PAS: Psychobabble or a legitimate, legal basis for child custody

Psychobabble or a legitimate, legal basis for child custody
http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=3830581
By Charles Keeshan Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sunday, November 14, 2004
The first time Norma Perez learned she was being accused of "parental
alienation syndrome," she shrugged it off.

The idea that one parent could turn a child against the other might be true,
the Elgin resident figured, but it certainly did not apply to her.

A year later, a DuPage County judge ruled otherwise.

Declaring that the mental, emotional and physical health of her 10-year-old
daughter was endangered by her mother's behavior, Judge James J. Konetski
stripped Perez of custody and handed the girl over to her father without
giving her a chance to say goodbye to mom.

"I'm not a perfect person, but I know I didn't do the things they said I
did," Perez said.

"I fought for my daughter," she said. "If we don't, we risk losing our
children, and if we do, we're called alienators."

Robert G. Black, the attorney for Perez's former husband, R. Edward Bates,
said the label fits in this case.

"The evidence showed she did not foster a close loving relationship between
the child and father," Black said. "In fact, she totally alienated the child
from her father."

Perez is just one of many mothers across the suburbs, and hundreds
nationwide, to lose custody of their children based on parental alienation
syndrome, a theory that stirs passionate debate in the mental health and
legal communities almost two decades after its advent.

The concept, proffered by New Jersey psychiatrist Richard Gardner in 1985,
holds that in some cases a custodial parent can poison a child's mind
against the other parent, causing that child to have a disrespectful and
antagonistic relationship with the other parent.

Gardner's work has launched intense arguments both pro and con in
psychological publications, legal journals and courtrooms across the
country.

Some dismiss the theory as junk science or pop psychology that lacks
research to support it. Others say Gardner's work is not only valid but a
long-overdue examination of an insidious form of child abuse.

That debate took place most recently within the Illinois Supreme Court,
where justices hearing Perez's case were asked to decide whether testimony
about the syndrome belongs in state courtrooms.

The court provided no clear answer to that question in an Oct. 28 decision.
But in denying Perez's request to regain custody of her daughter, justices
encouraged more challenges of the syndrome's legitimacy.

"We note that PAS is now the subject of legal and professional criticism,
and our holding in this case does not foreclose further challenges to the
validity or general acceptance of that concept," Justice Thomas L. Kilbride
stated.

Discovery and debate

Gardner was working as a professor of child psychiatry at his alma mater,
Columbia University in New York, when he began documenting cases in which
children in the midst of a custody dispute began showing hostile behavior
toward a parent with no clear reason, according to his biography.

He declared the behavior "parental alienation syndrome" and established a
set of eight symptoms, including denigration of the alienated parent, lack
of guilt over cruelty to that parent and unflinching support for the other
parent.

Before his suicide last year, Gardner wrote at length on the subject and
testified about it in hundreds of divorce cases across the country. One of
those cases was Perez's, in which he issued a finding of parental alienation
syndrome despite never interviewing Perez or her daughter.

His self-published 1992 book, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for
Legal and Mental Health Professionals," is considered the definitive guide
to the theory.

His ideas launched a legion of followers in the legal and mental health
professions.

Among them is Douglas Darnall, a Youngstown, Ohio, psychiatrist who wrote a
book on the issue called "Divorce Casualties." He also operates a Web site,
found at www.parentalalienation.com.

Darnall said cases of parental alienation syndrome are rare but real.

"It should be used in court because it does describe a legitimate pattern of
behavior that does have an impact on a child and a parent/child
relationship," he said. "Most judges want to listen to the evidence, and
most judges accept it."

But for all the followers Gardner's ideas have spawned, they have created at
least as many critics.

One of them, Dr. Paul Fink of Temple University's School of Medicine, called
the theory dangerous.

"It was made up by one guy who spread it around," said Fink, who is past
president of the American Psychiatric Association. "No investigation was
done, there was no research, and it's hurt a lot of women and children."

Detractors note Gardner's work is not recognized by the APA's Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual, the Bible of the psychiatric profession.

"It has generally been denounced," said David Finn, a counselor from Rolling
Meadows who performs court-ordered child custody evaluations. "It's never
been accepted as a valid syndrome, and the research has not been there to
support it.

"The presumption is that the alienation is because of the parent," Finn
said. "While that may be part of the reason in some instances, it is not an
evaluation of all the reasons why it might exist."

Critics of the theory say one parent can cause resentment in a child toward
the other parent. But those feelings are usually temporary and never rise to
the level of a syndrome or mental disorder, as Gardner claims.

Darnall, however, believes the theory may soon get APA recognition. New
research, he said, indicates Gardner's findings may be more correct than
many critics believe and could get it into the next edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Fink scoffed at the suggestion.

"It won't be in there, I guarantee you," he said. "Since there has been no
verification, no research, it's not getting in there."

From an idea to court

Gardner's theories have yet to receive official recognition in the industry,
but family law attorneys have been using them for years, most often on
behalf of fathers hoping to gain custody.

Annette Zender, a Woodstock resident who lost custody of her daughter three
years after a Lake County judge sided with alienation claims against her,
likens it to legal kidnapping.

"When they can't find any other excuse, they come up with parental
alienation and it works," she said.

Since losing her daughter, Zender has built a network of suburban women who
share similar stories. So far, she said, the group numbers more than 70 from
Lake, Cook, Kane, McHenry and Will counties.

While groups like Zender's want to see the syndrome, known as PAS, barred
from the courtroom, fathers' rights organizations support Gardner's work,
saying it can provide balance in a family court system that assumes mothers
should always get custody.

"Parental alienation occurs, unfortunately," said Michael McCormick,
executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. "We
have seen parental alienation be adopted in numerous courtrooms across the
country as a valid science."

Whether that should be the case is something people on both sides thought
the Illinois Supreme Court would answer in the Perez case.

While that did not happen, Perez attorney Paul Feinstein said the court's
offer to hear more cases on the issue is a promising sign for PAS opponents.

"They weren't impressed with it and that's why they invited more challenges
to it," Feinstein said. "I think this is pretty much the end of it."

Theory: Syndrome critics say it has no scientific foundation


--
"The most terrifying words in the English language a
I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
--- Ronald Reagan

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Psychobabble or a legitimate, legal basis for child custody
http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=3830581
By Charles Keeshan Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sunday, November 14, 2004
The first time Norma Perez learned she was being accused of "parental
alienation syndrome," she shrugged it off.

....

In your estimation, how would the court view a custodial mother who likely
has never uttered a word about the father unless it is bad and even then,
extremely rare?

I got a story from my kid during the summer that some years ago, after
getting dropped at home after a visit, would just go up to the bedroom and
stay there for a while out of the mother's way. This is the same mother who
makes a point of saying, "Have a nice time.." each and every time the kid
has to go to the dad's.

In other words, how might the court view a type of alienation by omission?

"Meldon" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Psychobabble or a legitimate, legal basis for child custody
http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=3830581
By Charles Keeshan Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sunday, November 14, 2004
The first time Norma Perez learned she was being accused of "parental
alienation syndrome," she shrugged it off.

....

In your estimation, how would the court view a custodial mother who likely
has never uttered a word about the father unless it is bad and even then,
extremely rare?

I got a story from my kid during the summer that some years ago, after
getting dropped at home after a visit, would just go up to the bedroom and
stay there for a while out of the mother's way. This is the same mother
who
makes a point of saying, "Have a nice time.." each and every time the kid
has to go to the dad's.

In other words, how might the court view a type of alienation by omission?

Now, that's an interesting thought. If the custodial parent does not sing
the praises of the noncustodial parent, it's PAS? Perhaps the mother of the
child was wise enough to let the child readjust to her home after being at
dad's home. Children sometimes have difficulty going from one parent to
another, and need to be given time and space. My problem with PAS is that
it can be used wrongly--just as the traditional "mom always gets custody"
tradition is used wrongly. A slick lawyer can use the "syndrome--and a pack
of dad's money--to beat mom to death for something she never did. And
that's no more right than the way the system operates now! Every child
deserves equal access to both parents, and does not deserve to be cut off
from either by slick lawyers manipulating a sick system in order to fill
their own greedy pockets!

Meldon wrote:

"Dusty" wrote in message
...

Psychobabble or a legitimate, legal basis for child custody
http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=3830581
By Charles Keeshan Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sunday, November 14, 2004
The first time Norma Perez learned she was being accused of "parental
alienation syndrome," she shrugged it off.


....


In your estimation, how would the court view a custodial mother who likely
has never uttered a word about the father unless it is bad and even then,
extremely rare?

I got a story from my kid during the summer that some years ago, after
getting dropped at home after a visit, would just go up to the bedroom and
stay there for a while out of the mother's way. This is the same mother who
makes a point of saying, "Have a nice time.." each and every time the kid
has to go to the dad's.

In other words, how might the court view a type of alienation by omission?

I think you might be missing the point of Parental Alienation.

As I understand it, PAS (which is different than Parental Alienation) is
really a point where the child begins to act out on these issues -
disliking and denigrating one parent - and says that they do so under
their own accord. I would suggest reading Gartner's summaries that will
give a better understanding of what PAS is.

As to what you are experiencing, if I understand it correctly, you are
experiencing a mother who is not positively re-inforcing the
father/child bond, but is instead on (it appears) rare occasions, making
negative comments about it. Your child seems to not like this, but not
be affected by it (hence going to their room to simply avoid it). My
belief (and it is an unlearned one) would be that a judge would not look
at that as anything, and would instead be thinking that the father (in
this case you) had to continue to be responsible for strengthening his
bond with his child.

Just my two zloty's worth.

Rambler

"Rambler" wrote in message
...
.....
I think you might be missing the point of Parental Alienation.

As I understand it, PAS (which is different than Parental Alienation) is
really a point where the child begins to act out on these issues -
disliking and denigrating one parent - and says that they do so under
their own accord. I would suggest reading Gartner's summaries that will
give a better understanding of what PAS is.


Thanks for clarifying but your description raises another question. Yikes. I
just realized.

What if the kid has some bones to pick with the mother. ( I can attest to
the type of person this is.) The kid goes to somone and says, "My mom is
very mean..." and etc. Will someone now accuse me of coaching the child in
this direction?


As to what you are experiencing, if I understand it correctly, you are
experiencing a mother who is not positively re-inforcing the
father/child bond, but is instead on (it appears) rare occasions, making
negative comments about it. Your child seems to not like this, but not
be affected by it (hence going to their room to simply avoid it). My
belief (and it is an unlearned one) would be that a judge would not look
at that as anything, and would instead be thinking that the father (in
this case you) had to continue to be responsible for strengthening his
bond with his child.

Just my two zloty's worth.

I think I would have to agree here.

Meldon wrote:

"Rambler" wrote in message
...

.....
I think you might be missing the point of Parental Alienation.

As I understand it, PAS (which is different than Parental Alienation) is
really a point where the child begins to act out on these issues -
disliking and denigrating one parent - and says that they do so under
their own accord. I would suggest reading Gartner's summaries that will
give a better understanding of what PAS is.



Thanks for clarifying but your description raises another question. Yikes. I
just realized.

What if the kid has some bones to pick with the mother. ( I can attest to
the type of person this is.) The kid goes to somone and says, "My mom is
very mean..." and etc. Will someone now accuse me of coaching the child in
this direction?

They might. But, again, go back to the definition of PAS.

This is why they say that a parent's actions in divorce need to be
focused on the kids. it is so easy to take ones negative feelings of
the ex-spouse and place them onto the kid. That's why they say never
talk badly about the other parent, and that one needs to work on
empathizing with the kids feelings. If your kid starts saying things
about Mom, the best thing that you can do is to empathize with those
feelings ("You seem to feel really bad about that") and not try and
explain the other parent's motives in a negative light ("Well, Mom is
just angry") but rather encourage the child to ask ("Well, I don't know,
have you asked Mom about that?") or to try and reinforce the bond ("I
know that your Mom loves you, but maybe you should talk to her about that.")

It sucks (believe me, I know, I am in the middle of a PAS case now as
the plaintiff) but denigrating the other parent in return, while it
might make you feel better, does nothign for the kid. Kids are
programmed to love both parents, regardless of what the other parent is
doing, and we have an obligation as a parent to help teach our kids how
to handle this type of thing.

The only thing that you can do is correct mis-information ("So you feel
that I did x? That must make you really feel bad about this ... I would
feel bad as well if I thought somebody did that to me ... do you really
think I would want to do that?").

It's tough, because if you correct the information, then you also open
up a whole other can of worms. For example, in my case, my eldest
daughter is incensed that I am calling her Mom a 'jerk.' She has lashed
out at me numerous times for saying that about her mother, etc. etc.
etc. Problem is, I don't use that word - jerk - it's just not in my
vocabulary. I have a couple of choice words that I would call my ex,
but 'jerk' isn't one of them. Now, 'jerk' is a word that my ex uses, so
to me it seems fairly plain that this has come from the ex. yet when I
try and discuss it with the eldest daughter ("Gee honey, I know you
think I called Mom a 'jerk,' but really that's not possible because I
don't use that word") what I get back is "you're lying and you are
calling me a liar." It then degenerates from there.

Rambler

"Rambler" wrote in message
...
Meldon wrote:

"Rambler" wrote in message
...

.....
...
Thanks for clarifying but your description raises another question.
Yikes. I
just realized.

What if the kid has some bones to pick with the mother. ( I can attest
to
the type of person this is.) The kid goes to somone and says, "My mom is
very mean..." and etc. Will someone now accuse me of coaching the child
in
this direction?

They might. But, again, go back to the definition of PAS.

My guess is, it has broad interpretation when they choose to.


This is why they say that a parent's actions in divorce need to be
focused on the kids. it is so easy to take ones negative feelings of
the ex-spouse and place them onto the kid. That's why they say never
talk badly about the other parent, and that one needs to work on
empathizing with the kids feelings.

That is the guide I've used. I try to think of how the kid feels and try to
help make sense. I offer immediate advice rather than blast the bitch. The
kid has already expressed the fact that bad-mouthing the mother doesn't help
matters. That was a number of years ago. Kid now 10.

If your kid starts saying things
about Mom, the best thing that you can do is to empathize with those
feelings ("You seem to feel really bad about that") and not try and
explain the other parent's motives in a negative light ("Well, Mom is
just angry") but rather encourage the child to ask ("Well, I don't know,
have you asked Mom about that?") or to try and reinforce the bond ("I
know that your Mom loves you, but maybe you should talk to her about
that.")

When I hear some real shockers it's hard not to loose it completely, but
I've encouraged the kid to mention to other adults if there are problems at
home. The kid has advised me that other people either don't get involved or
side with the mother. I'm open to suggestions here.




It sucks (believe me, I know, I am in the middle of a PAS case now as
the plaintiff) but denigrating the other parent in return, while it
might make you feel better, does nothing for the kid. Kids are
programmed to love both parents, regardless of what the other parent is
doing, and we have an obligation as a parent to help teach our kids how
to handle this type of thing.

Precisely the right thing to do. I agree wholeheartedly. Too bad I can't
rely on the mother to help the kid with any problems. I mean, the mother
just leaves the kid out to dry. I can't imagine what this would do to a
child. I'd be well on the way to the psycho ward by now but I reconciled
the whole damned thing by convincing myself that the god-damned state has
not left myself or my parents with any method of protecting the kid's
well-being. It's completely contrary to human nature to stand by and watch
your kid suffer but here I am; pathetic, living proof that force can change
the heart and mind.




The only thing that you can do is correct mis-information ("So you feel
that I did x? That must make you really feel bad about this ... I would
feel bad as well if I thought somebody did that to me ... do you really
think I would want to do that?").

This is a bit of a nightmare for me. If the mother told a whopper, I would
never know about it.

When the kid was about 6, I was told that the reason for our break-up was
because I was violent. I was told only by chance.

The mother uses semantics as a tactical method. Anything related to
"domestic" (the word form when it is expressed to me), is out of bounds. I
suspect that a similar physiological barrier has been erected in the child's
mind also. Like, "you know... you can't talk to daddy about .....", and so
on. She is very skilled in these areas.




It's tough, because if you correct the information, then you also open
up a whole other can of worms. For example, in my case, my eldest
daughter is incensed that I am calling her Mom a 'jerk.' She has lashed
out at me numerous times for saying that about her mother, etc. etc.

Yup. Mine is bitch. Kid sometimes hears me mumble and has mentioned it to
the authorities.



etc. Problem is, I don't use that word - jerk - it's just not in my
vocabulary. I have a couple of choice words that I would call my ex,
but 'jerk' isn't one of them. Now, 'jerk' is a word that my ex uses, so
to me it seems fairly plain that this has come from the ex. yet when I
try and discuss it with the eldest daughter ("Gee honey, I know you
think I called Mom a 'jerk,' but really that's not possible because I
don't use that word") what I get back is "you're lying and you are
calling me a liar." It then degenerates from there.

Rambler

Wow! I fear this stuff might begin to raise its head in my case. I surely
hope it doesn't. I have to think in terms of counter-affect. In other words,
how to avoid providing her with fodder. You have learned not to react to
her. I've done well for over 7 years and recently fell into a trap. Now I'm
fighting a charge of "utter threat". Total farce.

Meldon wrote:

"Rambler" wrote in message
...

Meldon wrote:

They might. But, again, go back to the definition of PAS.

My guess is, it has broad interpretation when they choose to.

Again, go back to the Gartner description. He lists out things that are
not PAS as well. Given that the courts are somewhat reticient to accept
this, it is hard to make the case ... I know.

When I hear some real shockers it's hard not to loose it completely, but
I've encouraged the kid to mention to other adults if there are problems at
home. The kid has advised me that other people either don't get involved or
side with the mother. I'm open to suggestions here.

Well, what would you do if it wasn't his Mom but somebody else at school
or something. Part of this is about brainstorming with the kid to help
them overcome this situation ... teaching life skills. At ten, you've
got good material to work with. Sometimes we need to learn to accept
and ignore, other times we need to learn to say things.

It sucks (believe me, I know, I am in the middle of a PAS case now as
the plaintiff) but denigrating the other parent in return, while it
might make you feel better, does nothing for the kid. Kids are
programmed to love both parents, regardless of what the other parent is
doing, and we have an obligation as a parent to help teach our kids how
to handle this type of thing.

Precisely the right thing to do. I agree wholeheartedly. Too bad I can't
rely on the mother to help the kid with any problems. I mean, the mother
just leaves the kid out to dry. I can't imagine what this would do to a
child. I'd be well on the way to the psycho ward by now but I reconciled
the whole damned thing by convincing myself that the god-damned state has
not left myself or my parents with any method of protecting the kid's
well-being. It's completely contrary to human nature to stand by and watch
your kid suffer but here I am; pathetic, living proof that force can change
the heart and mind.

All you can do is what you can do. Something about the serenity prayer.
If it is that extreme, then document it and push for a change of
residential custody. I am in the process of doing that.

The only thing that you can do is correct mis-information ("So you feel
that I did x? That must make you really feel bad about this ... I would
feel bad as well if I thought somebody did that to me ... do you really
think I would want to do that?").

This is a bit of a nightmare for me. If the mother told a whopper, I would
never know about it.

True, but what you are doing is teaching your kid life skills on how to
cope. If your kid is told a whopper, and if you create an environment
where they know they can come and address this with you, without
recriminations, then that will happen (so they tell me!).

When the kid was about 6, I was told that the reason for our break-up was
because I was violent. I was told only by chance.

The mother uses semantics as a tactical method. Anything related to
"domestic" (the word form when it is expressed to me), is out of bounds. I
suspect that a similar physiological barrier has been erected in the child's
mind also. Like, "you know... you can't talk to daddy about .....", and so
on. She is very skilled in these areas.

Been there, doing that. I communicate directly with the ex on those
things (perhaps not well, but I do so anyway). Lot of threads in
alt.support.divorce about being Dale Carnegie-esque.

It's tough, because if you correct the information, then you also open
up a whole other can of worms. For example, in my case, my eldest
daughter is incensed that I am calling her Mom a 'jerk.' She has lashed
out at me numerous times for saying that about her mother, etc. etc.

Yup. Mine is bitch. Kid sometimes hears me mumble and has mentioned it to
the authorities.

Mine's not nearly so nice, but I don't use that around the kids.

Wow! I fear this stuff might begin to raise its head in my case. I surely
hope it doesn't. I have to think in terms of counter-affect. In other words,
how to avoid providing her with fodder. You have learned not to react to
her. I've done well for over 7 years and recently fell into a trap. Now I'm
fighting a charge of "utter threat". Total farce.

many times we worry about things that never come to pass. If you are
living true and really focused on the kids (and not your own) best
interests, you decrease your chance of having anything substantive happen.

Rambler

It's interesting to see that Dr. Paul Fink of Temple University, a
former president of the American Psychological Association, denounces
Gardner's use of the term parental alienation syndrome. It's also
interesting that Gardner's critics say that the syndrome has not yet made it
into the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Anyone who, over the years, has watched the watched the contortions
within the APA over the addition of syndromes to the DSM will be able to
draw their own conclusions. For years, whether or not syndromes make it
into the DSM has been subject to a highly political process. When changes
to the DSM are proposed, special interest groups of APA members lobby
vigorously in pursuit of their own personal agendas.

Thus, quite a few years ago, a group of homosexual psychologists were
successful in having the homosexual rights agenda legitimized through
changes in the DSM to "normalize" homosexuality. Then, a few years ago
feminists raised an outcry about a proposed DSM change that they thought
blamed women for their own victimization.

The fact that parental alienation syndrome isn't yet in the DSM says
nothing about the existence of the syndrome. Its existence is very obvious
to anyone who knows anything about what happens during family breakups. The
absence of PAS from the DSM indicates only that the victims of PAS don't
have the political strength to influence the APA. And any psychologist who
tries to tell people otherwise is just being dishonest, which seems to be a
character failing of many in this profession. Trying to make anything out
of the absence of a condition from the DSM indicates nothing more than that
the individual who does this is on the side of those who want to prevent any
action on the problem.

I'm planning to propose the addition to the DSM of a new syndrome,
psychologists' denial of the blindingly obvious (PDBO). However, since I'm
not an APA member, someone who is will have to sponsor my proposed addition.
Any takers?


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Psychobabble or a legitimate, legal basis for child custody
http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=3830581
By Charles Keeshan Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Sunday, November 14, 2004
The first time Norma Perez learned she was being accused of "parental
alienation syndrome," she shrugged it off.

The idea that one parent could turn a child against the other might be
true,
the Elgin resident figured, but it certainly did not apply to her.

A year later, a DuPage County judge ruled otherwise.

Declaring that the mental, emotional and physical health of her
10-year-old
daughter was endangered by her mother's behavior, Judge James J. Konetski
stripped Perez of custody and handed the girl over to her father without
giving her a chance to say goodbye to mom.

"I'm not a perfect person, but I know I didn't do the things they said I
did," Perez said.

"I fought for my daughter," she said. "If we don't, we risk losing our
children, and if we do, we're called alienators."

Robert G. Black, the attorney for Perez's former husband, R. Edward Bates,
said the label fits in this case.

"The evidence showed she did not foster a close loving relationship
between
the child and father," Black said. "In fact, she totally alienated the
child
from her father."

Perez is just one of many mothers across the suburbs, and hundreds
nationwide, to lose custody of their children based on parental alienation
syndrome, a theory that stirs passionate debate in the mental health and
legal communities almost two decades after its advent.

The concept, proffered by New Jersey psychiatrist Richard Gardner in 1985,
holds that in some cases a custodial parent can poison a child's mind
against the other parent, causing that child to have a disrespectful and
antagonistic relationship with the other parent.

Gardner's work has launched intense arguments both pro and con in
psychological publications, legal journals and courtrooms across the
country.

Some dismiss the theory as junk science or pop psychology that lacks
research to support it. Others say Gardner's work is not only valid but a
long-overdue examination of an insidious form of child abuse.

That debate took place most recently within the Illinois Supreme Court,
where justices hearing Perez's case were asked to decide whether testimony
about the syndrome belongs in state courtrooms.

The court provided no clear answer to that question in an Oct. 28
decision.
But in denying Perez's request to regain custody of her daughter, justices
encouraged more challenges of the syndrome's legitimacy.

"We note that PAS is now the subject of legal and professional criticism,
and our holding in this case does not foreclose further challenges to the
validity or general acceptance of that concept," Justice Thomas L.
Kilbride
stated.

Discovery and debate

Gardner was working as a professor of child psychiatry at his alma mater,
Columbia University in New York, when he began documenting cases in which
children in the midst of a custody dispute began showing hostile behavior
toward a parent with no clear reason, according to his biography.

He declared the behavior "parental alienation syndrome" and established a
set of eight symptoms, including denigration of the alienated parent, lack
of guilt over cruelty to that parent and unflinching support for the other
parent.

Before his suicide last year, Gardner wrote at length on the subject and
testified about it in hundreds of divorce cases across the country. One of
those cases was Perez's, in which he issued a finding of parental
alienation
syndrome despite never interviewing Perez or her daughter.

His self-published 1992 book, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide
for
Legal and Mental Health Professionals," is considered the definitive guide
to the theory.

His ideas launched a legion of followers in the legal and mental health
professions.

Among them is Douglas Darnall, a Youngstown, Ohio, psychiatrist who wrote
a
book on the issue called "Divorce Casualties." He also operates a Web
site,
found at www.parentalalienation.com.

Darnall said cases of parental alienation syndrome are rare but real.

"It should be used in court because it does describe a legitimate pattern
of
behavior that does have an impact on a child and a parent/child
relationship," he said. "Most judges want to listen to the evidence, and
most judges accept it."

But for all the followers Gardner's ideas have spawned, they have created
at
least as many critics.

One of them, Dr. Paul Fink of Temple University's School of Medicine,
called
the theory dangerous.

"It was made up by one guy who spread it around," said Fink, who is past
president of the American Psychiatric Association. "No investigation was
done, there was no research, and it's hurt a lot of women and children."

Detractors note Gardner's work is not recognized by the APA's Diagnostic
and
Statistical Manual, the Bible of the psychiatric profession.

"It has generally been denounced," said David Finn, a counselor from
Rolling
Meadows who performs court-ordered child custody evaluations. "It's never
been accepted as a valid syndrome, and the research has not been there to
support it.

"The presumption is that the alienation is because of the parent," Finn
said. "While that may be part of the reason in some instances, it is not
an
evaluation of all the reasons why it might exist."

Critics of the theory say one parent can cause resentment in a child
toward
the other parent. But those feelings are usually temporary and never rise
to
the level of a syndrome or mental disorder, as Gardner claims.

Darnall, however, believes the theory may soon get APA recognition. New
research, he said, indicates Gardner's findings may be more correct than
many critics believe and could get it into the next edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Fink scoffed at the suggestion.

"It won't be in there, I guarantee you," he said. "Since there has been no
verification, no research, it's not getting in there."

From an idea to court

Gardner's theories have yet to receive official recognition in the
industry,
but family law attorneys have been using them for years, most often on
behalf of fathers hoping to gain custody.

Annette Zender, a Woodstock resident who lost custody of her daughter
three
years after a Lake County judge sided with alienation claims against her,
likens it to legal kidnapping.

"When they can't find any other excuse, they come up with parental
alienation and it works," she said.

Since losing her daughter, Zender has built a network of suburban women
who
share similar stories. So far, she said, the group numbers more than 70
from
Lake, Cook, Kane, McHenry and Will counties.

While groups like Zender's want to see the syndrome, known as PAS, barred
from the courtroom, fathers' rights organizations support Gardner's work,
saying it can provide balance in a family court system that assumes
mothers
should always get custody.

"Parental alienation occurs, unfortunately," said Michael McCormick,
executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. "We
have seen parental alienation be adopted in numerous courtrooms across the
country as a valid science."

Whether that should be the case is something people on both sides thought
the Illinois Supreme Court would answer in the Perez case.

While that did not happen, Perez attorney Paul Feinstein said the court's
offer to hear more cases on the issue is a promising sign for PAS
opponents.

"They weren't impressed with it and that's why they invited more
challenges
to it," Feinstein said. "I think this is pretty much the end of it."

Theory: Syndrome critics say it has no scientific foundation


--
"The most terrifying words in the English language a
I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
--- Ronald Reagan

Just out of curiosity...is there an entry in the DSA for something more
commonly known as "brainwashing?" If there is, then Parental Alienation
Syndrome is simply an extension of that psychological phenomenon. I don't know
why it's so tough for others to see that fact.


In article , "Kenneth S."
writes:

It's interesting to see that Dr. Paul Fink of Temple University, a
former president of the American Psychological Association, denounces
Gardner's use of the term parental alienation syndrome. It's also
interesting that Gardner's critics say that the syndrome has not yet made it
into the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.