing conflict between the parents. They discuss financial problems brought on by the divorce. Make the child aware of legal issues that are ongoing and make it appear that if it weren’t for dad or mom their life would be easier.Not only can this cause the child to feel anger toward the other parent it can also cause the child to feel responsible for your situation and want to take on responsibilities that are not theirs.
  • A parent will use body language to communicate their dislike of the other parent. The child may witness dad/mom roll their eyes or shake their head at something the other parent did or said. Such body language sends a negative message without a word being spoken. Children are smart and know that a roll of the eyes is a dismissive gesture. One clearly meant to send the message that the other parent is stupid or wrong in some way.
  • Refusing to be around the other parent or to co – parent with them sends the child a negative message also. Children may be told that their dad/mom is always angry and the other parent doesn’t want to be around the anger. The other parent might not be angry at all but, such accusations can cause a child to have unfounded hard feelings toward the other parent.
  • A parent may go as far as accusing the other parent of sexual, physical or emotional abuse. If you have, small children who are not yet able to communicate exactly what has happened such accusations can be very dangerous to the child/parent relationship. They may also have severe legal consequences. If a child is too small to talk and communicate what happened you should insist on a medical examination and an evaluation by a psychiatrist is you suspect abuse. If the child is old enough to speak for themselves and communicates to you that they have been abused then it is your responsibility to help them hold the other parent responsible.

Children who have to live with the unresovled conflict and anger of their parents suffer tremendously. Add to the normal stress of separation and divorce the feeling that the child should choose between the parents and you can cause damage that lasts a lifetime. A child is powerless when it comes to ending the conflict he/she is witnessing. They may feel that if they make a choice it will lessen the conflict they have to live with. One parent can cost their child the other parent and their only motivation is revenge, fear, anger or jealousy. It’s a terrible price for children to have to pay in an attempt to assuage a parent’s feelings.

It is imperative that parents be willing to parent cooperatively, that they put their child’s needs first and that their only concern is their child’s sense of security.


Sunday, June 14, 2009

Anti-Parental Rights Bill on Texas Governor's Desk - We Need Your Help to Veto It !!

by Erin Casssity

Call Gov. Rick Perry to VETO SB 1440 - it is an Attack on your Parental Rights!
Your phone calls and emails are working. Keep calling until he vetoes it!

Call Gov. Perry at 512-463-2000 and voice your opposition to SB 1440.

You can also call the Texas Citizen's Opinion Line at 800-252-9600.

You can email your views at morgan.johnson@governor.state.tx.us .

Another effective thing to do is to call your state rep or state senator and ask them to call upon Gov. Perry to VETO SB 1440.

Texas state reps: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=H .

Texas state senators: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=S

from Robert Morrow 512-306-1510 grassroots political activist

A wide variety of groups oppose SB 1440. These groups include conservative, libertarian and yes, even some liberal child advocacy groups such as the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, NCCPR: http://nccpr.blogspot.com/2009/06/texas-tries-to-legalize-flds-type-raids.html

In addition to the NCCPR, other activist groups who OPPOSE SB 1440 and are asking Gov. Perry to VETO this attack on parental rights and threat to the well being of children are listed below. The critical problem with SB 1440 is that it would do away with a COURT HEARING for parents and their lawyers before CPS runs roughshod through your life. Many CPS complaints are false, bogus, exaggerated, and sometimes even malicious complaints by neighbors. Oftentimes, these are anonymous complaints as well.

A CPS investigation can be extremely traumatic not just parents but CHILDREN as well. It is critical that parents and/or their lawyers have the chance to appear before a judge to tell their side of the story BEFORE CPS has access to your child, removes your child for an interview, does naked strip searches of your child, snoops around your home or seizes your child's medical and school records.

SB 1440 would do away with the parents' side being heard before a judge; instead it would institutionalize EX PARTE hearings with only CPS present before a judge, in essence turning these hearings into rubber stamping affairs for CPS. THIS THREATENS PARENTS, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. UNNECESSARY CPS INVESTIGATIONS ARE OFTEN EXTREMELY TRAUMATIC FOR FAMILIES!

Groups that OPPOSE SB 1440 and who are asking Gov. Rick Perry to VETO SB 1440:

TEXAS HOME SCHOOL COALITION -- TIM LAMBERT
EAGLE FORUM - CATHIE ADAMS, BRIAN RUSSELL
FREE MARKET FOUNDATION - KELLY SHACKLEFORD, JONATHON SAENZ
PARENT GUIDANCE CENTER - JOHANNA SCOT
TEXANS FOR ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT - CHUCK YOUNG, KATIE BREWER
TEXAS CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY - DEBRA MEDINA
NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM
LIBERTARIAN PARTY - ROBERT BUTLER
CONSTITUTION PARTY
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS - PIERRE DEROCHEMONT, DON ZIMMERMAN
TRAVIS COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY CHAIR - ROSEMARY EDWARDS
CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
PAUL D. PERRY - BUSINESSMAN AND MEDIATOR
ROBERT MORROW - GRASSROOTS ACTIVIST

(The above list is not all inclusive)

Links to learn more:

1) Tim Lambert's blog gives a super explanation: http://www.rightintexas.com/

2) Parent Guidance Center: http://www.parentguidancecenter.org/web/ (excellent web page)

3) NCCPR Child Welfare Blog: http://nccpr.blogspot.com/2009/06/texas-tries-to-legalize-flds-type-raids.html

SB 1064 by Senator Kirk Watson was filed early in the session, and it sought to allow CPS, in the course of an investigation of abuse or neglect, to get the medical or mental health records of children who are the focus of an investigation. In order for CPS to accomplish this, the person refusing to give the records and parents must be given notice and a court hearing and CPS must show "good cause" for the action before the court would order the release of said records to CPS.

However, the bill was substituted in committee for a very different SB 1064, which was passed out of the Senate and sent to the House. The new SB 1064 gave the court authority to force parents to give CPS access to the child and/or transport the child for "interview, examination and investigation," without a court hearing or notice to the parent. Worst of all, the language in the current statute that requires CPS to prove "good cause shown" was stricken. Thus this bill would allow CPS, during an investigation in which the parents would not waive their 4th amendment rights, entrance into their home, access to medical or mental health records of their children or transportation of the child, on the simple filing of an affidavit by a CPS worker with no hearing or opportunity for the parents or their legal counsel to present their case.

The reason that the committee substitute was not filed as the original bill is clear. It would have caused a firestorm of opposition for the wholesale destruction of parental rights in the course of an investigation of child abuse by CPS. When the bill was scheduled for a hearing in the House Human Services Committee, officials of the Parent Guidance Center - a pro-parent group that helps families who are under investigation by CPS - presented written testimony and signed witness cards in opposition to the bill. Strangely, that testimony and those witness cards were not entered into the record of the hearing on the bill.

On the last day of the session, Representative Patrick Rose, chairman of the House Human Services Committee, offered a floor amendment to SB 1440 (another bill by Watson), which was on the Local and Consent Calendar. The amendment offered by Rose was the language of committee substitute SB 1064, and since SB 1440 was considered non-controversial and the sponsor of the bill (Rose) agreed to the amendment, it was adopted on a voice vote, and the final language of SB 1440 includes the committee substitute language of SB 1064.

This whole sordid story is an example of how legislation that could never pass a public debate and vote in the Texas legislature can become law. I'm sure the intent of those seeking these changes is to protect children from abuse, but to allow this simply because it makes the process go faster is a gross abuse of parents' rights to protect their children. We hear stories on a regular basis of out of control CPS officials who regularly seek court orders without notice to parents who refuse to open their door and give CPS full access to their children. In fact, a story this week in Corpus Christi explains how a CPS worker made a false allegation of abuse for vindictive reasons. This bill, if it becomes law, will lead to abuse of innocent parents who are dealing with false accusations and simply seeking to protect their children.

SB 1064 - http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB01064I.htm

Austin American Statesman blog:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/2009/06/11/0611cps.html

Friday, June 5, 2009

Severe Sociopath Behavior Leads to Parental Alienation

Sometimes I wonder why such dysfunctional adults can be allowed to make decisions regarding children, but the secret to success for those who are parental abusers, (also known as "alienating parents") is their appearance of being absolutely normal on the surface. However, bubbling below the surface and now quite so well hidden is their true psychological profile, which psychological testing reveals. Oftentimes they call themselves "protective parents" or "survivors" or "battered" and viciously blame the courts for turning children over to "abusers." But when asked why the "abusive" parent is not in jail, the sociopath quickly describes "payoffs", "bribes" and "court corruption" with "collusion" thrown in to save the "abuser" and to "ignore" the evidence.

Parental alienators will deliberately make up falsehoods, deceive, delay, and play the "victim" in custody proceedings and do so with a sly and manipulative cunning that is best described as sociopath behavior. Like Hitler and the Nazis, these sick individuals enjoy controlling others and "winning," and creating an environment of hostility and bitterness. Although outwardly they may be seen as successful, charming and winning in the careers, "these ordinary people who have no conscience--no capacity to feel shame, guilt, or remorse--can do absolutely anything to other people without ever feeling guilty . . . These sociopaths learn early on to show sham emotion, but underneath they are cold as a snake and live to dominate and win." from "The Sociopath Next Door" by Dr. Martha Stout. Dr. Stout estimates that 4% of our population can be described as sociopaths. And, she says that may be a conservative estimate.

Which means between 16 to 40 million Americans are seriously ill and can be classified Sociopaths..

I am reprinting Dr. Richard A. Garnder article here, which partially describes some of the sociopathic behavior of Parental Alienators. The complete original article can be found here: http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gard02e.htm

by Richard A. Gardner. M.D.
Department of Child Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons
Columbia University, New York, New York, USA


Child custody evaluators commonly find themselves confronted with resistance when they attempt to use the term parental alienation syndrome (PAS) in courts of law. Although convinced that the patient being evaluated suffers with the disorder, they often find that the attorneys who represent alienated parents, although agreeing with the diagnosis, will discourage use of the term in the evaluators’ reports and testimony. Most often, they will request that the evaluator merely use the term parental alienation (PA). On occasion they will ask whether other DSM-IV diagnoses may be applicable. The purpose of this article is to elucidate the reasons for the reluctance to use the PAS diagnosis and the applicability of PA as well as current DSM-IV substitute diagnoses.



Diagnoses Applicable to Alienating Parents



297.71 Delusional Disorder



1. Nonbizarre delusions (i.e., involving situations that occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, infected, loved at a distance, or deceived by spouse or lover, or having a disease) of at least 1 month’s duration.

Of the various subtypes of delusional disorder, the one that is most applicable to the PAS:

Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way

This diagnosis is generally applicable to the PAS indoctrinator who may initially recognize that the complaints about the behavior of the alienated parent are conscious and deliberate fabrications. However, over time, the fabrications may become delusions, actually believed by the programming parent. And the same process may ultimately be applicable to the child. Specifically, at first the child may recognize that the professions of hatred are feigned and serve to ingratiate the child to the programmer. However, over time the child may come to actually believe what were originally conscious and deliberate fabrications. When that point is reached the delusional disorder diagnosis is applicable to the child. Generally, this diagnosis is applicable to relentless programmers who are obsessed with their hatred of the victim parent, by which time the child will have probably entered the severe level of PAS. It is to be noted that when the PAS is present, most often one observes a circumscribed delusional system, confined almost exclusively to the alienated parent. This diagnosis may also be applicable to the PAS child, especially the child who is in the severe category.

301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder



1. A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

1. suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her

2. is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates

3. is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her

4. reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events

5. persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights

6. perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack

7. has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner

PAS programmers who warrant this diagnosis would often satisfy these criteria before the marital separation. A detailed history from the victim parent as well as collaterals may be important because the programming parent is not likely to directly reveal such symptoms. They may, however, reveal them in the course of the evaluation, because they are such deep-seated traits, and are so deeply embedded in their personality structure, that they cannot be hidden. Most people involved in protracted child-custody litigation become "a little paranoid," and this is often revealed by elevations on the paranoid scale of the MMPI. After all, there are indeed people who are speaking behind the patient’s back, are plotting against them, and are developing schemes and strategies with opposing lawyers. This reality results in an elevation of the paranoid scale in people who would not have manifested such elevations prior to the onset of the litigation. We see here how adversarial proceedings intensify psychopathology in general (Gardner, 1986), and in this case, paranoid psychopathology especially. The PAS child is less likely to warrant this diagnosis. When the severe level is reached PAS children may warrant the aforementioned Shared Psychotic Disorder diagnosis. On occasion, the diagnosis Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type (295.30) is warranted for the programming parent, but such patients generally exhibited other manifestations of schizophrenia, especially prior to the separation. It goes beyond the purposes of this paper to detail the marital symptoms of schizophrenia which should be investigated if the examiner has reason to believe that this diagnosis may be applicable.

It is important for the examiner to appreciate that there is a continuum from delusional disorder, to paranoid personality disorder, to paranoid schizophrenia. Furthermore, in the course of protracted litigation, a patient may move along the track from the milder to a more severe disorder on this continuum.

301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)



A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.
Note:Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

2. a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation

3. identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self

4. impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating).
Note Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.

5. recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior

6. affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g. intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)

7. chronic feelings of emptiness

8. inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)

9. transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms

Some alienators may exhibit some of these symptoms prior to the separation. However, as a result of the stresses of the separation, the symptoms may progress to the point where the diagnosis is applicable. Criterion (1) is likely to be exhibited soon after the separation because the marital dissolution is generally associated with real feelings of abandonment. Criterion (2) is often seen when there is a dramatic shift from idealization of the spouse to extreme devaluation. The campaign of denigration is the best example of this manifestation of BPD.

Criterion (4) may manifest itself by excessive spending, especially when such spending causes significant stress and grief to the alienated parent. Following the separation, alienating parents may satisfy Criterion (6) with affect instability, irritability, and intense episodic dysphoria. Although such reactions are common among most people involved in a divorce, especially when litigating the divorce, patients with BPD exhibit these symptoms to an even greater degree. Chronic feelings of emptiness (Criterion [7]) go beyond those that are generally felt by people following a separation. Criterion (8) is extremely common among PAS programmers. The tirades of anger against the alienated parent serve as a model for the child and contribute to the development of the campaign of denigration. The stress-related paranoia, an intensification of the usual suspiciousness exhibited by people involved in litigation, may reach the point that Criterion (9) is satisfied.

The examiner should note which of the symptoms are present and comment: "Five criteria need to be satisfied for the BPD diagnosis. Ms. X satisfies four. Although she does not qualify for the diagnosis at this point, she is at high risk for its development. Furthermore, when one lists diagnoses at the end of the report one might note the DSM-IV diagnosis and add in parenthesis "incipient."

301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder



A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. requires excessive admiration

5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

My experience has been that most PAS indoctrinators do not satisfy enough criteria (five) to warrant this diagnosis. However, many do exhibit three or four of them, which is worthy of the examiner’s attention and should be noted in the report.

Criterion (5) is especially common in PAS indoctrinators. They act as if court orders have absolutely nothing to do with them, even though their names may be specifically spelled out in the ruling. Unfortunately, they often violate these orders with impunity because courts are typically lax with regard to implementing punitive measures for PAS contemnors. As mentioned in other publications of mine (Gardner, 1998; 2001), the failure of courts to take action against PAS programmers is one of the most common reasons why the symptoms become entrenched in the children.

Criterion (6) is often frequently satisfied by the programmer’s ongoing attempts to extract ever more money from the victim parent, but feels little need to allow access to the children. There is no sense of shame or guilt over this common form of exploitation. The programmer’s lack of empathy and sympathy for the victim parent is quite common and easily satisfies Criterion (7). The PAS, by definition, is a disorder in which a programmer tries to destroy the bond between the children and a good, loving parent. In order to accomplish the goal, the alienator must have a serious deficiency in the ability to empathize with the target parent. Criterion (9) is often seen in that PAS indoctrinators are often haughty and arrogant and this symptom goes along with their sense of entitlement. Again, if warranted, the diagnosis can be listed as "incipient."

DSM-IV Diagnoses Applicable to PAS Children



312.8 Conduct Disorder



1. A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated, as manifested by the presence of three (or more) of the following criteria in the past 12 months, with at least one criterion present in the past 6 months:

This diagnosis is often applicable to the PAS child, especially in situations when the conduct disturbances are the most salient manifestation. Under such circumstances, an examiner who is not familiar with the PAS may erroneously conclude that this is the only diagnosis. Such a conclusion necessitates selective inattention to the programming process, which is the hallmark of the PAS. Once again, we see here how a diagnosis, although in DSM-IV, cannot be used as a substitute for the PAS, but may be used as an additional diagnosis. I will not list here all 15 of the DSM-IV criteria, but only those that are most applicable to the PAS:

Aggression to people and animals

1. often bullies, threatens, or intimidates others

2. often initiates physical fights

3. has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, gun)

4. has been physically cruel to animals

5. has stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, armed robbery)

Destruction of property

6. has deliberately engaged in fire setting with the intention of causing serious damage

7. has deliberately destroyed others’ property (other than by fire setting)

Deceitfulness or theft

8. often lies to obtain goods or favors or to avoid obligations (i.e., "cons" others)

9. has stolen items of nontrivial value without confronting a victim (e.g., shoplifting, but without breaking and entering; forgery)

Serious violations of rules

10. has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in parental or parental surrogate home (or once without returning for a lengthy period

As can be seen, most of the 15 criteria for the conduct disorder diagnosis can be satisfied by PAS children, especially those in the severe category. The target parent is very much scapegoated and victimized by PAS children. In severe cases they are screamed at, intimidated, and sometimes physically assaulted with objects such as bats, bottles, and knives. The child may perpetrate acts of sabotage in the home of the victim parent. Destruction of property in that person’s home is common and, on rare occasion, even fire setting. Deceitfulness is common, especially fabrications facilitated and supported by the alienator. Stealing things, such as legal documents and important records, and bringing them to the home of the alienator is common. Running away from the home of the target parent and returning to the home of the alienator is common, especially in moderate and severe cases.

309.21 Separation Anxiety Disorder



1. Developmentally inappropriate and excessive anxiety concerning separation from home or from those to whom the individual is attached, as evidenced by three (or more) of the following:

I reproduce here those of the eight criteria that are applicable to the PAS:

1) recurrent excessive distress when separation from home or major attachment figures occurs or is anticipated

4) persistent reluctance or refusal to go to school or elsewhere because of fear of separation

3) repeated complaints of physical symptoms (such as headaches, stomachaches, nausea, or vomiting) when separation from major attachment figures occurs or is anticipated

It is important for the reader to appreciate that the original diagnosis for separation anxiety disorder was school phobia. The term separation anxiety disorder is a relatively recent development emerging from the recognition that the child’s fear was less that of the school per se and much more related to the fear of separation from a parent, commonly an overprotective mother (Gardner, 1985b). DSM-IV recognizes this and doesn’t necessarily require the school to be the object of fear, but rather separation from the home, especially from someone with whom the child is pathologically attached.

It is important to note that the PAS child’s hatred of the victim parent has less to do with actual dislike of that parent and has much more to do with fear that if affection is displayed toward the target parent, the alienating parent will be angry at and rejecting of the child. At the prospect of going with the victim parent, the child may exhibit a wide variety of psychosomatic symptoms, all manifestations of the tension associated with the visit. The distress may be especially apparent when the alienating parent is at the site of the transfer. The child recognizes that expression of willingness or happiness to go off with the alienated parent might result in rejection by the alienator. The separation anxiety disorder diagnosis is most often applicable to the mild and moderate cases of PAS. In the severe cases, the anxiety element is less operative than the anger element.

When applying these criteria to the PAS child, one does well to substitute the PAS indoctrinating parent for the parent with whom the child is pathologically attached. At the same time one should substitute the alienated parent for the school or other place outside the child’s home. When one does this, one can see how most of the aforementioned criteria apply. When the child with a separation anxiety disorder is fearful of leaving the home to go to many destinations, the school is the destination the child most fears. It is there that the child feels imprisoned. In contrast, PAS children generally fear only the target parent and are not afraid to leave the programming parent and go elsewhere, such as to the homes of friends and relatives. In short, the PAS child’s fear is focused on the alienated parent. In contrast, the child with a separation anxiety disorder has fears that focus on school but which have spread to many other situations and destinations.

300.15 Dissociative Disorder


Not Otherwise Specified

This category is included for disorders in which the predominant feature is a dissociative symptom (i.e., a disruption in the usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, or perception of the environment) that does not meet the criteria for any specific Dissociative Disorder. Examples include:

States of dissociation that occur in individuals who have been subjected to periods of prolonged and coercive persuasion (e.g., brainwashing, thought reform, or indoctrination while captive).

Of the four categories of dissociative disorder (NOS), only Category 3 is applicable to the PAS. This criterion was designed for people who have been subjected to cult indoctrinations or for military prisoners subjected to brainwashing designed to convert their loyalty from their homeland to the enemy that has imprisoned them. It is very applicable to PAS children, especially those in the severe category.

Such children have been programmed to convert their loyalty from a loving parent to the brainwashing parent exclusively. Cult victims and those subjected to prisoner indoctrinations often appear to be in a trance-like state in which they profess their indoctrinations in litany-like fashion. PAS children as well (especially those in the severe category) are often like robots or automatons in the way in which they profess the campaign of denigration in litany-like fashion. They seem to be in an altered state of consciousness when doing so.

Adjustment Disorders



The following subtypes of adjustment disorders are sometimes applicable to PAS children:

309.0 With Depressed Mood.

309.24 With Anxiety.

309.28 With Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood.

309.3 With Disturbance of Conduct.

309.4 With Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct

Each of these types of adjustment disorders may be applicable to the PAS child. The child is indeed adjusting to a situation in which one parent is trying to convince the youngster that a previously loving, dedicated, and loyal parent has really been noxious, loathsome, and dangerous. The programmed data does not seem to coincide with what the child has experienced. This produces confusion. The child fears that any expression of affection for the target parent will result in rejection by the alienator. Under such circumstances, the child may respond with anxiety, depression, and disturbances of conduct.

313.9 Disorder of Infancy, Childhood or Adolescence Not Otherwise Specified


This category is a residual category for disorders with onset in infancy, childhood, or adolescence that do not meet criteria for any specific order in the Classification.

This would be a "last resort" diagnosis for the PAS child, the child who, although suffering with a PAS, does not have symptoms that warrant other DSM-IV childhood diagnoses. However, if one still feels the need to use a DSM-IV diagnosis, especially if the report will be compromised without one, then this last-resort diagnosis can justifiably be utilized. However, it is so vague that it says absolutely nothing other than that the person who is suffering with this disorder is a child. I do not recommend its utilization because of its weakness and because it provides practically no new information to the court.

The complete original article can be found here: http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/gard02e.htm

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Non Custodial Moms Face Same Problems As Dad







If you can't view the video, go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evnjRYPEOpU

I found this interesting, especially the part about her father being classified as "Absent Parent" although he lived next door to her daughter. Also I did not know that 9 of 10 parents with custody, leave the state? What kind of parent would take a child away from the other parent, and then move 100s, sometimes thousands of miles away?

Not a very good one, I think....