Last weekend, I attended the Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), Canada’s first international conference on a form of child abuse that can be as bad as, or even worse than, sexual and physical abuse.
For the “show, don’t tell” version of what the presentations added up to, read A Kidnapped Mind (Dundurn Press, 2006), by former model and journalist Pamela Richardson, who spoke at the symposium.
Richardson wrote the book after her 16-year-old son, Dash Hart, neither drunk nor drugged, threw himself off Vancouver’s Granville Street Bridge on New Year’s Day, 2001.
Although Richardson was unaware there was such a syndrome until well into a 12-year custody ordeal as a “target parent,” her detailed chronicle of a remorseless campaign to “disappear” her from Dash’s life by his narcissistic father is the human face behind the evils described in the PAS literature.
The late psychologist and researcher Richard Gardner said of PAS, the term he coined in 1985, “I have introduced this term to refer to a disturbance in which children are obsessed with deprecation and criticism of a parent — denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.”
PAS goes far beyond the moderate alienation that frequently accompanies high-conflict divorce. The denigration of the target parent in PAS is not sporadic, impulsive and reality-based (“Your mother is such a flake”), but a vicious, consciously sustained and materially baseless campaign.
For example, in his presentation, Montreal psychologist Dr. Abe Worenklein, a specialist in PAS (he has testified at 600 trials), cited the case of a brainwashed boy who, witnessing in court, could no longer recall a single activity he’d ever done with his mother, but “knew” she’d given every man on their street a blow job. To the alienator, the child is a weapon. Hatred of the ex always trumps the child’s rights and mental well-being.
PAS-level alienators — whether male or female, the pattern of behaviour is identical — are typically so pathologically consumed with anger triggered by rejection, that they are beyond the reach of reason or moral suasion. More than just punishing, they wish literally to wipe out the target parent’s existence.
To this end, alienators will cut the target parent’s face out of family photos, banish all mention of his name or refuse to speak of him as “dad” (soon the child “de-parents” this way, too). Alienators exhibit an overwhelming sense of entitlement with no fear of courts. In Richardson’s case, her ex blithely ignored all access orders. During one year when she was supposed to have “joint custody,” she saw Dash for exactly 24 hours.
Alienators show the children court documents (a divorce no-no) and enmesh them in the legal process (“Should we ask for sole custody?”). They intercept messages and gifts from the other parent, then deny they were sent. They shun the target parent at school and sports events. They isolate the child from extended family and friends of the target parent, imputing fictional sins to all and sundry associated with her.
Critics of PAS fret that the syndrome is being exploited by abusive parents as a ploy to enforce visitation or custody of justifiably resistant children.
However, abused children present a notably different affect from the alienated. An abused child is reluctant to discuss what has been done to him and must be coaxed to reveal his secret. Even then, he doesn’t express hatred of the abusing parent, as he longs for a healed relationship.
By contrast, a PAS child exhibits classic symptoms of brainwashing, acting in robotic alignment with the alienator. (At 12, Dash wore his father’s clothes to court.) He is eager to badmouth the target parent. But he uses locutions and accusations obviously uploaded into him by an adult. Dr. Worenklein recalled four alienated siblings who parroted the exact same words in their baseless denunciations of their target parent.
Removal of the child from the alienator for a period of time — even three months, ideally a year — can effectively begin reversal of the brainwashing effect and restore a relationship with the target parent. Nevertheless, time does not heal the wounds left by the theft of the lost years.
PAS is a crime of calculation and opportunity, but alienators need enablers in the legal and social service systems. And they get them, as Dash’s father managed to do, time after time. Yet legal consequences for access order violation could be the single most effective deterrent to marginalization of the target parent. Since alienators will never compromise, custody should revert to the parent most willing to co-operate with the other parent on time spent with the child.
Happily, Canadian case law is trending toward acknowledgement of the syndrome. PAS has been part of the decisions in 74 cases since 1987, 53 in the last eight years.
One PAS-responsive judge wisely noted: “Hatred is not an emotion that comes naturally to a child. It has to be taught.”
If teaching hatred of the other parent had been written into B.C. family law as grounds for a reversal of custodianship in 1987, Dash Hart would be alive today. His martyrdom should count for something. The sobering message I drew is that vigorous advocacy for alienators by legal and social service professionals in the divorce industry is complicity with child abuse. If the “best interests of the child” is not to remain an empty mantra in the family law system, it must stop.
National Post
bkay@videotron.ca
For more information on PAS, visit: www.crckids.org
 | |
| by Tossed Salad Apr 01 2009 12:48 PM | It is is unfortunate that you did not site statistics on which gender uses this tactic the most. With gender pandering judges making misandric custody decrees I will give you three guesses. |
| |
| by chuck80 Apr 01 2009 1:31 PM | Male or female, those parents who use children as weapons in such a context are the scum of the earth. "PAS is a crime of calculation and opportunity..." Yes, and therefore, it should incurr criminal charges, not simply "Removal of the child from the alienator for a period of time." |
| |
| by rossbcan Apr 01 2009 2:49 PM | A very good discussion of custody / support issues occurred on this thread: network.nationalpost.com/.../lorne-gunter-family-court-to-men-just-shut-up-and-pay.aspx The bottom line is we live in an action precedes consequence reality. Fraudulent professions ("experts") would have us believe that matters such as abuse, PAS... are due to flawed human nature. The shrinks provide a collection of adjectives, stating that persons are of fixed nature, as opposed to responding to carrots and sticks in their environment. These are just excuses, with shrinks rationalizing in support of the side that pays them. PAS is a CONSEQUENCE of the ACTIONS of the alienator(s). The system tries to rationalize the why's (motivation) in terms of fixed human nature of the parties. One good, other evil. The truth is that because equality under law is no more, litigents are manipulated by environmental control, with different rules for each. It is not flaws in the law as written (by our lawmakers), it is judicial discretion, twisting and misrepresenting law. If a woman pretends abuse, she wins or at least is not sanctioned for perjery. If one of the parties is prosperous, litigation does not end until all parties are impoverished, with legal aid (your taxes) providing non-repayable (free) legal resources to the "needy". Divorce is a protection racket, enabled by judicial corruption which has rationalized the law from "social instrument relating action to consequence" (after the facts are in) to "preemptive justice" based on "expert opinion" (speculation) which will not allow equality in terms of rights and responsibilities between parents, as true law demands. The system treats divorce as a lottery and children as the prize (property) with major support financial value. The winner gets major financial value, the loser, eviction from their children's lives and slavery. Since children's opinions are considered, it is in the interest of both parties to manipulate children against the other. PAS is an extreme symptom, a consequence of abusive acts, encouraged by corrupt legal and psychiatric "professionals", placing parents at risk from an extremely corrupt legal "system". Here's a pertinent excerpt from above thread: Before y'all start speculating what the law should or shouldn't do, consider this: We live in an action precedes consequence reality. The law is an instrument of social accountability, reacting to illegal actions. According to true law, the law is bound to treat all persons equally. So long as a parent is actually caring for their children properly during their half time, the law is powerless to interfere. We should ALL be able to walk away from our ill chosen, loser spouses, care for our children half time with ZERO support payable. So long as we, as parents fulfill our parental obligations, true law is powerless to intervene. If our spouse is a deadbeat and unwilling or unable to fulfill their parental obligation, then, they, not the responsible parent deserves lawful retaliation. Contrast this to years of litigation (abusing children by conflict) with corrupt professions speculating on the future and "children's best interests". You are judged by what "experts" think of you, not your actions. Judicial treatment of males is exactly the same as so called "niggers" were treated by racists, enslaved. We're all Black now. Time to collectively turn on our overseers. |
| |
| by Stew88 Apr 01 2009 3:04 PM | Your article panders to social bias to hatred of fathers. this is a particularly dreadful state affairs in "family-law" and deeply rooted in provinces like Ontario. The tone and exclusion of relevant evidence makes it appear that men are responsible for parental alienation syndrome, when in fact, that is not at all true. You are guilty of odium paternus, and your article is a form of parental alienation syndrome by making all fathers look like ogres by misrepresenting the truth with the use of omission of fact. Your article is dreadfully insulting to fathers. |
| |
| by Rectificatif Apr 01 2009 3:43 PM | Every case I've seen (who doesn't know a divorced/separated family??) has the mother alienating the kids, not the father. So that should be stated more forcefully. Wives are already, wildly, favored by the courts, and we don't need more anti-father fuel for hate. The article is well-intentioned, though. But the statement, "If teaching hatred of the other parent had been written into B.C. family law as grounds for a reversal of custodianship in 1987, Dash Hart would be alive today" is irresponsible and even cruel. No one can say that for certainty, so the word "might" should replace "would," with a lot more modifiers. |
| |
| by fischerville Apr 01 2009 4:09 PM | Stew88: you're evidently not familiar with Barbara Kay's writing, as she has written quite a number of articles decrying anti-male bias. |
| |
| by rossbcan Apr 01 2009 4:15 PM | @Stew88 I must strongly disagree with your opinion regarding bias by Barbara. Further, if you bother to do a little research on Barbara Kay, you will find that this is one of her pet issues and she is all over injustice against men and children. Just because she uses some examples of male malfeasance in this matter does not tar her as non-objective nor anti-male. It is not a general matter of male good female bad. There are slimy individuals of all genders, biological or chosen. This is the largest crime of law, refusing to deal with individual acts and facts and dealing with gross social generalizations and mythology such as "females nurturing victims", "males abusive oppressors". The reasons for this range from judicial ignorance and laziness to generating income for the legal "profession" by creating and profiting from conflict. My opinion regarding why government tolerates this flagrant rationalizing away of law, as written is that many people have been socialized to dependency and, the real deadbeat parents (those who choose to exist on child support, be lazy) is that this is a sick game of "pass the parasite". If the prosperous parent is not evicted from their children's lives and enslaved by "child support" based solely on speculation, then these deadbeats suck on social services, pissing off voters. Its politics as usual. Make a promise of entitlements using the pretext of "fairness" and demand someone else pay. Recent social history says voters are not happy with the concept of paying taxes to support those who do not contribute. So, use the divorce courts to relieve this entitlement burden at the expense of slavery for prosperous parents (who can only react by being less productive) and insulating children from the evil values of "work ethic", "personal responsibility", etc. These children will grow up and demand the same entitlements and "fairness" that they were socialized to. This is GREAT, it increases the political demand for the welfare state which we can no longer afford. No matter, social / economic unrest will lead to the "police state". Governments do not care what they do, so long as they have the power and perks to do something, anything. The law used to protect us from state predations. Now, the law has devolved to the biggest predator of all. |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment