Video: Barry Goldstein on child custody
http://site.nomas.org/barry-goldstein-child-custody-interview/
These exposes could explain why reports of sexual abuse fall on deaf ears.
http://aangirfan.blogspot.nl/2013/05/demi-and-nirvana-child-abuse-ring.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIxtpgEqdAc&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TcDTJlPWbE&feature=player_embedded
Petition against Montana judge that gave rapist a hand slap of 30 days in jail
Cherice Moralez
was just 14 when her teacher repeatedly raped her. But Billings, Montana
Judge G. Todd Baugh sent her rapist to prison for just 30 days, saying
the victim was "as much in control of the situation" as her rapist and
that she was "older than her chronological age." THIS is rape culture at
its worst: When our courts can let a man who raped a child go free
after just days in jail and then blame the child for her own rape. If
tens of thousands of us from all over the country join with local
protesters and speak out, we can make sure that authorities disrobe
Judge Baugh so he can never let a rapist off the hook again. Can you
sign the petition?
http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/montana_judge_sp/?akid=588.448393.34ss8p&rd=1&t=3
Good news! The website
www.distinctioninfamilycourts.org is back up.
Distinction in
Family Courts, an online public forum, which gives people who have had
personal experience in Family Court, an opportunity to rate the players
in their case, is pleased to announce it has just published a new
edition of national grades. Check out who got the F's and A's! And if
you haven't filled out a questionnaire yourself, please do your part for
those first-timers in your community who may be looking to the site for
guidance. Please note that we are now more appropriately a .org.
Here is other useful websites.
http://familycourtinamerica.org
http://ncmbts.blogspot.com/2013/06/court-licensed-abuse-our-family-courts.html
http://www.lovefraud.com/2013/05/13/heartbreak-heroism-dealing-child-abuse/
http://www.scodv.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYP9JShyXAc
Going on the offense! Little cat versus a pack of crocodiles
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Duqvb-IRv9c
This federal lawsuit is by a primarily men's group, but is well worth reading
http://www.thepubliccourt.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CCFC-V.-SDCBA-VERIFIED-COMPLAINT-AND-COVER-SHEET-FOR-FILING-signed-redacted_Redacted.pdf
Map of child predators starring Elizabeth Smart
http://www.notonemorechild.org/
In case someone in your case has been handing out your medical information, here is a complaint form
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/complaints/hipcomplaintform.pdf
Amazing opportunity in New York and template for other states to follow:
Opportunity to Testify against New York's Corrupt Judiciary
On July 2nd,
Governor Cuomo created a commission with extraordinary powers to
investigate public corruption, to recommend changes in the law, and to
refer those who corrupt government for criminal prosecution.
The Commission's
first round of hearings are in September. They are an important
opportunity for victims of New York state judicial corruption and other
lawlessness of New York state government to present their evidence.
Indeed, by doing so publicly, at hearings, we make it harder for the
Commission to engage in the usual cover-up.
The first public
hearing is on Tuesday, September 17th in lower Manhattan. The second
public hearing is on Wednesday, September 18th, in Buffalo. The third
public hearing is on Tuesday, September 24th, outside of Albany. All
three hearings start at 6 p.m. Doors open at 5 p.m.
Here is the link to the Commission's website - from which you can read the Commission's press release about the hearings:
http://www.publiccorruption.moreland.ny.gov/ .
Although no advance registration appears to be required, we suggest you
telephone and e-mail the Commission if you desire to testify and that
you request that the Commission confirm that you will be reserved as a
witness.
To ensure that the
Commission - which is called "Commission to Investigate Public
Corruption" -- is true to its name and announced purpose, our
nonpartisan, nonprofit citizens' organization, Center for Judicial
Accountability, Inc. (CJA), has been working hard. Here's the link to
our webpage on the issue,
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/judicial-compensation/commission-on-public-corruption.htm, featuring our August 5, 2013 letter to the Commission, to which we have received no response.
This includes to our questions about the September hearings.
I invite you to
call me so that I can guide you as to how to be most effective in your
presentations to the Commission, whether at the hearings or by written
submissions.
Specifically, you
should focus on the worthlessness of purported safeguards, these being,
for example, reargument motions, motions to vacate for fraud, motions
to disqualify and for disclosure, requests for oversight by supervisory
judges, Article 78 proceedings, appeals, federal lawsuits, complaints to
the Commission on Judicial Conduct and attorney disciplinary bodies,
complaints to the Chief Judge, Chief Administrative Judge, and to the
Inspector General of the Unified Court System, complaints to the
Attorney General and his "Public Integrity Bureau", complaints to
district attorneys and to U.S. Attorneys and the FBI, etc., complaints
to other public officers - most importantly, to state legislators and
state legislative committees, as, for instance, the Assembly and Senate
Judiciary Committees - entreaties to the press, to academia, to bar
associations, etc.
To ensure that
there is public record of what members of the public are furnishing the
Commission for investigation, I urge you to provide us with copies of
your written communications to it so that we can post them on our
website, for examination by the press, scholars, and others able to
"blow the whistle" on a Commission cover-up.
Such webpage will
be similar to that which we created, back in 2009, for witnesses who
testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee's June 8, 2009 and September
24, 2009 hearings on the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the
court-controlled attorney disciplinary system. Here's the link to that
webpage:
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/judicial-discipline/nys/nys-sjc-hearing.htm.
We also created a webpage for witnesses testifying on July 20, 2011
before the Commission on Judicial Compensation. Here's the link so that
you can see it:
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/judicial-compensation/7-20-11-commission-hearing.htm
Finally, in the
event that you have not kept up with CJA's unrelenting advocacy over
these many years, building on what took place at the 2009 Senate
Judiciary Committee hearings and at the 2011 hearing of the Commission
on Judicial Compensation, you can examine it from the hyperlinks on our
"Latest News" webpage, accessible from our website's top panel. Here's
the direct link:
http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/cja/latest-news.htm.
Elena Sassower, Director, Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc. (CJA), 914-455-4373
MORE ARTICLES AND VIDEOS
Domestic Violence and Family Law: Recognition and Appropriation
Molly Dragiewicz, Queensland University of Technology Conference Sub-theme: Gender, Sexuality and Justice
Abstract
The battered women's
movement in the United States contributed to a sweeping change in the
recognition of men's violence against female intimate partners. Naming
the problem and arguing in favour of its identification as a serious
problem meriting a collective response were key aspects of this effort.
Criminal and civil laws have been written and revised in an effort to
answer calls to take such violence seriously. Scholars have devoted
significant attention to the consequences of this reframing of violence,
especially around the unintended outcomes of the incorporation of
domestic violence into criminal justice regimes. Family law, however,
has remained largely unexamined by criminologists. This paper calls for
criminological attention to family law responses to domestic violence
and provides directions for future research.
http://crimejusticeconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Conference-Proceedings-Vol-1_2013.pdf
Quenby Wilcox newsletter
www.worldpulse.com/user/2759/journal.
FAMILY COURTS IN CRISIS
NEWSLETTER
August 2013
Children's Rights are Human Rights
There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.
Nelson Mandela
If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war,
we shall have to begin with the children. Mahatma Gandhi
Letter to My Mother
For a long time, we have been the lepers that mar the Ball, we captives are not a politically correct topic...
We must think of
where we come from, who we are, and where we want to go. I aspire to our
having that thirst for greatness one day that makes people rise up from
nothingness to the sun. When we are unconditional vis-a-vis the defense
of the life and liberty of our own, that is, when we are less
individualistic and more committed to the common good, less indifferent
and more involved, less intolerant and more compassionate, then at that
time we will be the great [world] that all of us would like to be.
That greatness is
there asleep in our hearts. But hearts have hardened and weigh so
heavily that no elevated sentiments are permitted...
The wars waged
against the freedom of a handful of forgotten ones are like a hurricane
seeking to bring down everything. It is of no interest. His
intelligence, his nobility, and his devotion have given pause to many,
and here, more than the freedom of some poor crackpots chained up in the
jungle, it is a matter of taking stock of what it means to defend human
dignity.
by Ingrid Betancourt 2
Combating Failures of Family Courts: Defending Human Dignity
***********
Domestic Violence Abuse and Child Custody by
Dr. Mo Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein Domestic Violence, Abuse
and Child Custody is a multi-disciplinary book co-edited by Dr. Mo
Therese Hannah and Barry Goldstein which was published in 2010. It
contains chapters by over 25 of the leading domestic violence custody
experts from the United States and Canada including judges, lawyers,
psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic
violence advocates. The book brings together all of the most important
research about custody and domestic violence in one place so that
professionals and protective mothers can find the information they
need. This is especially helpful in supporting domestic violence custody
cases.
The book
demonstrates that there is a serious problem with the way custody courts
respond to domestic violence. The courts are getting a large majority
of these cases wrong and often catastrophically so. One of the big
problems is that courts first developed practices to respond to
domestic violence at a time when no research was available. At the
time there was a popular assumption that domestic violence
|
was caused by
mental illness, substance abuse and the actions of the victim. This led
courts to rely on mental health professionals as if they were the
experts. We now have substantial research that demonstrates these
assumptions were wrong and the standard practices are outdated and
discredited. Evaluators routinely use psychological tests that were
not made for the populations seen in Family Courts and are based on
probability assumptions that often don't apply to the individual
parties.
This often
results in safe, protective mothers being pathologized. The problem is
exacerbated by a cottage industry of psychologists and lawyers who
recognize that most contested custody are domestic violence cases and
the abuser usually controls the family finances. This means the best
way to make large incomes is to support approaches that favor abusers.
Courts routinely treat these biased professionals as if they were
neutral. Even worse many courts learn misinformation from the cottage
industry and repeat it in other cases. Although there is now a
substantial body of scientific research that could inform decisions
and better protect children, few courts have started looking to this
research in order to improve their response to domestic violence. In
many cases court professionals discredit true allegations of abuse
based on information that is not probative and then fail to look for
the patterns of coercive and controlling behaviors that would help
them recognize domestic violence. In many of the worst cases the
courts use bad practices to deny true allegations of abuse and then
punish mothers for trying to protect their children from dangerous
abusers. This book provides the information necessary to challenge
these faulty practices.
|
http://barrygoldstein.net/books/domestic-violence-abuse-and-child-custody
|
http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-official-rejection-of-pas-matters.html
Why the Official Rejection of PAS Matters
by Barry Goldstein
There have
been a lot of stories recently about the release of the DSM-V
(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) which contains
all of the officially recognized mental health diagnoses. The "fathers'
rights" groups that were created to support male supremacy and the
cottage industry of lawyers and mental health professionals that make
their living supporting abusive fathers aggressively lobbied the
American Psychiatric Association to pressure them to include PAS in
their new DSM. Their demands were denied or should I say again denied
for a very important reason. There is no valid scientific research that
would support or justify the use of PAS.
On the surface, not
much has changed in that PAS was rejected for the DSM-IV and is also
missing from the DSM-V. Nevertheless, I believe this latest rejection
has very important implications. There has now been a substantial period
of time since Richard Gardner concocted PAS and self-published numerous
books promoting it as part of his business. Many courts have been
manipulated into allowing the use of PAS despite the lack of scientific
basis. Many other professionals have sought to use PAS as a way that
they can support their abuser clients. We have seen the enormous harm
the use of this unscientific theory has done to children. The earlier
rejection could have been chalked up to the relative newness of PAS and
lack of a chance to determine its validity. I would not support that
assumption as it never had any valid basis and was really the product of
circular reasoning and bias. Now that all this time has passed, and the
proponents have had the opportunity to make whatever case they have,
the rejection of PAS by the official professional organization that
oversees mental health issues should be devastating to any attempt to
continue relying on PAS.
No doubt those trying to preserve
this vital tool for helping abusers maintain control over their victims
will seek to minimize the importance of the latest rejection. Some have
even sought to claim that PAS is supported by the DSM-V even though this
is obviously a lie. One of the problems we have seen in custody courts
is that court professionals do not closely follow current scientific
research and developments so it is important for those who seek to
prevent the abuse of children make the courts aware of this important
development.
Regardless of the Nomenclature When Is it PAS?
PAS has quite properly received substantial criticism and many official
professional organizations have condemned its use because it has no
scientific basis and is commonly used to hurt children. This has led
proponents to call it by other names in an attempt to avoid its
notoriety. Many judges who would not admit evidence of PAS routinely
accept claims of parental alienation or alienation without considering
the basis of these allegations.
Regardless of the term used,
if it is used to discredit or avoid investigation of domestic violence
or child abuse allegations, it is in fact PAS. If it is used to justify
the kind of extreme outcomes referred to by Dr. Daniel Saunders as
"harmful outcomes," in which the alleged abuser received custody and the
safe, protective mothers who is the primary attachment figure is
limited to supervised or no visitation, it is in fact PAS. If it is used
to suggest that the child's hostility or fear of a parent can only be
explained by the mother's alienating behavior, it is in fact PAS.
Fundamental to PAS is the assumption that most allegations of domestic
violence and child abuse are false. This is the justification to avoid
an investigation of the allegations and instead assume they are false. In reality, less than 2% of abuse allegations made by mothers are deliberately false.
The Saunders' study found that inadequately trained professionals tend
to believe the myth that mothers often make false allegations and
believe unscientific alienation theories. Significantly this
misinformation leads to recommendations and outcomes that hurt children.
Accordingly when professionals rely on this type of misinformation they
are being influenced and really biased by PAS.
I have heard
many judges and other court professionals ask someone who seeks to
challenge PAS if they would admit that parents sometimes alienate
children. Certainly, even in intact families parents make negative
statements about the other parent. This can be even more personal and
offensive when the parents are separated. This is a topic that needs
clarity of thought and PAS encourages just the opposite. If this topic
has any validity in the context of custody disputes, it must be limited
to its impact on children. Furthermore the impact must be based on
scientific research rather than speculation and assumption which is all
that PAS provides.
In one notorious case, the mother was
criticized for "alienating the children" because she told them that they
should eat healthy foods, dress appropriately for the weather and avoid
adult oriented television programs. This is really good advice that any
caring parent would be expected to provide their children. It was
treated as if it was alienation because the father engaged in all of
these harmful parenting practices so the good advice was considered
critical of the father. Alienation is frequently applied in a gender
biased manner and this case provided a good example. When the court
suddenly removed the children from their mother and gave the abusive
father custody, he told them that they would no longer see their mother
because she moved to another city. This lie came out during a supervised
visitation. This was a statement that greatly upset the children and
caused tremendous harm but the biased judge had no concerns about
genuine alienating behavior.
In many cases the mother's
alienating behavior involves her discussion of the father's abuse that
the children had witnessed. It is important for children to know that
this kind of behavior is not acceptable in our society. It is also
important for children's reality to be supported which would be
undermined if what they witnessed was denied. Nevertheless many court
professionals treat anything critical of the father as if it were
alienation.
When we discuss issues like domestic violence and
child sexual abuse there is substantial scientific research of the
enormous lifetime harm that these heinous behaviors cause to children.
It is this enormous harmful impact on children that ought to require
courts to take these allegations seriously. Although many court
professionals take alienation claims at least as seriously as abuse
complaints, there is no equivalent research in terms of the harm caused
to children. When a parent tells the children false stories about the
other parent, the most likely result is to undermine the relationship
with the parent telling the lies. Even when the lies undermine the
relationship with the other parent, the effect is usually short term. In
most of the cases in which PAS is used the problem in the relationship
is not some false statements but significant abuse and bad parenting
that damaged the relationship. The purpose of PAS is to conflate the
causes of the alienation. Not only does this encourage faulty analysis,
but discourages the necessary response which is for the abuser to
acknowledge his mistreatment of the mother and children and change his
behavior.
We constantly see domestic violence cases in which
courts grant custody to the abusive father based on the prediction that
he is the parent more likely to promote the relationship between the
mother and children. Once he gains custody, he uses this control to
destroy the mother's relationship with the children. This is completely
predictable as The Batterer as Parent found that all batterers engage in
harmful parenting practices that include undermining the relationship
with the mother. Courts that aggressively pressure and punish mothers
for protective behavior that is interpreted as alienation rarely take
effective measures in response to fathers' real alienation.
Many mothers, seeing the effectiveness of alienation claims made by
fathers and watching their children alienated from them make their own
alienation claims. Some may even seek to use PAS. We think this is a bad
idea because it provides a false sense of credibility to alienation
claims that usually are just abuser tactics. A better approach is to
refer to these behaviors as Domestic Violence by Proxy. These alienating
and undermining tactics should really be seen as a continuation of the
pattern of coercive and controlling tactics used by batterers. They are
hurting the children in order to hurt the mother.
What Does it Now Mean if Litigants Seek to Claim PAS?
In the context of contested custody cases which are overwhelmingly
domestic violence cases, most claims of alienation, particularly in
response to abuse allegations are false and part of standard abuser
litigation tactics. Of course courts are required to consider each case
separately so they cannot automatically dismiss alienation claims. At
the same time it is useful to consider the context and know that abuser
rights groups and the cottage industry encourage fathers to make
alienation claims.
Courts would be wise to evaluate alienation
claims based on the impact on children. The Saunders' study found that
the extreme outcomes in which children are denied a normal relationship
with their safe protective mother who has provided most of the child
care during the first few years of the child's life are always harmful
to children. This is because the harm of separating children from their
primary attachment figure, a harm that includes increased risk of
depression, low self-esteem and suicide when older is greater than any
possible benefit. Accordingly if a claim of alienation is used to
advocate for one of these harmful outcomes, the father is acting in his
interest unconcerned about the very real harm it would do to the child.
PAS is commonly used in cases involving sexual abuse allegations. The
purpose is to prevent a full investigation of the allegations and just
assume it is a deliberate falsehood. Since mothers make deliberate false
allegations less than 2% of the time this means PAS is used to
encourage mistaken conclusions most of the time. Presumably the alleged
abuser knows what he did or did not do, although he may define his
actions as appropriate. In most cases the mother did not witness the
alleged abuse for obvious reasons so she is expressing her concern based
on what the child told her or the child's behavior. One of the common
causes of sexual abuse allegations are where the father violated the
child's boundaries but did not abuse the child. This could happen where
the father sleeps in the same bed or lies next to the child in putting
her to sleep. The father does not realize he did anything harmful and
there would be no need to restrict his access. He just needs to
understand that his behavior made the child uncomfortable and must be
stopped. The child might also be acting out because someone else abused
her. By preventing a full investigation, a father claiming alienation
makes it impossible to learn what disturbed the child. A father
concerned about the well being of his child would want to know the cause
even if he believes the mother is lying.
If there was a
legitimate alienation claim, there would be specific evidence of what
actions the alleged alienating parent took and how it impacts the
children. There would also be valid scientific research about the long
term harm to the children. Otherwise the court is being asked to not
only consider speculation but to ignore more important issues in order
to do so.
This analysis of the purpose of making the
alienation claims is important because if it was done as a tactic to
avoid a full investigation of the abuse complaint or to seek outcomes
that would be harmful to the child, it should be treated as additional
proof that the party making the alienation claims is actually an abuser
seeking to use the alienation tactic to reestablish control over his
victim.
What Does it Mean if Court Professionals Seek to Use PAS?
Court professionals should know that PAS is bogus and unscientific.
This means that when they promote claims based on PAS they are either
deliberately trying to help abusers or do not possess the training
necessary to understand the harm of PAS or anything else having to do
with domestic violence. It really does not matter what the reason is for
their mistakes, they should not be involved in domestic violence
cases.
In the case of evaluators or other mental health
professionals, they should be familiar with the DSM-V. This would make
them aware of the rejection of PAS because there is no scientific
research to support it. Accordingly, they would be guilty of malpractice
if they diagnose a condition that does not exist in the DSM. Already
some psychologists have lost their licenses for this improper practice
and with the latest rejection of PAS, this consequence should occur more
frequently. Indeed it is only the tendency of professionals to protect
fellow professionals that have discouraged investigations of these
obvious violations.
The Saunders' study found that
professionals with inadequate training tended to rely on unscientific
alienation theories. This in turn led to outcomes that harm children.
This finding alone would demand that courts refuse to rely on mental
health professionals with these biased and baseless beliefs. Although
lawyers are not mental health professionals, a belief in PAS confirms
inadequate training and thus should disqualify them from working on
domestic violence cases. Certainly courts should immediately dismiss any
"neutral" professional who seeks to make decisions based on a PAS
analysis. This is true even if they seek to obscure their mistake by
calling it something else.
Preventing Judges from Making a Decision Based on PAS
PAS is not used in other types of courts or for any purpose other than
to interfere with investigations of abuse allegations and to help
abusers regain control over their victims. Other courts follow
evidentiary laws and require scientific proof which was never available.
In fairness to custody court judges, many of the cases and particularly
the early cases that permitted the use of PAS were based on the failure
of attorneys for protective mothers from challenging PAS. This was
compounded by the widespread reliance on evaluators who are part of the
cottage industry that earns its living by supporting abusive fathers.
These biased professionals were treated as if they were neutral and this
made it more difficult to challenge their use of PAS. As time passed
and PAS became all too common, the response to the lack of scientific
support is often to use PAS by another name like alienation or parental
alienation. Many judges reason that parents do say negative things about
each other and so the concept of alienation does not require scientific
support. This has permitted courts to assume that there are serious
consequences to children from alienating behaviors without requiring
scientific proof.
In the United Kingdom, Lord Justice Nicholas
Wall, who is a leading family law judge gave a speech to Families Need
Fathers in which he said the worst thing that can be done to a child is
for the mother to speak badly about the father. Many U. S. judges have
made similar statements. I really don't think that most judges believe
that a mother calling a father an offensive name is more harmful than
raping or beating a child or witnessing the father's assault of the
mother, but these statements illustrate the bias that PAS has caused.
There is enormous scientific research about the catastrophic harm caused
to children from witnessing domestic violence, being directly abused or
being separated from their primary attachment figure. There is no valid
research that would support anything close to this level of harm from
alienation, but courts routinely treat these allegations as relatively
equivalent and are much more believing of alienation allegations even
though they are frequently false.
I believe it is important
for attorneys to place these issues in context for the court. The
decision by the American Psychiatric Association to reject PAS because
of a lack of scientific support ought to be used to reconsider our
standard judicial responses to alienation claims. This will not happen
unless protective mothers raise these issues and the research
aggressively. One of the fundamental problems with the court's response
to domestic violence and child abuse is that they rarely weigh the
impact of these problems on children to whatever the impact would be of
other far less important issues. That is one of the reasons that primary
attachment and domestic violence are so often minimized by custody
courts. This creates a disconnect between the courts and the best
interests of children. The result is to make the best interests standard
to be purely subjective and hard to appeal.
I believe many
judges who allow "evidence" of PAS or alienation are not fully familiar
with its origins. It is not just that it was concocted by Richard
Gardner based on no research but just his personal beliefs and biases.
Because it was based on his beliefs it is important for judges to know
what those beliefs were. Gardner made many public statements to the
effect that sex between adults and children can be acceptable. I do not
think many judges would want to be associated with those beliefs. Any
attempt to claim that alienation or parental alienation is different
from PAS is fatally undermined if it is used to prevent a full and open
investigation of the abuse allegations or to justify the extreme
outcomes that Saunders and others found to always be harmful to
children.
Furthermore, with the latest rejection of PAS by the
American Psychiatric Association, any "expert" relying on PAS or its
progeny is really telling the court that they are neither experts nor
neutral. Any evaluator who is part of the cottage industry or supports
PAS should be eliminated as a potential evaluator or any other neutral
position.
Judges also need to be concerned about the
appearances the use of PAS would cause. When the American Psychiatric
Association and every other credible professional organization,
including judicial organizations rejects the use of PAS, a judge would
be creating an appearance of bias, ignorance or worse by permitting
evidence based on PAS. Furthermore, the use of PAS frequently results in
outrageous outcomes that are not based on valid evidence or the well
being of children. Again this creates at least the appearance of bias or
a conflict of interest. This is particularly so when the court creates
an outcome current research including a study released by the U. S.
Department of Justice found to always be against the best interests of
children. In these circumstances that most favorable interpretation is
that the judge was unqualified to handle a domestic violence case. All
of these circumstances raise serious ethical concerns because judges are
required to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Conclusion
There was
never any valid justification to permit the use of PAS by any name in
the custody courts. The fraudulent use of PAS has been responsible for
destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of children. This never
should have been permitted by the courts, but at the same time the
courts are extremely defensive to criticism of their errors and are
unlikely to acknowledge past mistakes.
Accordingly, the
publication of the DSM-V should be treated as a great opportunity to ask
courts to reconsider the misuse of alienation theories. The other side
will not make judges aware that their favorite toy has been completely
discredited. The attorneys for protective mothers must make the courts
aware of this decision and start a discussion of what this means to
standard court practices. Courts are not permitted to accept evidence
about scientific theories that are not based on authoritative and
accepted scientific research. The decision on the DSM is fundamentally
incompatible with the continued use of alienation theories. This is
particularly true when the theories are used to deny the primary
attachment figure a normal relationship with the child or to prevent a
full investigation of abuse complaints. We need to tell the courts about
this and file complaints against any professionals who continue to
support PAS by any name now that it has been officially discredited.
Barry Goldstein is
a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and
consultant. He is the co-editor with Mo Therese Hannah of DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. Representing the Domestic Violence
Survivor, co authored with Elizabeth Liu is designed to train attorneys
to present domestic violence cases and was released in April of 2013.
Barry can be reached by email from their web site
www.Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com ;
For more information about the new book, including access to the first
approximately 50 pages or to purchase the book go to the publisher's web
site at
http://civicresearchinstitute.com/rdv.html Elizabeth
Liu and I have convinced our publisher to make available the last
section of our chapter about GALs that lists and explains the best
practices for GALs in domestic violence cases. You can now download and
print this information and share it with your GAL. Everyone is welcome
to share this information. I also hope you will check out my new Face
book page,
Barry Goldsteins Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor.
I haven't read this book, but it sounds intriguing. Many batterers meet the definition.
The Narcissistic Psychopath - How Do I Get Rid of Him? Divorcing the Narcissist and the Psychopath
Narcissism, Pathological
Narcissism, The Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), the
Narcissist,and Relationships with Abusive Narcissists and Psychopaths
By:
Dr. Sam Vaknin
CPS documentary - does any one know the family at the end of the video? A reporter is interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sag37aAf1WU
Lundy Bancroft on PAS and domestic violence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAednTCJAlo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STQk-dRPQeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuY_mUopIc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qastlvN_Xgk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD2TrG4uztA
No comments:
Post a Comment