I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court's statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome

From: Mike Murphy [mailto:mike.murphy@nospam.ca]
Sent: July 23, 2009 11:11 PM
To: 'jflinfo@ncjfcj.org'
Subject: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court's statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome

 

The following quote is seen frequently and used most often by radical feminists who attribute it to your organization .

I am researching the history of radical feminism and misandry and would like to have this information for accurate attribution for use in my publications, including a future book.

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has warned that:

"[t]he discredited "diagnosis" of "PAS" (or allegation of "parental
alienation"), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately
asks the court to assume that the children'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 children's responses by acting in violent,
disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward
the children themselves, or the children's other parent."5

Given PAS passed the Frye scientific test in 2002 and the Canadian used scientific Mohan test the quote seems quite out of place for officers of the court to make and would appear to prejudice a case before it even comes before a judge who is also a member of this organization. The APA recommends the use of many of Dr. Gardner's books, who researched the abhorrent behaviour, to clinicians looking to deal with this form of child abuse.

Would you confirm the validity of this statement, the date of the assertion of this statement by the judges in your organization, and the studies used by the NCFCJ to conclude it is appropriate to call it discredited, and is scientifically invalid? I would also wish to have a list of the member judges who were involved in approving this statement for my book and research papers.

 

Michael Murphy

No comments: