The Cross-Referral PAS Relationships, CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS

Children need. . . THIS?
CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS

Liz's article, "Why 'Therapeutic Jurisprudence' Must Be -- and Will Be -- Eliminated From Our Family Courts", published in 13Domestic Violence Report 65 (2008) is available at http://www.florida-attorneys-at-law.com/lawyer/articles.htm

 

The Cross-Referral PAS Relationships;
featuring Joe Goldberg aka Bernard Joseph Goldberg

Below my comments is an example of a solicitation/marketing letter by a PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome)promoter (the links and bold emphasis have been added, and the lawyer's name deleted, but the text otherwise is intact.) This is one way garbage put out by the MHP crowd in furtherance of unscientific therapeutic jurisprudence has permeated the family courts and made its way into the public discourse.

While Joseph Goldberg, the letter's author (below), does not appear to be a licensed psychologist or expert of any legitimate kind, he is far from the only one doing this. A number of father's rights types, such as Dean Tong and Ken Pangborn have managed to convince lawyers as well as litigants to work with them as "medical legal consultants" or "forensic experts" (whatever that means -- some kind of glorified paralegal.) In addition, licensed psychs and other MHPs also do this same thing, soliciting business as "coaches" and "consultants" as well as appointments as experts for the court.

The problem permeates the entire industry of therapeutic jurisprudence. It's particularly egregious in the area of the false-acc/abusers' defense lobbies, many of whom have an odd and interesting overlap with the "parental alienation syndrome" crowd, which seems to involve substantially the same motley activist network of PAS ringleaders, functional disciples of Richard A. Gardner. The PAS group includes psychs, lawyers, and the father's rights forensic paralegal types.

One of the psychologists listed below, Barry Brody of Miami ("Forensic Family Services" www.drbarrybrody.com/forensicfamilyservices.html), regularly has sent out a "parental alienation" newsletter to members of the Florida Bar family law section (I haven't received one in a while; perhaps he's finally removed me from his mailing list, but if I get another one, I will scan it and upload it here). Brody as well as a number of more familiar names have chimed in to bless the nonsense of "hostile-aggressive parenting" which burst on the scene a couple of years ago to rehabilitate this discredited drivel. See the sister websites (same ownership) www.parental-alienation-awareness.com/ and www.hostile-aggressive-parenting.com/. These include an unhealthy mix of professionals, who, based on their permitting their names to be used this way, apparently support the promulgation of the unscientific crap. Although by no means exhaustive, it's a convenient list of who to stay away from in child custody cases:

Richard Austin, R. Christopher Barden, Stephen Ceci, Douglas Darnall, Stephen Herman, Jayne Major, Daniel Rybicki, S. Richard Sauber  (listed twice) , W. vonBoch-Galhau, Richard A Warshak, Michael Bone, L.F. Lowenstein, Reena Sommer, Jerry Brinegar, Katherine Andre, Ken Lewis, Catherine Swanson Cain, Monty Weinstein, Amy J. L. Baker, David Britton, Robert Evans, Debra Gordy, Christina McGhee, Harvey Shapiro (Elizabeth Loftus's "investigator"), Jose Manuel Aguilar Cuenca, Theresa K. Cooke, Jeff Opperman, Remi Thivierge, Joe Goldberg, James J. Gross, Randy Kolin, Randy Rand, David Carico, Lawrence W. Daly, Charles D. Jamieson. [from www.parental-alienation-awareness.com/experts.asp accessed 01/01/08]

Notice in Goldberg's letter, below, the trade-promotion claim that these cases are "difficult to resolve". This is typical parenting evaluator propaganda -- it increases the appearance of some kind of need for their "expertise". Also note that not only does he make the ubiquitous misrepresentation that there is a disorder known as "parental alienation syndrome" but -- and this is fraudulent -- adds the embellishment that it is a medical disorder! (Who is infected? At its least implausible, PAS was a description of a relationship dynamic.)

There's a big problem with this kind of thing that supersedes even the promotion of bogus parental alienation theories. The problem arises because most lawyers represent different clients taking different sides in different cases (sometimes the wife, sometimes the husband, sometimes the "good guy", sometimes the "bad guy", etc.). If Solicited Attorney runs up against Expert in another case, after they have established a "cross-referral professional relationship" and formal or informal "working partnership" (the formal kind is of dubious legal ethicity because of the inappropriate feeder of referrals in exchange for indirect compensation), and have "mutual" cases pending, Solicited will have a very difficult time shredding Expert or Expert's testimony when that is required in another case, or filing a complaint against him, if necessary, because that would place Solicited's other clients' pending cases at risk.

In such cases, the lawyer will be tempted to rationalize to himself, as well as maintain the posture in the community at large, that Expert's horsepuckey is scientifically valid, and pretend that lawyer in any event can safely buy into this because lawyer is not a "scientist". Expert (who likely knows his spoutings are specious) also will know that Solicited is doing this, and thus has given clients less than competent representation (potentially damaging information to have against a lawyer).

But because it's all ostensibly collegial, neither of them will admit to the bogus science, or what is going on, even to each other, and as people do, they both will maintain the pretext of belief in such things as the "medical disorder of parental alienation" or "the benefits of joint custody", as well as the value of their memberships in the organizations that promote these make-work ideas.

It's almost like unacknowledged blackmail. The lawyer who naively or purposefully steps down this path and goes along with this kind of thing (encouraged by the mixed-discipline organizations, such as the AFCC) in order to obtain referrals has sold his professional soul to the devil, literally. This is true whether the cross-referral relationship is with a licensed psychologist, or, as in this case, with a paralegal-type bird dog.

Deliberate relationships with expert witnesses such as the one sought in the below should be recognized as ethical violations and banned by state bar ethics rules. But the conflict of interest problems are inherent in the nature of the association and exist even when there is no explicit referral relationship -- a reason for banning these people from the court system altogether. Ironically, it's worse for the lawyers who are not ideologues, because they are more likely to advocate for different client perspectives. The repeated association of these "experts" into cases, however, any one of whom at any time and from time to time may show up on the wrong side of a given case, creates many of the same dilemmas that ordinary client conflict-of-interest issues do. This problem also applies to guardians ad litem, frequently a small group of lawyers or MHPs who are appointed by judges and placed over and over again in the same local group of lawyers' cases, and who similarly opine and write reports that sometimes are on the right side and sometimes on the wrong side.

These people are witnesses in each case (or, in the case of GALs, sometimes even considered to be parties proper). They are not in fact "neutrals" (even if hired as such, once their reports are rendered, they are advocates for one or the other side, and they are never neutral when they are hired as a consultant-turned-testifying expert for one of the lawyers). Thus, at a point, they are, just as a party would be, pointedly in favor of one side and outcome, and overtly adverse to the position of the other party in a case.

They are not objective disinterested witnesses. They are not neutrals. They are not scientists. They are not immune from bias and self-interest (especially where favor is curried with judges and lawyers for future referrals), and especially where their professional trade organizations have lobbied for immunity and effectively protected them from oversight. They are not doing this because they "care about children". They are not akin to a doctor who drew blood and put it under a microscope and testifies in court that yes, he saw the little amoebae or bacteria or whatever and made a diagnosis. (And the Goldbergs and Tongs are not even licensed, regulated professionals of ANY sort -- not that licensed psychologists are much better.) If you don't understand this, having spent your life immersed in this over-therapized. infotainment pop-psychology advice-columnized big-pharma drug-pushing culture we live in: it's time to get educated.

Not only are they witnesses, just like litigants and other interested, affiliated parties on one side or another of a case, but they are an especially dangerous kind of witness, because they appear in case after case after case. One lawyer may encounter the same expert in different cases in which the same fraudulent snake oil is sometimes favorable and sometimes disfavorable to the lawyer's client. Expert may be taking a meritless position for the lawyer's client in one case (which position the lawyer would like to bolster, being an advocate for the client), but show up in another case with the same meritless position that is against the lawyer's client in that case. Or, Expert might be opining differently because after all, so much psychological opining and "theories" -- er ideas -- (these are not scientific theories) are unsubstantiable, unfalsifiable, unresearched nonsense. If Expert and a lawyer are in cahoots in various cases, the lawyer is placed into a conflict in the instant case, unable to zealously discredit Expert and do what is appropriate and necessary to protect his potentially harmed client in the instant case -- even if the lawyer otherwise would be willing to sacrifice his own referral source or collegial association with Expert. Can't do it.

Unlike lawyers in many other areas of practice, who may retain their clients for years, family lawyers typically need a steady stream of new one-shot clients. In addition, family lawyers also tend to work in smaller firms. So they value those who send them business. From what I've personally seen, I suspect that too many family lawyers, perhaps without recognizing or acknowledging the conflicts of interest that have caused their discomfort and unwillingness adequately to represent some of their clients, in fact have sacrificed these clients on the altar of maintaining their professional relationships, associations, and referral sources.

These people are not colleagues, however. They are case witnesses and participants.

Some lawyers admit to feeling burnout, but they've rationalized their unwillingness to zealously advocate for their clients, and their discomfort, as stemming from the "high conflict" created by unreasonable clients, or the high emotional toll the cases are taking on them. Others retain their enthusiasm by becoming ideologues, and taking only cases in which they will not encounter the conflicts (e.g. overwhelmingly their clients raise claims that the other parent is an alienator.) This conveniently furthers the propagation of the bad science.

The rest justify their lack of vigorous representation, and the coerced settlements they've foisted on some clients as concern for the best interests of children, or as the only reasonable settlement position, or as their ideological commitment to helping people to just get along (especially when the retainer has run out). They profess to themselves and everyone around a great affinity for mediation and therapy and collaborative resolution, and all manner of therapeutic jurisprudence in the interests of everyone, and similar specious posturing, encouraged in their self-delusion by a steady drip of MHP literature. This kind of thing is just not as pervasive in other areas of the law, no matter how heated the conflicts get, and it's one substantial reason the public has such a generally dim view of the family courts and family lawyers.

Given that clients are entitled to their choice of attorneys, and are entitled to independent, unconflicted, attorneys (agents) who are committed to furthering their interests and goals (as the client, not the attorney, has defined them), the only viable solution is a disqualification of any GAL or forensic expert who previously has been associated in any case with either of the lawyers in that case, and the striking and nullification of all testimony and reports of that expert, no matter at what stage of a case the lawyer is hired. It also is time to substantially limit the use of forensic experts and GALs in family court altogether because for the most part, MHPs, including child custody evaluators and their relatedforensic offshoots, in fact are unneeded, unhelpful, and undesirable in the vast majority of child custody cases.

(And any judge who would let Joe "PAS is a medical disorder" Goldberg** testify as an expert in a case really should be removed from the bench for incompetence. Yes, I said that.)

        -- liz

**Joe Goldberg formerly was known as Bernard Joseph Goldberg. In his own Florida divorce case, Goldberg claimed that his ex-wife was "alienating" his teenage daughters, and even the psychs didn't buy it -- except, Goldberg urges us to mention, an evaluator in his case, Glenn Caddy, Ph.D. Not surprisingly, Caddy is listed as a speaker in and among some of the usual names in the PAS promotion set at a September 2008 "Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome" organized and promoted by Mr. Goldberg. See http://cspas.ca/speaker_profiles.shtml Dean Tong also is listed as a speaker at the event. That pretty much says it all. (That and that Mrs. Goldberg and her two poised and articulate daughters ultimately and fortuitously prevailed against the frivolous machinations.)

---

Examples of Goldberg's approach to lawyers, financial advisors, vocational experts, and evendomestic violence groups! More. This is not "medicine", it's marketing and money. Very dangerous, given Goldberg's obvious promotional talents combined with his obsessive motivation stemming from his own failed attempts to control his ex-wife and children in his own divorce case. (Recent misguided Canadian courts apparently are being influenced, too, sending children for deprogramming "treatments" at Warshak "clinics" in the U.S. at unthinkably ridiculous expense. I could not call this merely a financial con because children and family affectional relationships -- which should not in the first place be the province of government engineering -- literally are being experimented on and at risk of being harmed. Judges, wake up!)

Below, he approaches a lawyer:

Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 18:24:00 EST
Subject: Re: Client Referral from Goldberg & Associates - Joe Goldberg
To: [Solicited Attorney]

Dear [Solicited Attorney]:

My name is Joe Goldberg. I am a Medical Legal Consultant specializing in Family Law cases that involveParental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome.

I found you listed in ACFLS ( Association of Certified Family Law Specialist ).

There are times I'm sure, when you've come across high conflict cases regarding Visitation, Custody and Parental Alienation. These cases are extremely difficult to resolve in the best interest of the child.

You may not know that Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome, is both a medical disorder and a form of Child Abuse.

In many of the cases I am involved in, I refer a client to a new attorney.

I like the fact that you have the highest qualifications and I believe that you could assist us with legal representation.

I would like for us to get to know each other, a little better and I would also like to know if you would be interested in developing a cross-referral professional relationship on these type of cases?

Allow me to introduce you to our website, so you can learn more about me and my firm: www.ParentalAlienation.ca Presently we work on cases all over California.

We would also like to link websites with you.

Please let me know, if you'd be interested in a working partnership and if you would like to talk with me after the holidays.

Until then, I want to wish you a Happy and Healthy Holiday Season.

Respectfully Yours,

Joe Goldberg
Goldberg & Associates
Tel 905-481-0367
www.ParentalAlienation.ca

Below: Goldberg targeting -- and contaminating -- financial forensics with this specious rot by promising them $$$$ referrals...

Date: Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:30 AM
Subject: CDFA Assistance Needed - Please Call Joseph Goldberg /905-481-0367
To: [Solicited Financial Advisor]

Hello [Solicited Financial Advisor]:

My name is Joseph Goldberg and the name of my firm is Goldberg & Associates. We work with family law attorneys in divorce litigation and specifically on the topic of Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Please visit our web site at www.ParentalAlienation.Ca

We have many clients that need CDFA Services. The clients we represent and local to you (although we have offices in FL, & ON.).

I would like to discuss an offer to refer my clients and their business to your firm. In fact, I would like to give you an opportunity to be our "Exclusive Affiliate" for all of our clients needing CDFA Services.

Due to the fact that I am the Founder of The Canadian Symposium For Parental Alienation Syndrome, ( CS-PAS ), my firm anticipates a significant increase in the number of clients that come to us for assistance, we want to prepare for that volume of business by having your help lined up in advance.

I assume that you did not know that Parental Alienation Syndrome is both a Medical Disorder and a widely recognized form of Child Abuse.

Please visit the website for CS-PAS so you'll understand the importance of this event.

www.Cspas.Ca

It would be greatly appreciated if we could get better acquainted on the phone. I would very much like to discuss our interest in the arrangement to work with you and your firm. Please call me at - Tel : 905-481-0367

Once again, I look forward to hearing from you soon !

Respectfully Yours,

Joseph Goldberg
Goldberg & Associates
www.ParentalAlienation.Ca

CS-PAS
www.cspas.ca
Tel: 905-481-0367

And below: yet another marketing ploy, targeting vocational forensics -- and with the promise of referrals, soliciting money from them!

[Saturday, June 28, 2008]

Hi [Solicited Vocational Forensic] 

Please do me a favor and try and mail out a few packets of information about you and your firm so I can pass it along to our interested clients. If you can send it by Express Mail that would be appreciated. (Include your CV, Photos, Logos, etc.)

You can mail it to me at:

Goldberg & Associates
A7-1390 Major Mackenzie Drive East
Suite 127
Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada L4S 0A1

Also... I forgot to mention this but in reference to the one time Sponsorship Fee, if you want to make the payment with a credit card directly to CSPAS, they ;made it very simple and easy to do.

All you have to do is click on the hyperlink below: Click here: Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome

Then scroll down to the very bottom of the page and click on the button that says:  

VENDOR AFFILIATION

Once again, I look forward to doing business with you soon.

Respectfully Yours,

Joe Goldberg
Goldberg & Associates
www.ParentalAlienation.ca
Tel: 905-481-0367
CS-PAS

---

[Sunday, June 29, 2008]

Hi [Solicited Vocational Forensic]

It was a pleasure getting to know you and I am very excited about this opportunity to work with you and your firm.  

I'd like to itemize the details regarding your Exclusive Vendor Affiliation with G&A. We truly want to make this a successful and profitable arrangement for your company because we need your assistance for Vocational Evaluations

We are prepared to offer your firm all of the following benefits - all we seek in return is your support of the CS-PAS, (symposium) and a one time Sponsorship Fee in the amount of $750.00 ;

EXCLUSIVE VENDOR AFFILIATION BENEFITS

1. Your company will be our Exclusive Vendor for Vocational Evaluations in Texas

2. The Registration Fee for you to attend the symposium will be waived ($395.00)

3. The Fee to attend the Gala Banquet Dinner will be waived ($250.00)

4. Significant advertisements promoting your company will be posted on the CS-PAS website. The cost to design the ad will be paid for by the CS-PAS, it will be designed by an advertising agency. The value of the ad would normally cost $400.00, and the ad will be seen on ;www.cspas.ca

5. Significant advertisements promoting your company will also be posted on our website. The cost of the ad will be paid for by the CS-PAS, it will be designed by an advertising agency. The value of the ad would normally cost $400.00, and it will be seen online at www.parentalalienation.ca

We want to build a business relationship that will last for many years to come. It would be a great pleasure to work with you on these services.

Please Make Your Check Payable To:
CSPAS / Canadian Symposium

Please Mail It To:
CSPAS / Canadian Symposium
A7-1390 Major Mackenzie Drive East, Suite 127
Richmond Hill, Ontario L4S 0A1
Attn: Corporate Sponsors Dept.

Once again, I look forward to meeting you and doing business with your firm!

Respectfully Yours,

Joseph Goldberg
CS-PAS
www.cspas.ca
Goldberg & Associates
www.parentalalienation.ca
Tel: 905-481-0367

Below: Goldberg attempting to schnor the email subscriber list from a domestic violence group:

From: TheCSPAS@aol.com <TheCSPAS@aol.com>
Subject: Announcement To Members from The CSPAS - Founder Joseph Goldberg
Date: Thursday, December 25, 2008, 1:44 AM

I am with The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome, and my name is Joseph Goldberg. We would like to know if it is possible to obtain an opt-in email list of your members so we can send them a video clip of our upcoming conference at The Metro Toronto Convention Center March 27th through March 29th.

Please visit our website for the details www.CSPAS.ca http://www.cspas.ca/

Since this is our First Annual Conference we hope you will allow us to use your email list solely for this purpose and at no time would your list be given out to any third parties. I am the Founder of the Conference, and I will take every measure to safeguard the usage of your email information.

We would also like to ask if your email name and address information is available in a CSV data format ? ( This way we can do a simple blast of the emails all at one time, or perhaps we could send you the video clip and you could send it out to all of your members for us ? ) Either way, The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome would be forever grateful for your assistance.

Did you know that Parental Alienation Syndrome ( P.A.S. ), is a recognized form of child abuse ?

Once again, thank you for giving us this opportunity to inform your members with our promotional video clip of the conference.

Respectfully Yours,

Joseph Goldberg
Founder of The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome

Below: Goldberg flattering psychologists and promising referrals:

From: jgoldberg@cspas.org
To: maj2650@aol.com
Sent: 1/29/2009 6:07:32 P.M. Central Standard Time
Subj: Client Referral To Your Office - From G&A / JG  

My name is Joseph Goldberg, and I'm with the C.S.P.A.S.

http://www.cspas.org   I was looking online at a few different websites when I came across your information.

I'm trying to help some clients that live in close proximity to your office. My clients recently expressed a need for professional services that you can provide.

Are you presently meeting with and taking on new clients and if we wanted to refer these clients to you is that something that would be of interest?

All of the clients that I would refer, are local to your office and the main reason that I'm able to refer a potentially large number of new clients to you, is because we have public access to a database of experienced professionals who are affiliated with the CSPAS - Referral Service Center.

FYI, there are no charges of any kind in connection with the CSPAS - RSC.

The CSPAS provides assistance to adults and children who are dealing with problems that relate to "Parental Alienation." We also try to encourage professional's to enroll in at least a few lectures that offer CEU's to assist them in working with the clients that we refer.

FYI ...We have an upcoming conference on Parental Alienation this coming - March 27 - March 29th at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (MTCC).   As Founder of the CSPAS -  I'm very interested in supporting the work you do, and I believe we can,  and should help each other on an on going basis. I assume that you are acquainted with the fact that Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome ( P.A.S. ), is a widely recognized form of child abuse.

Please let me know if you're interested in taking on some new clients and our client referral services which can help you to expand the growth of your practice.

My Kindest Regards,

Joseph Goldberg Founder of CSPAS

For more information about the conference, please visit our website at http://www.cspas.org

To stop receiving these emails please unsubscribe.
The Canadian Symposium For Parental Alienation Syndrome
647-476-3170
A7 - 1390 Major Mackenzie Drive East, Suite 127
Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada L4S 0A1

Respectfully Yours,

Joseph Goldberg
Founder of The Canadian Symposium for Parental Alienation Syndrome

Dean Tong (another non-psychologist "forensic consultant") was arrested 01/28/08 in Florida for domestic violence and witness tampering. Tong was accused in a prior marriage of child sexual abuse, which lead the former paramedic to create a business of, inter alia, helping guys accused of abuse beat the rap (although in recent years he apparently sought to gain legitimacy occasionally working for the "other side" too). His primary affiliations, however, appeared to be with the PAS purveyor crowd, a number of the individuals listed above, and other "it's a false accusation and mom brainwashed the kid to make this up" defense lawyers and forensics such as Ralph Underwager. Lightning striking twice? More of these types: Steven Carlson, "the custody coach", Ken Pangborn, and Allen Cowling. And of course the agenda's Ph.D.s...

More on Dean Tong, can be found here: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/fathers.htm#tong

A side note on one reason parental alienation theory is so appealing to the family law therapeutic jurisprudence types, including not only the forensics but also the therapists, guardians ad litem, parenting coordinators, and supervised visitation and therapeutic visitation opportunists: when their ineffective make-believe, "reunification therapies" and similar ideas don't work (probably because not a one is backed by any credible research or even anecdotally effective methodology), even if parental alienation wasn't earlier raised in the case and abuse was founded, it provides the perfect alibi to give some schnookered judge who wants to know what happened. And so they just point the finger for all of the wasted time, money, and miserable mess they've made of the case at... the mother (usually), claiming "unconscious alienation" or "covert alienation".

This work is part of ongoing research being conducted by the National Network on Family Law Policy, with the assistance of numerous scholars, professionals, and others who are investigating the workings of our justice system. For more information, contact sarah,

Also see
Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts
Custody Evaluator Quotes
What's Wrong With Parenting Coordination
Parenting Coordination issues
Psychology in Family Court
Custody Evaluators Lack Expertise
Forensic Evaluators Lack Science
Custody Evaluator Discovery Issues
Collaborative Divorce Psychologists

SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW

By MamaLiberty

When I started this blog, over a year ago, I promised that I would expose every last criminal in family court.  I will continue to keep that promise and Mama Liberty will be expanding to other various outlets to give Mothers a voice even more.  We are United States Citizens with the same rights as any other.

If you do not like what is being exposed about you and your corrupt system then do the right thing and stop abusing your power and feeding your ego!

We have the right to expose any government entity for fraud, abuse or neglect.

You all cannot shut us all up, we have power in numbers

The wind always blows mightily over Kansas as it has for so long,  just ask Dorothy.

Now the winds of change are upon the dirty family court system in Shawnee County.  Well over a decade a Mother in Kansas has fought the court system and its criminals to have visitation with her daughter.

Claudine Dombrowski continues to ask the court to follow the custody guidelines for her visitation time.  In February 2010 a miracle happened when the Judge actually adhered and allowed the now teenage daughter to have unsupervised visitation with her Mother with no interference from the father.

But the continued problems this Mother and Child face is the Guardian Ad Litem for the child, Jill M. Dykes, who wishes nothing more than to keep Claudine from her child.  Instead of trying to assistwith fostering a relationship with the Mother, Dykes wants to stay on this case, she wants more taxpayers money to keep her job.  Within the transcript of a hearing held in 2009 Ms. Dykes ineptness and bias against Claudine Dombrowski is evident. In the below transcript Dykes continues to interrupt the judge and fervently tries to prevent the judge from allowing unsupervised visitation. Dykes other favorite thing is to submit overtime to the county for keeping a parent and child separated.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24383015/2009-January-14-GAL-M-Jill-Dykes-Court-Appointed-Abuser-submits-for-OVERTIME-pay

http://ks-fcrc.com/Documents/Richardson%20v.%20Dombrowski%2096D417%204-6-09%20hearing.pdf

Much to the dismay of the court system and specifically Jill M. Dykes this Mother is demanding that the statutes be upheld…otherwise they should terminate her parental rights.  It is not something that would be easy for any Mother but perhaps it is the right thing to do, in the best interest of the child and this mother.

They have once again started their campaign to end the unsupervised visits.  In fact what has been learned by this blogger is that is that

“if there is any extended visitation time it would evaporate any progress that the mother and child have made.” 

That is right, you read that right, the court whores are going to make it very difficult for any mother and child relationship.  Therefore until justice is given to Claudine and her child, this blog and others will continue to expose the injustices by Shawnee County and those that profit from it. The winds of change are coming Shawnee…and its a BIG one…watch out for falling houses Jill

Entry Filed under: Child Custody Issues,Child Custody for fathers,Children's Rights,Family Courts,activism,child abuse,domestic violence. Tags: domestic violence, family court, abusers,government corruption, battered women, Violence, Judges, domestic abuse, abused children,bad fathers, women haters, cyber stalking, protective parent, abusive men, mother rights,family court corruption, violence against women, maternal deprivation, stupid men, Claudine Dombrowski, Shawnee KS, Jill M. Dykes.

WordPress Tags: SOMEWHERE,OVER,expose,Mama,Citizens,rights,system,government,fraud,numbers,Kansas,Dorothy,Shawnee,Mother,daughter,Claudine,Dombrowski,custody,guidelines,February,miracle,Judge,interference,father,problems,Child,Guardian,Litem,Jill,Dykes,wishes,Instead,relationship,money,Within,transcript,bias,parent,January,Court,Abuser,OVERTIME,Documents,Richardson,fact,justice,Entry,Children,Courts,violence,corruption,Judges,deprivation,outlets,statutes,injustices,fathers,blog,visitation,women

911 tape released in West Haven murder-suicide; Baby is Crying While Father Shoots Mother to Death

 

Listen to audio, baby crying while mom is shot and killed caught on 911 tape

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/05/25/news/metro/doc4bfb26c22e0e5880064660.txt

911 tape released in West Haven murder-suicide; Probe finds ‘troubling’ aspects in arrest, monitoring in domestic violence case (multimedia)

Published: Tuesday, May 25, 2010

By James Tinley, Register Staff

jtinley@newhavenregister.com

A report into a Jan. 17 murder-suicide in West Haven released Monday by the Ansonia-Milford State’s Attorney’s Office details key break downs in the way the domestic violence case was handled and calls for reforms at virtually every level in the response to such cases.

(Caution: The following audio tape contains disturbing content)

The five-month investigation “uncovered several troubling revelations” in aspects of the arrest, prosecution and monitoring of the original domestic violence case of Selami Ozdemir, 42, said Kevin D. Lawlor, state’s attorney for the Ansonia-Milford Judicial District.

Ozdemir, who had a history or domestic violence, was able to post $25,000 bail after assaulting the mother of his children on April 16 without paying a dime of his pocket to a bail bondsman. Once released from jail he was able to violate a protective order for the second time in 12 hours to kill Shengyl Rasim, 25, in front of their two children. He then turned the borrowed gun on himself.

A review of the 911 tapes shows operators “did not communicate vital facts to patrol officers,” on April 17 including a warning from a concerned citizen that Ozdemir was drunk, dangerous and heading for the house. Officers, who were back at the house, were never told of the call from the concerned citizen that came in when they were still at the house on Blohm Street.

Minutes later another 911 call would come in from the Rasim’s house. Arguing, and five loud popping sounds, followed by a baby crying can be heard on the chilling audio from the 911 call.

Operators did not tell the officers, who were sent back to the house, of the possible gun shots.

When they arrived they found Rasim suffering from four gun shot wounds and Ozdemir with a single self-inflicted gun shot wound to his chest.

An attorney for the Rasim’s estate Monday filed his intent to sue the city and dispatchers for “their extreme negligence” in failing to notify the officers of the citizen’s warning.

“There are so many egregious errors on the part of the West Haven Police Department in this case, where do you even start?” said Attorney Joel T. Faxon of Stratton Faxon Law Firm in New Haven. “Ozdemir violated a protective order not once, but two or three times, in the span of 12 hours before killing his wife and no one bothered to take him into custody. I believe racially motivated misconduct clearly plays a role in this case. The dispatchers appear to have a very cavalier and dismissive attitude toward this young Turkish woman who didn’t speak English well and obviously ignored direct warnings of her impending execution.”

The report says the 911 operators have access to translation services, but never requested them.

Calls to the West Haven Fire Department, which oversees civilian dispatchers with the police department were not returned Monday. A West Haven police spokesman declined to comment. Both departments have launched internal investigations.

A gap in the treatment and evaluation of people accused of domestic violence also was exposed in the report.

Ozdemir, who was first arrested for beating his wife in September 2009, was accepted into a family violence education program, but did not attend any classes because there was a three-month wait.

“My primary concern is to determine exactly what happened in this situation and, to the extent possible, attempt to assure that a tragedy such as this does not happen again. It is not to assign blame to any agency or group,” Lawlor said.

Lawlor also called on the state legislature to end the practice of people accused of crimes effectively receiving “get out of jail free cards.”

Ozdemir was arrested for assaulting Rasim on Jan. 16 and was freed that night by a bail bondsman, without any payment to the bondsman. How he was able to do that is still under investigation, but no state law prevents it from happening again. A law to reform the bail bonds industry, which is one of Lawlor’s recommendations, died in the Senate without a vote this year after gaining unanimous approval in the House.

The procedural changes the report calls include: Increasing the number of slots in the Family Violence Education Program; requiring more formal monitoring, supervision and reporting by those accused of domestic violence while their cases are pending in court; formalizing statewide procedures for notifying the state Department of Children and Families of potential instances of child endangerment involving domestic violence; reforming the bail bond industry to prevent a bondsman from issuing what is in effect a “get out of jail free card” to someone accused of domestic violence; and increasing inter-agency and intra-agency communication in domestic violence cases.

Shengyl Rasim Report

Shengyl Rasim Report

WordPress Tags: West,Haven,Baby,Father,Mother,Death,Listen,news,Probe,violence,multimedia,James,Tinley,Register,Staff,Ansonia,Milford,State,Attorney,Office,response,cases,Caution,investigation,prosecution,Selami,Ozdemir,Kevin,Lawlor,Judicial,District,history,bail,children,April,Once,Shengyl,Rasim,citizen,Blohm,Street,Minutes,self,chest,estate,negligence,Police,Department,Joel,Faxon,Stratton,Firm,times,wife,custody,misconduct,plays,role,attitude,Turkish,woman,English,execution,translation,services,Fire,civilian,spokesman,Both,treatment,evaluation,September,education,classes,situation,extent,tragedy,agency,legislature,payment,industry,Senate,approval,House,Program,supervision,procedures,card,communication,Report,mode,articles,aspects,revelations,operators,officers,errors,departments,investigations,crimes,recommendations,instances,suicide,five,month,bondsman,hours,dispatchers,three

The Ever Expanding Parental Alienation Theory: Amy J. Baker's Research Revisited

By the awesoeme Randi James

As previously discussed by F. Bessette, Amy Baker's participants were mainly recruited via internet advertisements:

Nothing wrong with this method. However, the wording could lead to a biased selection:

1. She introduces herself as a research psychologist, versus a researcher.

2. The word manipulated is loaded. How does she define it or how do her participants define it?

3. The word alienated is loaded. How does she define it or how do her participants define it?

And so what kind of people responded to her ads? Who was represented? Baker gives us some information in her research entitled, Patterns of Parental Alienation Syndrome: A

Qualitative Study of Adults Who were Alienated from a Parent as a Child.

40 participants were utilized (a large sample size for a qualitative study)

The age range was from 19 to 67 years old (keep in mind that they are reflecting on their childhood.

37.24 was the average age for women and

42.73 for men

in rounding ages mode=40

just some maybe useless information!!)

15 men and 25 women (interesting gender distribution)

29 of the participants reported that their parents divorced during their childhood. (This ranged from from birth to age 13, with an average of 5.76 years and a mode of 2. What about the other 11 participants? )

34 cases in which the mother was the alienator

6 cases= father

**There is no information about the parents'/children's economic status [pre-divorce, post-divorce] which may give us information on class issues. There is no racial or ethnic information which may give us some background on cultural issues.**

Baker's goal #1:

to determine whether there were people who identified themselves as having been alienated from one parent due to the other parent’s actions and attitudes.

She notes:

Although these data do not provide any benchmark for determining the actual prevalence of the phenomenon in the general population, they do provide evidence that there are people who believe that they have had this experience.

There are also people who believe they were raped, impregnated, and abducted by aliens. There are people who believe Tupac Shakur and/or Elvis Presley are still alive. There were people who thought the world would end in 2000. All of their evidence says/said so. What mattered in this study was not there was something called parental alienation, but people's beliefs about their recollections. This study did not involve proving anything. It was exploratory in nature.

Baker's goal #2:

to determine whether there were different types of parental alienation experiences or whether they all followed the same general outline.

So she might be trying to expand on the previous literature. Innovative.

This is what Baker found:

PATTERN 1: NARCISSISTIC MOTHER IN DIVORCED FAMILY

all portrayed their mother as self-centered, demanding a high degree of attention and admiration, and not able to see them as separate individuals...a woman who was charming, dynamic, and preoccupied with having her own needs met rather than meeting the needs of her children.

Picture portrayed does not necessarily equal reality. A mother (or any parent) more concerned with her own needs against her children's own best interest would essentially be neglecting her children. In what ways did the participants in Baker's research describe the children being neglected--emotionally, mentally, physically, spiritually? Each is very different.

it can be surmised that these narcissistic mothers cultivated an emotionally enmeshed relationship with the participants when they were young children that appeared to serve their own need for love and admiration rather than to promote the emotional health and growth of the participants.

Enmeshed is an overused word--heavily saturated in psychological literature--that tries to malign the relationship between mothers and their children. The opposite of enmeshment is detachment, which is also pathological according to psych theory (yes, these are theories, not laws). It is easy for strangers and those without a vested interest in the relationship to pathologize other people's family dynamics. Perhaps it would serve psych researchers better if they were to performethnographic studies--become a part of the family and observe--in order to determine how what has been classified as maladjustment may serve to benefit the family in various situations.

Baker goes on to say:

Maternal narcissism appeared to fuel the alienation in at least three ways. First, despite the powerful personality presented to the world, narcissists tend to feel empty inside and easily become enraged at the first sign of humiliation or abandonment (Masterson, 1981). Therefore, it is quite likely that the end of the marriage triggered in these women feelings of shame and rage that became directed towards the husband.

Pure speculation. (Then again, who ever said what was presented in research was fact?) If the marriage's end was a result of the husband's actions, is that shame and rage unwarranted? Could we also not apply the same humiliation or abandonmentand/or shame and rage to the father because he now realizes the extent of his actions? Could the father be the narcissist?

This is certainly consistent with the fact that the participants recalled a steady stream of badmouthing about the absent father following the divorce. These men were referred to as cheaters, gamblers, rapists, alcoholics, and abusers in front of the participants.

This is almost laughable (not at the children's pain though). Might we want to consider that these fathers were in fact the names that were used, or that the behaviors they exhibited matched these names? No. This research wasn't supposed to verify or dispute this. The focus is on the mother's actions, rendering the father's potential behaviors as invisible. And who gets to decide what a mother should or should not tell her child or what is or is not age appropriate? Psychologists?

Thus, the alienation may have been partly motivated by revenge, as if the mothers were saying, “If you don’t want me you can’t have the children.”

Speculation. What if the mother was saying, "Your display of character has caused such a disturbance and is evidence of your utter disregard for the children."

A second underlying motivation of the alienation fueled by the mothers’ narcissism appears to be anger towards the children that they wanted to have a relationship with the father even though he had rejected the mother. This is consistent with the fact that narcissists generally have a hard time understanding that others (including if not especially their children) have separate feelings and experiences of the world (Kernberg, 1976). For the narcissist, if she is angry with someone, the children should be as well.

Was the mother angry because the father rejected her or because the father abusedher [or the children]? Big difference. How would we know, decades later? If a mother is not to speak of the father being a drunk or cheater, is she supposed to speak of him being physically or sexually abusive? And if so, when should that information be divulged? On the other hand, if the father is the narcissist, wouldn't he have a hard time understanding that others (including his children and maybe his ex-wife) have separate feelings and experiences of the world? How might he display that narcissism? (hint: by claiming parental alienation)

Third, the narcissistic mothers might have felt especially alone and fragile following the divorce and might have relied more on their children for comfort, companionship, and reassurance than before. Seen in this light, the time the children spent with the father under these circumstances would have been experienced as a profound loss. Many narcissists do not know how to be alone, as they need an audience to make them feel real and to reassure them of their grandiosity (Golumb,1992).

Speculation with misogynistic undertones. This particularly pathologizes mothers who do not re-couple after divorce and choose to focus on [rebuilding] the relationship between her and her children (which is vital if they were previously subjected to abuse). And then, as I previously stated, would the same thing apply to the father if he is indeed the narcissist (doesn't know how to be alone and thus re-partners quickly, garners support from his parents, then decides to take interest in kids now that he has an audience)?

Moving on,

PATTERN 2: NARCISSISTIC MOTHER IN NON DIVORCED FAMILY

There were 8 cases in which "parental alienation" was displayed in an intact family--no divorce, no custody battle--the parents and children lived in one household. I have asked this question repeatedly--Does parental alienation occur in intact families?-- and I have stated that these so-called alienating behaviors occur in "regular" households (see Parental Alienation in "High Conflict" Divorce: Questions We Must Ask). According to Richard Gardner, founder of parental alienation theory, this isn't parental alienation. According to Baker, it was like this:

The primary technique entailed confiding in the child about the inadequacies and failings of the father.

Confiding implies that it was some sort of secret between the mother and child. Was this the case?

Much of what was shared with the participants about the father was designed to make them feel anger or resentment toward him and protective of the mother, furthering the alienation.

Is this a fact or opinion and how can we know? How do we know that the child did not carry these feelings on his/her own and look to the mother for mutual support?

It is also possible that the mother was not able to maintain an adult relationship in which emotional honesty and compromise would be necessary. Perhaps these mothers turned to their children because having the unquestioning adoration of a child was more satisfying and less demanding than a mature relationship with another adult.

Horrible speculation. Furthermore, how does one carry out a mature relationship with an alcoholic or cheater? The emotionally dishonest person would be the one with the negative behaviors that are ruining the family, not the person who cannot communicate with him.

PATTERN 3: COLD, REJECTING OR ABUSIVE ALIENATING PARENT

According to Richard Gardner, if there is bona fide abuse, there is no parental alienation (although with Gardner's encouragement of sexual relations between fathers and their children, his categorizations are questionable). According to Baker, it was like this:

Rather than a “fabulously close” or “excellent” relationship, as the participants in pattern 1 and 2 described having with their mothers, the participants in pattern families were physically, verbally, and/or sexually abused by the alienating parent. Sixteen cases fit this pattern, three in intact families and 13 in divorced families.

That is 45% of the divorced family participants and 27% of the intact family participants fitting into this category. And these are people who elected to reveal this information.

In half the families the alienating parent was alcoholic in addition to being physically, emotionally, sexually, and/or verbally abusive and in five cases the father was the alienating parent.

That is out of 40 families, 20 of them had alcohol abuse issues on top of other abuses. And out of the total of 6 cases in which the father was considered the alienator, 5 were physically, emotionally, sexually, and/or verbally abusive (83%) (I'm unsure whether I am interpreting Baker's statement correctly as it is rather unclear).

The alienation occurred not through the alienating parent winning the child over through charm and persuasion, but through a campaign of fear, pain, and denigration of the targeted parent.

This is what has been described as Domestic Violence by Proxy or Stockholm syndrome. Interesting, Baker didn't offer these terms as possibilities however she chooses to repeatedly align mothers with cults throughout this research, and then, makes this statement:

Thus, parental alienation syndrome can take different forms.

because her (and others PAS theorists) ultimate goal is the expand the definition of what constitutes parental alienation syndrome/disorder. And she doesn't try to hide her m.o.:

Narcissistic mothers as alienators may present different clinical opportunities than alcoholic physically abusive fathers. The first scenario is the one commonly envisioned and described when parental alienation syndrome is discussed (Gardner, 1992). However the field needs to recognize that there is more than one type of parental alienation syndrome

...it appears that it may be time to broaden our understanding of parental alienation syndrome..

She also notes:

...alcoholism, maltreatment, and personality disorders co-occurred

in most of the cases included in this study.

And yet it appears that the focus is still parental alienation; therefore, it is a mask, a distraction from dealing with the real problems inherent in the select families in which PAS is said to exist.

And here Baker gets down to the nitty gritty of this research where she fills in the gaps with the true motivations for PAS theorists:

Second, determination of personality disorders should be taken into account when devising methods for overseeing visitation schedules since such individuals are not likely to comply with court orders. People with narcissistic personality disorders tend to be arrogant and, therefore, are likely to devalue authority figures and emphasize their own ability to make judgments and decisions (e.g., Golumb, 1992; Hotchkiss, 2002). Without real teeth in a visitation or shared parenting order, it is not likely that such a person will comply. The legal system has developed measures for tracking and enforcing payment of child support; it is now time for methods of ensuring compliance with visitation to be developed as well.

Personality disorders, Visitation enforcement, and Shared parenting all thrown together on the backdrop of child support. No surprises here. Amy Baker appears to be advocating for punishment in suspected (or assumed) cases of parental alienation.

A second notable finding from this study is that parental alienation can occur in intact families. The majority of the attention to parental alienation syndrome has emerged from the legal system in response to problems dealing with high conflict divorces, custody disputes, and false and real allegations of parental alienation (Darnall, 1998; Warshak, 2001). To date,there has been minimal if any attention to the fact that parental alienation can occur outside of the legal system.

Third, alienation occurred in some of these families that were not involved in post-divorce litigation. Again, the typical parental alienation scenario discussed in the field is that of a family involved in intense and chronic legal conflicts around custody and visitation (Gardner, 1998). This was not always the case.

These findings are not notable. And it leaves a major question unanswered: If PAS occurs in intact and non-litigating households then what would be the likelihood that this occurs in a significant amount of otherhouseholds? The greater the likelihood, the less pathological it would be. Maybe it is a natural phenomenon.

...one of the participants who did not fall into the three patterns reported that the alienating parent was the non-custodial father.

But Baker would prefers to explain it like this:

Despite the fact that the targeted parent lived in the same household, the participants rejected them, avoided them, denigrated them (in their hearts and mind) and essentially lost out on the experience of having a healthy rewarding relationship with that other parent.

See Parental Alienation and Loving Relationships: Questions We Must Ask

And Baker would like to get everyone involved:

Likewise, teachers, social workers and other mental health professionals who come into contact with parents and children should become versed in the patterns of parental alienation syndrome and the strategies parents use so that they can identify them when they are present.

Will they be mandated to report it just like other child abuse suspicion? Will Social Services or Child Protective Services get involved? Will this lead all other families into court and into protracted litigation? Will every family get a third person embedded into their family life..aka Parent Coordinator or other Court Whores? And at whose expense--the parents or the government?

Fourth, the parents who were the target of the alienation appeared to play a role in their own alienation. In some cases these parents were passive and uninvolved (even when living in the same household) and did not work particularly diligently to establish and or maintain a positive and meaningful relationship with their own children. Many did not write letters or make phone calls to their children during periods of non-visitation, they did not attend school events and sporting competitions, they did not follow through on planned visitations, and in some respects appeared to be casual about their relationships with their children.

So, is this considered parental alienation, too? Who is the alienator?

Baker adds:

...it must be noted that these reports were made by the adult children, and because they were children at the time of the alienation, they may not know everything that the targeted parents did or tried to do for them...

without mentioning that this same disclaimer (delimitation?) can be applied to the knowledge the children/adults may NOT have about why the mother behaved as she did.

The final finding that emerged from a review of these cases is that the alienation was not always completely internalized.

And so, by according to Richard Gardner, this would NOT be parental alienation either.

This marks the end of Amy J. Baker's research. In this study, she never defined what parental alienation meant. She interviewed the participants herself and didn't specify whether she personally analyzed the data for content/themes, or not. These things matter.

Baker tries parallel the concept with cultism, and explains that PAS isn't in the DSM, similar to other syndromes that took time to get it in. A similarly appropriate parallel would be to the former catchall diagnosis of female hysteria...which then went to be called somatization disorder and then conversion disorder. The field of psychology operates in this wish-washy manner because it is based on "theory" (opinion).

Another important thing to keep in mind is the demographic data provided at the beginning of Baker's study. Go back and re-read it above...........

In the study, Baker states:

Section two focused on memories of the marriage, the participant’s relationship to each parent until the time of the separation/divorce,how the participant was told about the separation, who moved out of the house and a description of the custody/visitation schedule through age 18.

I have provided you with enough information and emphases throughout this post to let you put this together on your own.

****

In performing a study in this manner, Amy Baker tried to expand the definition of parental alienation syndrome by using people's beliefs so that the the people could define parental alienation as it meant to them:

the interview aimed to understand in a focused way the subject’s every day life world as it related to parental alienation and the meaning of the alienation for them

This is a magnificent selling point to society at large. PAS theorists have struggled with trying to separate from Richard Gardner not only because his definition was limited (to "high conflict" divorce with mothers as the main alienators), but because of his pro adult-child sexual beliefs. ie:

Special care should be taken not alienate the child from the molesting parent. The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home "should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 537)

The child should be told that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. "The sexual exploitation has to be put on the negative list, but positives as well must be appreciated"

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 572)

Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts. The child might be told about other societies in which such behavior was and is considered normal. The child might be helped to appreciate the wisdom of Shakespeare's Hamlet, who said, "Nothing's either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Gardner, R.A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse . Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.(p. 59)

However, the broader the scope of parental alienation, the more watered down it's definition becomes. If any child (and parent) can suffer from parental alienation in any circumstance, what makes it abnormal? How is it a mental illness?

DSM stands for “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” and is published by the American Psychiatric Association, the professional organization representing United States psychiatrists. The DSM contains a listing of psychiatric disorders and their corresponding diagnostic codes. Each disorder included in the manual is accompanied by a set of diagnostic criteria and text containing information about the disorder, such as associated features, prevalence, familial patterns, age-, culture- and gender-specific features, and differential diagnosis. No information about treatment is included.

Please stay tuned for part 2.

See Also: Amy Baker and Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is This What Scientific Research Looks Like?

Psychology and Parental Alienation: Closer to Science?

A Second March on Judge Lemkau ! May 26th!! Be There!

 

WHAT: A Second March on Judge Lemkau !

WHEN: Wednesday, May 26th 7:45 am (SAVE THE DATE !)

WHERE: Rancho Cucamonga - Location Details To Be Announced Very Soon

WHY: We need your help to attend this march to GET THE WORD OUT TO VOTERS (our final media push) to REMOVE JUDGE LEMKAU before voters make their decision at the June 8th election !

* PLEASE RSVP if you will attend the march at:

http://www.lemkaumustgo.com/rsvp.html

* PLEASE BRING AT LEAST 1 FRIEND WITH YOU TO THE MARCH & FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FRIENDS !

* Please call the John & Ken Show at KFI-AM-640 – ONCE EVERY DAY BETWEEN 3 PM – 7 PM:

Let them know you would like them to cover our second March on Lemkau: CALL: 800-520-1534

Thank You,

Lemkau Must Go

www.lemkaumustgo.com

Send questions to: lemkaumustgo@gmail.com

 

WordPress Tags: Second,March,Judge,Lemkau,SAVE,DATE,WHERE,Rancho,Cucamonga,Location,Details,Very,Soon,WORD,VOTERS,REMOVE,decision,June,election,RSVP,LEAST,FRIEND,FORWARD,EMAIL,FRIENDS,John,ONCE,CALL,Thank,Send,lemkaumustgo

The Proper Role for Mental Health Professionals in Domestic Violence Cases

Time's Up! by Barry Goldstein

by Barry Goldstein

I dedicated my first book, SCARED TO LEAVE AFRAID TO STAY to three brave children Stephen, Serena and Brianne. When they were seven, five and four respectively, they told the judge, court appointed evaluator, their attorney and the child protective caseworker that their father was abusing them physically and the girls sexually. As happens in most of these cases, these professionals assumed the mother was brainwashing the children and warned she would lose custody if she didn't stop. The court then ordered a resumption of unsupervised visitation.

Shortly before the first visit could take place, the father was confronted by the babysitter in the presence of the law guardian and he admitted to kissing his daughters on their privates. The law guardian immediately filed a motion to stop the visitation which I supported on behalf of the mother. The judge consulted the psychiatrist who had been appointed evaluator. He said the father demonstrated poor judgment but there was no reason to stop the visitation. We later learned the father penetrated Brianne for the first time during this visitation.

When the judge refused to protect the children, I filed a new complaint with the Child Protective Service (CPS). When the judge learned of this he yelled and screamed at me saying the case had already been investigated. The new caseworker assigned to the case did a thorough job this time and learned the father had done worse than we had alleged. CPS brought charges against the father and he never again had anything but supervised visitation.

The mother invited the CPS caseworker and myself to a celebratory dinner after she won custody. The children had gifts for us, but most important they had a name for us. They called us believers because we believed them when all the professionals who were supposed to protect them didn't.

A few years later, this same evaluator was appointed to resolve any disputes in a joint custody arrangement that another abused mother had been pressured to accept. She called him after learning that the father's new wife had a mental breakdown at a child's birthday party attended by her son. The evaluator responded totally appropriately to her concerns and then said he thought when she called she was going to make allegations of sexual abuse AND HE WAS FULLY PREPARED NOT TO BELIEVE HER.

This psychiatrist was far from the worst mental health professional in the custody courts. He did not have a male supremacist agenda, did not use PAS and was actually good in cases unrelated to domestic violence and child abuse. The judges in Westchester County loved him and used him more than anyone else. Of course if he immediately discounted allegations of sexual abuse before hearing the facts, sexually abused children had no chance for protection with him as evaluator.

Mental Health Professionals in Custody Courts

Evaluators and other mental health professionals were invited into the custody court system at a time when many assumed domestic violence was caused by mental illness, substance abuse or the actions of the victim. All of these assumptions have been totally discredited, but mental health professionals continue to play a major role in domestic violence custody cases.

These mental health professionals seldom have more than a few hours of training in domestic violence. They are unfamiliar with the specialized body of domestic violence research. Despite this, they routinely ignore the ethical requirement to consult with someone expert in a topic in which they don't have expertise. Surprisingly, despite these circumstances that would make courts outside the custody arena disqualify or discredit such "experts", custody courts routinely accept their recommendations with little scrutiny. Genuine experts often find their testimony discredited or are even prevented from testifying because they are not "neutral" professionals. In reality, their ignorance and bias very much favors abusive fathers. Since they have no scientific research to rely on, the evaluators and other professionals relied on by the custody courts instead use myths, stereotypes and their personal belief system. The recommendations usually tell courts more about the beliefs and biases of the evaluator than the qualifications of the parents.

Evaluators often use psychological tests that create a false sense of a scientific basis for the recommendations. These tests were not created for the populations the courts see in custody court. They were created to determine mental illness and reveal nothing about parenting skills or domestic violence. Even with mental illness, the evaluators rarely inform the courts that the finding is based on probability. At best the tests demonstrate a 55-65% chance that someone answering the questions as the test subject would have the problem diagnosed. Even worse, this figure goes down if the subject is under stress such as a difficult custody case or domestic violence.

Of particular concern is the practice of unqualified mental health professionals pathologizing protective mothers. These professionals usually fail to recognize domestic violence because of their lack of training, unfamiliarity with up-to-date research, bias, belief in the myth that women frequently make up false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation and the manipulation by the abuser. They then create imaginary conditions like delusional or paranoid that are based solely on their own failure to recognize the father's abuse.

These mistakes are often committed by mental health professionals acting in good faith, but without the proper training. Even worse is the cottage industry of unethical professionals catering to male supremacists who are often appointed by the courts despite their bias in favor of fathers. They often have close relationships with GALs and judges which help them win appointments. They have found that the money in custody is to be made by supporting abusers because controlling men have access to the family's resources. These biased professionals use bogus theories like Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and support male supremacist tactics like shared parenting and "friendly parent" considerations. In some communities we have seen an outbreak of numerous cases of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy although it is an extremely rare condition. Perhaps there should be an investigation of the drinking water in the community to see what suddenly caused the widespread outbreak of such a rare condition. In reality, we know the cause: the use of a male supremacist evaluator who specializes in Munchausen and is paid substantial sums of money for this diagnosis as a way to take children from safe, protective mothers so they can be sent to live with abusive fathers.

The Role of Mental Health Professionals

Just as good men need to speak out against sexist jokes, remarks that objectify women and to challenge male supremacists who seek to use the children in order to maintain what they believe is their male privilege to control women, good mental health professionals also must speak out against the minority in their profession who routinely hurt women and children whether out of greed, sexism or ignorance.

Most mental health professionals never go to court and most of their work does not involve domestic violence. At the same time, with domestic violence as prevalent as it is in this society, most mental health professionals will inevitably come across cases involving domestic violence. Accordingly it is important for mental health professionals to receive significant training in domestic violence in school and later as a regular part of their careers. My friend, Dara Carlin, often speaks about the fact that professionals have a certain conceit to believe any training they receive should be from those in the same profession. Thus lawyers would only learn from other lawyers and psychologists from other psychologists. Far better would be to regularly engage in multi-disciplinary training so that mental health professionals could learn from lawyers, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, sociologists and especially domestic violence advocates. This is why our new book, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY contains chapters from all of these professions as well as judges and journalists.

Domestic violence experts understand that couples counseling and other practices that bring together abusers and their victims are dangerous and unethical. This is because of the unequal power the man and woman have. Consider the dilemma a victim has. If she doesn't tell the therapist about her partner's abuse, they will spend the time discussing pretend or less significant issues (like we often see in custody courts), but if she reveals his abuse, he is likely to hurt her when they leave. We have repeatedly seen mediators take on domestic violence cases even when the law specifically creates an exception for dv cases. Mediators rarely have much training in domestic violence and either don't recognize the abuse or believe their tremendous skills can overcome the problem. Whatever the mistake, the results overwhelmingly benefit abusers and harm their victims. Accordingly, good mental health professionals must make sure their professional associations have strong ethical rules that forbid the treatment or meeting of couples when one is abusing the other.

We have also seen many unscrupulous mental health professionals enter the batterer treatment industry. Of particular concern are professionals who claim their treatment can help make abusers stop his abuse. It is not just that this is a waste of money, but it is dangerous. Partners and judges are likely to make decisions based on these false assurances that these methods make him safe. Such decisions are likely to place the woman in danger. The research is now quite clear and in fact a huge amount of money has been spent (wasted) trying to establish the effectiveness of batterer programs. The only thing that has been shown to reduce men's abuse is accountability and monitoring. Batterer programs, anger management and therapy have all failed to provide any long-term reduction in men's abuse of women. Again good mental health professionals need to lobby for strong ethical standards that forbid their colleagues to make promises or imply that their treatment will change men's behavior. To be clear, I am not saying batterers should not get mental health treatment. Batterers, like everyone else have problems that can be helped by therapy, but the belief system that causes men to abuse and control women is not something likely to be changed by therapy. I should also mention that there are exceptions to this when a mental health problem causes a man's abuse, but these cases are rare.

For many years we have witnessed a phony debate about medical malpractice in which medical groups supported by insurance companies and the politicians they support (pay) demand a one-sided medical malpractice "reform" that involves taking away many of the rights and protections consumers have when they are victimized by medical malpractice. Cases in which patients appear to receive a large award are well-publicized because the special interests have the money to do so. When poor patients are denied the ability to bring valid claims or receive far less than they deserve, the public doesn't hear about these common cases because the victims don't have the resources or influence for their complaints to be heard. It is well known that a small percentage of doctors commit most of the medical malpractice. Any balanced approach to medical malpractice would include a way to discipline or otherwise stop these serial offenders from continuing their malpractice. This would save money and reduce insurance premiums the best way, by reducing the harm to the public caused by medical malpractice.

Just as good doctors need to challenge their incompetent colleagues, mental health professionals must stop those of their colleagues who make a living helping abusers while destroying the lives of protective mothers and their children. I recently read an article by a psychologist arguing that evaluators should be given immunity. He pointed out that his colleagues face a far larger number of professional complaints than those working in other areas and that 99% of the complaints are dismissed. He thought that meant the complaints were frivolous and never considered it is because those reviewing the complaints are themselves psychologists who have a personal interest in dismissing the complaints.

Parental Alienation Syndrome is an unscientific theory concocted by someone who supported sex between adults and children. It is not recognized by any reputable professional organization and is not listed in the DSM IV which contains all recognized mental health conditions. It is a tactic used by abusers and their supporters to stop investigations of domestic violence and child abuse complaints and instead give custody to the abuser and little or no contact to the safe protective mother. PAS, which is sometimes also referred to as parental alienation or just alienation because PAS is so discredited is responsible for destroying the lives of thousands of children. Recently at least three psychologists have lost their licenses for using PAS because they are in effect diagnosing something that does not exist. Good mental health professionals need to make sure that this kind of enforcement of professional ethics occurs more frequently. Similarly, evaluators who fail to consult with domestic violence experts on cases with domestic violence allegations, fail to consult with sexual abuse experts when there are allegations of sexual abuse, are unfamiliar with up-to-date research about domestic violence, engage in myths, gender bias, stereotypes and other similar errors must be disciplined. The reputations of all mental health professionals and the entire profession are harmed when unqualified and prejudiced evaluators are permitted to mislead the courts and harm children.

Use of Mental Health Professionals in DV Cases

Many of my friends and colleagues who have seen the harm caused by mental health professionals in the custody court system want to eliminate any role for them in custody decisions. This position is completely understandable because these professionals have done far more harm than good. If the choice is between continuing the present use of mental health professionals or eliminating them altogether, children would certainly benefit from ending their role. This should help good mental health professionals understand the tremendous harm being done to the reputation of all mental health professionals of remaining silent while unethical or incompetent evaluators and others destroy children's lives with impunity.

Nevertheless, I believe the research supports a role in custody cases for mental health professionals if the present harmful practices are stopped. The courts should use more critical thinking about the purpose of involving mental health professionals in a case and not automatically appoint evaluators just because it is a disputed custody case. Judges and lawyers should consider what specific information they need, whether such information is specifically in the expertise of mental health professionals and in making an appointment limit the investigation to the specific information needed. Evaluators or therapists can be used when there is good reason to believe one of the parents or the children have a mental health condition that significantly affects the ability to parent the children. Mediation can be appropriately used if the court is confident no domestic violence issues exist. If any allegations of domestic violence have been made at any time, one parent is afraid of the other or there are any other reasons to believe one parent has abused the other mediation is not safe or appropriate. Many courts in this and other contexts take a position that until domestic violence is proven, it is not a domestic violence case. This is wrong and causes a lot of problems. Courts need to use domestic violence expertise to first determine whether or not one of the parties has committed domestic violence.

When there are allegations of domestic violence there will rarely be any need for mental health professionals. The court needs to have a factual hearing about the validity of these allegations. If the allegations are true and the other parent is safe (which specifically has nothing to do with "alienation" issues), the only proper outcome is custody for the safe parent and at least initially supervised visitation for the abusive parent. This approach avoids the time and expense of hearing evidence about other issues that shouldn't affect the outcome if domestic violence is confirmed. Furthermore since at least 98% of domestic violence allegations by mothers are accurate, a hearing limited to this issue will completely resolve custody and visitation issues in the case.

If mental health professionals are going to retain a role in custody cases, they must create the following reforms to avoid the tragedies caused by widespread inappropriate practices.

1. In any cases involving domestic violence allegations the mental health professional must consult with a domestic violence expert.

2. Mental health professionals who work with custody courts will have training in recognizing domestic violence, gender bias and the effects of domestic violence on children.

3. Mental health professionals who work with custody courts will take steps to avoid manipulation by abusers and confirmation bias.

4. The mental health professionals will be familiar with the specialized body of up-to-date research about domestic violence.

5. Mental health professionals will never use unscientific or unproven theories such as Parental Alienation Syndrome and its progeny.

6. Mental health professionals will not use psychological tests that were not created for the population seen in family court and when using psychological tests will make the court and the parties aware of what percentage accuracy the tests provide. The professionals will also be required to make sure the scoring of such tests is not compromised by gender bias.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence expert, speaker, writer and consultant. The new book he co-edited with Mo Therese Hannah, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY was just published.