Dr. Richard Warshak Clueless, Thank Goodness the Professional Organizations Know What’s Going On
Poor Richard Warshak. He asked for commenters to come to his Huffington Post article and comment. A few of us did, and he refused to post the comments. He censored out everything that didn’t show adoration for him. That is what he wanted. Afterall, he has a book and “expert testimony” services to sell. Now he is whining about being criticized for the censorship.
Several comments were made about the American Bar Association, the American Judges Association, the National District Attorney’s Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges debunking the use of “parental alienation” in child custody cases because of it’s well known use by abusers to take custody of children. Of course, anyone who makes the kind of money that Warshak makes ($20,000 per patient per four days in “treatment”) doesn’t care who claimed what for what purpose, they just know they will make money. He doesn’t care that children may be in the custody of someone who beat the other parent, probably in front of the children, or may have even been sexually abusing the children. No, he doesn’t care, but the professional organizations know what the deal is:Amplify’d from pasisascam.wordpress.com
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38
2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department
A Word of Caution About Parental Alienation--Dr. Richard Warshak
Amplify’d from pasisascam.wordpress.com
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38
Page 12:
C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department
2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases
Dr. Richard Warshak would not allow opposing comments in his first article on the Huffington Post, including information about all the professional organizations that have debunked the use of “parental alienation” in child custody cases. This includes a warning from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges:
CRY BABY Dr. Richard Warshak First he pouted….
Whiny whiny then he got spanked
Amplify’d from mamaliberty.wordpress.com
First he pouted….
Whiney, Whiney Dr. Richard Warshak
Poor Richard Warshak. He asked for commenters to come to his Huffington Post article and comment. A few of us did, and he refused to post the comments. He censored out everything that didn’t show adoration for him. That is what he wanted. Afterall, he has a book and “expert testimony” services to sell. Now he is whining about those who he censored…there are many that are upset about this.
Then he got spanked….
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
Whiney, Whiney Dr. Richard Warshak—HE alone responsible for Censorship of Comments on Huffington Post
Several comments were made about the American Bar Association, the American Judges Association, the National District Attorney’s Association and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges debunking the use of “parental alienation” in child custody cases because of it’s well known use by abusers to take custody of children. Of course, anyone who makes the kind of money that Warshak makes ($20,000 per patient per four days in “treatment”) doesn’t care who claimed what for what purpose, they just know they will make money. He doesn’t care that children may be in the custody of someone who beat the other parent, probably in front of the children, or may have even been sexually abusing the children. No, he doesn’t care, but the professional organizations know what the deal is. They know that victims of abuse have lost their children to abusers, and corrupt individuals that support the use of this legal tactic should be shut down:
Amplify’d from familycourtmafia.putblog.org
The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.
Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38
Page 12:
C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34
PARENTAL ALIENATION ADDRESSED ON THE HUFFINGTON POST: RICHARD WARSHAK – FREE ZONE, COMMENTS NOT CENSORED
The television show “Law & Order” used the term “parental alienation syndrome” in a recent show, and it was addressed in a post on The Huffington Post. Thankfully, Dr. Richard Warshak did not write this post, so comments are being allowed. Matter of fact, I have put the same comments I had put on Warshak’s article and he censored, but they were allowed on this current article. Please stop by the article here to post your own comments on this.
Parental Alienation: Law & Order Tackles The Topic
Huffington Post | Sara Wilson Posted: 12- 2-10 09:22 PM Parental Alienation doesn’t often make it to Prime Time. The term–which is well known in child custody circles, and refers children who internalize one parent’s attacks against the other parent and become negative toward the hated parent in turn–showed up on last night’s episode of NBC’s “Law & Order: Los Angeles“, where it was used as a motivation for murder in a criminal trial. On the show, Deputy District Attorney Jonah ‘Joe’ Dekker (Terrence Howard), argues that a wife poisoned her son against her golfer husband so virulently that the son actually murdered the husband’s alleged girlfriend on the mother’s behalf. In one clip, Dekker introduces the argument, to which the defendant’s lawyer is incredulous: “Parental Alienation Syndrome? What the hell is that?” To which Dekker responds, “In layman’s terms…it’s one parent brainwashing the child into hating the other parent. In this case hating to the point of committing murder for the other parent.”Amplify’d from rightsformothers.com
In the clip below, the wife and son are questioned during trial. The judge later throws out the argument: “PAS is off the table,” she says.
To which Dekker responds, “In layman’s terms…it’s one parent brainwashing the child into hating the other parent. In this case hating to the point of committing murder for the other parent.”
In one clip, Dekker introduces the argument, to which the defendant’s lawyer is incredulous: “Parental Alienation Syndrome? What the hell is that?”
