Genia is one of many parents nationwide who have lost custody due to a controversial concept known as parental alienation. Under the theory, children fear or reject one parent because they have been corrupted or coached to lie by the other. Parental alienation is now the leading defense for parents accused of abuse in custody cases, according to domestic-violence advocates. And it’s working. The few current studies done on the subject consider only small samples. But according to one 2004 survey in Massachusetts by Harvard’s Jay Silverman, 54 percent of custody cases involving documented spousal abuse were decided in favor of the alleged batterers. Parental alienation was used as an argument in nearly every case.
This year the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges denounced the theory as “junk science,” and at least four states have passed legislation to curtail its use in custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence. “It’s really been a cancer in the family courts,” says Richard Ducote, an attorney in Pittsburgh who has represented abuse victims in custody cases for 22 years. “It’s made it really difficult for parents to protect their kids. If you ask for protection, you’re deemed a vindictive, alienating parent.”
It may seem hard to fathom how a judge could award custody to a parent accused of abuse. But battered spouses often don’t file criminal charges—so no judicial finding is made against their mates—and family-court judges typically aren’t trained to referee the complexities of abusive relationships. (Although men are sometimes battered by their wives, women are the victims in the majority of abuse cases.) Judges often throw out documented evidence of spousal abuse, arguing that it is irrelevant in a custody case. And experts say that family-court judges often look favorably on the alleged abuser because he seems more willing to share custody than the accuser—who is hellbent on keeping the father away from the child. According to a survey by Geraldine Stahly, a psychology professor at California State University at San Bernardino, attorneys will caution battered spouses against reporting abuse in court so they don’t lose their children. (Stahly and other academics say the parental-alienation argument has more legitimacy in custody disputes that don’t involve charges of abuse.)
Parental-alienation syndrome was first introduced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in the 1980s. Fathers-rights groups picked up on the idea and began trying it out in court. These groups condemn abusers. But Dan Hogan, executive director of Fathers & Families, a nonprofit group that advocates for joint custody, argues that all too often the accusers lie in order to win custody of their kids.
There’s a small but growing movement to ban parental alienation in custody cases, sparked by embattled parents bonding online. They’ve linked with lawyers and advocates for battered spouses across the country. At least four states, including California, have laws protecting parents who make good-faith abuse allegations. Others may soon follow their lead. Greg Jacob, an attorney who takes cases for abused parents pro bono, is drafting legislation to shop to Virginia and Maryland next month. Meanwhile, parents like Genia keep fighting. “It’s so hard, having my children lost,” she says, her voice breaking. “This was my life—my children.”
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14870310/site/newsweek/
7 responses so far ↓
1 wdfields // Sep 18, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Consider the possibility of greater respects of most parents.
For example, might the above be more properly presented and hypothetically paraphrased
[’Some’ parents, such as Genia, may feel the blessings from God/Almighty to PARENTS as but to one alone — i.e., voice breaking of “Mine, mine, mine . . . ” regardless of possible respects due others.]
Let the [Godly self-righteous] not only self-license “entitlements” to expunge life [via PC pro-choice verbiage]; but in deed, further equip the PC with extrapolations to their rights for “expungement” of particular [gender] children (via PC NOW-type author verbiage), adults (via VAWA verbiage) and/or parents (via modern entitlement verbiage).
For sure, release and hold harmless States for furthering enablement in advancing “or delivery” of un-guarded/un-balanced/un-checked Violence Against Families.
- just adad
[recite with accompaniment of the “Cell Block Tango’ (from the musical Chicago) in the background — HE Had It Coming . . . ]
2 Kevin Merck // Sep 18, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Any mother that would stoop so low as to make false allegations of any kind in order to obtain custody, or deny access, “should not be allowed around childrenâ€, much less enjoy custody.
This scumbag got what she deserved. Too bad it doesn’t happen more often.
3 wdfields // Sep 19, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Under auspices of “Equal Rights” or “Equal Justice” - two arms of service entities within a given state allegedly serve to such notions. I have, however, discerned what I NOW believe to be a systematic and formulated policy for denial of such services (as may be readily recognized of relating to “liberty”) to certain needy members of our communities merely because of paintings of “Political inCorrectness.”
In deed, it seems that in the case of both of these particular organizations, directors for the entities may not be of a particular license.
Query, therefore, how might officers of sworn obligations to given justice settings lend themselves subordinate thereto and simultaneously fulfill obligations for objective services of their licensed profession?
But never mind; let us continue collective “kidnappings of Ms. Liberty.” Simply articulate via eloquent capacities for “sugar-and-spice.”. We might further pacify this absurdity with merely a few (too readily available) $$$.
Say, another idea, lets make life living hell for those of care, compassion and traditional honored need to loving and lovely children. Let’s further make it even more troubling to PinC’s — such as actual blood relatives.
Further, lets facilitate those with greater PCness (absent all too well understood consuming commitments/needs for childrearing, parenthood juggling, self-defense, personal security activities . . . ) to champion causes effective for denigration of “families.”
And while we are at it, let’s falsely advertise and set ourselves forward for purposes of “equality” while systematically screening-away important projects of the PinC.
Additionally, if we may, let’s infiltrate “Social Service” arms of “entrusted” State Institutions for instilling with teachings for the handling of “Unconstitutional Deal Bent Bats.”
To entice (readily target) those of need and vulnerabilities, let’s advertise given services. When those of humble willingness do raise a hand for assistance - Yea Dude! . . . Pop Pop Pop . . . Begin the gleeful plunder of the Clever Craft with the “Deal Bent Bat” for the unlawful self-service of “More More More . . . ”
Yes, instead of delivering advertised (and perhaps, actually required/mandated) services, let’s retaliate instead.
And with diligent commitments, let us continue trainings for furthering the frustrations and blatant disrespects, shames, libels, slanders, interferences, breaches of commerce, derailments of productivity, squelching of dreams, disruption of opportunities . . . for a greater honor for the entitled . . . regardless of any anticipated embarrassment or compromise to an honorable Civil Society.
Eventually, when loving parent, relatives, or like eventually reveal any hint of frustration (of course, this is all too readily understood to be the natural response for any normal being of intellect, and in fact quite likely anticipated by design from the program, especially for those of any common-sense understanding (let alone, trained awareness) to “rational” APA procedures); let us respond by pointing a self-sanctioned authoritarian finger (ex parte) for a labeling as abusive, harassing and/or even couple together with threats “Under Color of (OUR OWN privileged self-formulated (and of course, never challenged)) LAW.”
Fortunately, for all of us, there may be another brand of “Equal Justice” on the near horizon.
May the reliable ruder of time keep all of us within due care and rapport,
- just adad
4 wdfields // Sep 19, 2006 at 1:51 pm
[See, under the directorship of Kathleen Taylor, “The Religious Right in Washington,” June 1, 1995,
. . . Key leaders have endorsed “stealth tactics” which deliberately seek to avoid full and open discussion of political aims. In invoking divine sanction for their political stances, they sometimes imply that people who think otherwise are “unGodly.” In proclaiming they alone stand for “pro-family values,” they stigmatize cultural diversity, especially non-nuclear families and gay and lesbian people. . . .
Financial support for this report came from the Lesbian and Gay Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the Washington Education Association. at http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=149 ]
Hmm . . . and what of stewards for Liberty or Justice?
I have not heard of a single ACLU matter addressing concerns of state fabricated and dependent “deadbeat dads.”
In fact, I’ve heard from several who have queried such arms of Guardianship - only to have Hopes further crumbled.
Any experiences from others?
Is this general understanding correct?
5 wanito // Sep 22, 2006 at 9:12 am
The strategy of using false DV and child abuse allegations would not work if not for the system that provides the environment for it to flourish. To tell you the truth I’m surprised that the man was able to have the court even acknowledge what the child’s mother was doing. Here in New Mexico, and more specifically in my case I have shown the court physical proof of the PAS, and malicious prosecution, and abuse of process and it might as well be like I was telling the court “she hurt my feelings.”
Anyway guys, I have a TV show now that I call “Where’d my daddy go.” I named the show this in honor of something that daughter said and because I think it describes the situation and the atmosphere in the family law system in this country in general. The show begins locally in Albuquerque, New Mexico on October 7 2006 and will air the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Saturdays of the month at 11am Mountain Standard Time. So, that would be 10am Pacific Standard Time, 12pm Central Standard Time, and 1pm Eastern Standard Time. You can watch the show by logging onto your computer on Saturdays at these times in your respective time zone to http://www.quote-unquote.org and then clicking on “live webstream.” It has to be at exactly these times since it is a live webstream. I started this show because I did not know what else to do. My daughter has been taken from me without the slightest good reason other than that being what my ex wants. And, I’ve talked to evryone I can, and no one seems to care.
If anyone wants to come on my show and tell their story, I’m more than happy to have you on as a guest to interview. There’ll be some papers to sign basically saying that your not coming on the show to disrupt it and that you’ll act civilized. But, other than that, you can let your situation be known and get your story out there. Also, even if your not interested in coming on the show, tell everyone you can to watch it and copy this blog and send it out to as many as possible. The more people that are made aware of what is happening to men and fathers at the hands of the family law system in this country, the sooner something will be done to change it. My contact info is below.
John Alvarez
j5alvr@aol.com
6 E Truth // Sep 22, 2006 at 4:06 pm
just typical expected crap from newsweek
7 Jim Deeny // Sep 28, 2006 at 6:22 am
“It’s made it really difficult for parents to protect their kids. If you ask for protection, you’re deemed a vindictive, alienating parent.â€
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander!
How many abuse allegations are false, how many rape allegations are false? The allegations are what they are to protect NOT the children , but the mothers “so called” rights to the walking MAC machine men have been made into. If women don’t make any allegations at all when they are challenged for custody they then are in jeopardy of losing custody, so, allegations and lies are what protect their interests. Everyone should know this.
You must log in to post a comment.