CPB's "Official" report on 'Breaking the Silence'...

http://www.cpb.org/ombudsmen/051129bode.html

"Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories"
November 29, 2005

Ken A. Bode

The PBS program, Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories, a documentary
about the treatment of abused children in divorce courts, aired on October
20 and produced a large number of submissions to our CPB Ombudsmen's web
site.

The documentary was produced by Catherine Tatge and Dominique Lasseur, with
support of a grant from the Mary Kay Ash Foundation, and sponsored for the
PBS schedule by Connecticut Public Television. Lasseur/Tatge are veteran
producers for PBS programs including a number of segments for the weekly
news show "NOW with Bill Moyers."

Prior to the broadcast, Connecticut Public TV released a statement from the
producers:

"When we began this project over a year ago, our goal was to produce a
documentary about domestic violence and children. We had no preconceived
notions about the issue...no specific agenda to prove or disprove. The
finished documentary is simply a result of where countless hours of
extensive research and interviews took us."
Those writing to us at CPB or to our web site challenged that premise of "no
preconceived notions," essentially raising two questions: First, did Lasseur
and Tatge get their facts right? Then, did they present a balanced treatment
of the issue, or, as some charged, did they cherry-pick their evidence to
support only one point of view?

The producers used a series of on-camera interviews, primarily with mothers
and children, along with footage from a Battered Mothers Custody Conference
to build their case that divorce courts in America are unfairly awarding
children to abusive fathers in custody battles. Expert witnesses, including
a family court judge, an intervention specialist and a custody evaluator all
testify to a common viewpoint. The abuse is vividly described by victims and
mothers alike. All support the mother's side in custody proceedings
involving sexual or physical abuse.

Citing statistics from the Department of Justice web site, David Purcell of
California wrote to CPB, saying the documentary ignores the fact that of
those who perpetrate domestic violence on children 60 percent are women. A
number of other PBS viewers also cited evidence contradicting the main
thrust of the broadcast.

An important element of the film is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS),
where one parent systematically alienates a child against the other parent,
often using manipulations and lies. PAS has become a common charge in
custody battles, seemingly favoring fathers. In other words, in court
proceedings, mothers are more commonly charged with using alienation
techniques against fathers and fathers tend to win the custody fights.

The experts provided by Lasseur/Tatge debunk PAS as "junk science." At one
point the film states that PAS "has been thoroughly debunked by the American
Psychological Association." Contacted for verification by a number of
critics and viewers, the APA's communications director stated:

"The American Psychological Association does not have an official position
on parental alienation syndrome--pro or con."
In this case it appears that Lasseur/Tatge plainly got it wrong. In a
statement released to their website, the producers now say something quite
different than they did in the film:

"We do not make the assertion that the phenomenon of alienation does not
exist, simply that PAS seems to be wrongly used as scientific proof to
justify taking children away from a protective parent."
Perhaps the most incendiary statement in the documentary, and the one that
drew the most fire from critics, came from a custody lawyer for mothers:

"For the father to win custody of the kids over and against the mother's
will is the ultimate victory short of killing the kids."
This, of course, spurred criticism from father's rights groups. Ned
Holstein, president of Father's and Families said:

"A few groups are concerned about the accelerating trend toward joint
custody of children and are striking back by accusing most fathers who seek
custody of being batterers and child abusers. It's a shame PBS has dispensed
with objective reporting and chosen to air an extremist point of view
without looking at the political motives of the advocates it features."
The columnist and national radio host Glenn Sacks also cited legal research
on the matter of PAS:

"Despite the film's claims, research shows that parental alienation is a
common facet of divorce or separation. For example, a longitudinal study
published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 "high
conflict" divorce cases over a 12-year period and found that elements of PAS
were present in the vast majority of them."
Another instance that prompted objections was the case of Dr. Scott Loeliger
whom the film depicts as an abusive father. Loeliger charges that the show
producers ignored extensive court filings, records and testimony that
demonstrate conclusively that it was his ex-wife, not he, who abused their
two daughters. He notes that his ex-wife was found liable in juvenile court
for eight counts of child abuse, including physical abuse, and thus lost
custody of the children.

Loeliger claims he gave this documentation to the show producers 6 months
before the program aired, but he was ignored. In the documentary, the mother
and daughter give poignant, even heartbreaking testimony. But is it true? Or
is it a product of parental alienation syndrome? Among the press critics of
Breaking the Silence was Glenn Sacks, whose column on the subject was
headlined: "PBS Portrays Known Child Abuser as Hero."

As to the question of fairness and balance, several viewers suggested that
the program directly violates the legal mandate of the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting to ensure strict adherence to objectivity in all
programs or series of programs of a controversial nature. I should note here
that before a program is broadcast, CPB has no role in reviewing research,
production or content. CPB ombudsmen are properly involved only
post-broadcast.

My conclusion after viewing and reviewing the program and checking various
web sites cited by critics is that there is no hint of balance in Breaking
the Silence. The father's point of view is ignored as are new strategies for
lessening the damage to children in custody battles. There is no mention of
the collaborative law movement in which parents and lawyers come to terms
without involving the court, nor of the new joint custody living
arrangements.

The producers apparently do not subscribe to the idea that an argument can
be made more convincing by giving the other side a fair presentation. To be
sure, one comes away from viewing the program with the feeling that custody
fights are a special hell, legally, emotionally, psychologically. But this
broadcast is so slanted as to raise suspicions that either the family courts
of America have gone crazy or there must be another side to the story.

The sponsorship of Breaking the Silence by the Mary Kay Ash Foundation also
drew criticism on the CPB Ombudsman web site. A major part of the
Foundation's mission is the prevention of violence against women,
particularly abusive relationships. In July of 2003, the Foundation
announced: "More than 650,000 Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultants in the
United States have joined forces to raise funds for the National Network to
End Domestic Violence on behalf of the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation."

Each beauty consultant using Mary Kay products was tasked with raising money
for the effort. A spokesperson for the Foundation said:

"The women of the Mary Kay independent sales force don't just sell beauty
products, they touch women's lives every day."
One critic who reached CPB cited reports that the Mary Kay Ash Foundation is
providing a stipend so that every battered women's organization in the
country can put on private screenings of this film for their local judges
and legislators. If so, PBS may find it has been the launching pad for a
very partisan effort to drive public policy and law.

An organization called Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting
(RADAR) sent a letter to Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, saying, in part:

"We are writing in regard to the PBS program Breaking the Silence:
Children's Stories, a documentary about the treatment of abused children by
Divorce Courts in America. The program falsely concludes that children are
frequently awarded to abusive fathers by divorce courts.
"As such, the program directly violates the legal mandate of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to ensure 'strict adherence to
objectivity in all programs or series of programs of a controversial
nature.' Even though CPB did not create this program, CPB is nonetheless
obligated by law to assure that all public broadcasting programs conform to
journalistic standards of objectivity and balance."
RADAR's letter is co-signed by more than a dozen organizations representing
families and fathers, and it concludes with a call for a Congressional
investigation.

PBS says it has received around 4,000 letters, calls and e-mails about
Breaking the Silence. The National Organization for Women issued an action
alert calling for mail supporting the program. Glenn Sacks used his radio
show to promote mailings objecting to the broadcast. Jan McNamara the
director of corporate communication at PBS says the program is now under
official review. That's good. Along with the motives of its sponsor (The
Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation), Breaking the Silence needs to be
reviewed for accuracy, fairness and balance.


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.