Ideology
|
|
Several organizations actively oppose the introduction of PA into court proceedings. The organizations are not secret; they openly announce their opposition. For example, the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence discusses PA on its website. It refers to "simplistic 'junk science' theories to explain child's behavior," noting that PA is one such theory. The Domestic Legal Empowerment and Appeals project is an organization that actively opposes PA. The founder and legal director, attorney Joan S. Meier, regularly criticizes the concept of PA.
Bernet, William. Judges Journal, Summer 2015 Vol. 54 No. 3.
Bernet, William. Judges Journal, Summer 2015 Vol. 54 No. 3.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The foundation of reputable theories is the scientific method. After the rigorous standards of the scientific method have been fulfilled, the litmus test of its validity is peer review of the research. There is no room for ad hominem attacks in the scientific method. In spite of the proliferation of peer reviewed research about PA, those who reject the scientifically researched basis of PA often rely upon ad hominem attacks instead of engaging in an intellectually honest dialogue about the validity of PA research.
In their own publications, PA critics ignore the vast scientific literature that affirms PA and its acceptance in the scientific and legal worlds. Furthermore, they flippantly dismiss PA as a discredited theory that is not accepted by the scientific community and thereby mislead uninformed readers. For example, the National Organization for Women (NOW) published a list of their accomplishments on their website. Among the entries is the following: "2012, April – NOW Foundation sends letter to American Psychiatric Association objecting to inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual V (DSM V) of a phony psychological syndrome, parental alienation syndrome. This so-called psychiatric condition is being used in child custody cases to remove custody from protective parents (usually mothers) and often awarding custody to an abusive parent (usually fathers). DSM V does not include parental alienation as a recognized psychological condition." This is not science, it is science fiction.
Some PA critics are also proactive in promoting legislation to discredit PA. In order to achieve this goal, they continue to recirculate the same outdated myths and misconceptions about PA as well as to present biased and non peer reviewed research to unaware legislators as is evident from the case study below.
The foundation of reputable theories is the scientific method. After the rigorous standards of the scientific method have been fulfilled, the litmus test of its validity is peer review of the research. There is no room for ad hominem attacks in the scientific method. In spite of the proliferation of peer reviewed research about PA, those who reject the scientifically researched basis of PA often rely upon ad hominem attacks instead of engaging in an intellectually honest dialogue about the validity of PA research.
In their own publications, PA critics ignore the vast scientific literature that affirms PA and its acceptance in the scientific and legal worlds. Furthermore, they flippantly dismiss PA as a discredited theory that is not accepted by the scientific community and thereby mislead uninformed readers. For example, the National Organization for Women (NOW) published a list of their accomplishments on their website. Among the entries is the following: "2012, April – NOW Foundation sends letter to American Psychiatric Association objecting to inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual V (DSM V) of a phony psychological syndrome, parental alienation syndrome. This so-called psychiatric condition is being used in child custody cases to remove custody from protective parents (usually mothers) and often awarding custody to an abusive parent (usually fathers). DSM V does not include parental alienation as a recognized psychological condition." This is not science, it is science fiction.
Some PA critics are also proactive in promoting legislation to discredit PA. In order to achieve this goal, they continue to recirculate the same outdated myths and misconceptions about PA as well as to present biased and non peer reviewed research to unaware legislators as is evident from the case study below.
"THE MARYLAND MASQURADE": A CASE STUDY
In 2019, the State of MD created the Workgroup to Study Child Custody Court Proceedings Involving Child Abuse or Domestic Violence Allegations. This workgroup was charged (among other things) to study available science and best practices pertaining to children in traumatic situations, including trauma-informed decision making. It was also charged to make recommendations about how State courts could incorporate in court proceedings the latest science regarding the safety and well-being of children and other victims of domestic violence. Four legislators and thirteen others were the members of the workgroup. Most of the thirteen are prominent in the field of domestic violence. Joan Meier was one of the members. The workgroup was chaired by the Secretary of State.
No experts in the field of PA were invited to testify before the committee. Joan Meier (who is a lawyer and not a mental health expert) testified about PA. In her testimony, she spewed forth a cauldron of the common PA myths including that it is "junk Science," that Dr. Gardner's works were "self-published and lacked peer review." Her testimony can be read on page 8 of the Workgroup Report. Meier went on to describe her research which demonstrated that PA claims created a gender bias in the court system that caused DV claims to be disregarded. See below for the masquerade of her research.
Based on her testimony, the report recommended that a training program be created for court evaluators that includes "the background and current, research-informed literature regarding parental alienation (including a full review of Richard Gardner’s own work in defense of pedophilia), its invalidity as a syndrome, and the inappropriateness of its use in child custody cases." The Workgroup Report was published in September of 2020. In the beginning of 2021, SB675 and SB355 were introduced to the State Senate to mandate training for judges and court evaluators in "the invalidity of parental alienation as a syndrome and the inappropriateness of the use of parental alienation in child custody cases."
In 2019, the State of MD created the Workgroup to Study Child Custody Court Proceedings Involving Child Abuse or Domestic Violence Allegations. This workgroup was charged (among other things) to study available science and best practices pertaining to children in traumatic situations, including trauma-informed decision making. It was also charged to make recommendations about how State courts could incorporate in court proceedings the latest science regarding the safety and well-being of children and other victims of domestic violence. Four legislators and thirteen others were the members of the workgroup. Most of the thirteen are prominent in the field of domestic violence. Joan Meier was one of the members. The workgroup was chaired by the Secretary of State.
No experts in the field of PA were invited to testify before the committee. Joan Meier (who is a lawyer and not a mental health expert) testified about PA. In her testimony, she spewed forth a cauldron of the common PA myths including that it is "junk Science," that Dr. Gardner's works were "self-published and lacked peer review." Her testimony can be read on page 8 of the Workgroup Report. Meier went on to describe her research which demonstrated that PA claims created a gender bias in the court system that caused DV claims to be disregarded. See below for the masquerade of her research.
Based on her testimony, the report recommended that a training program be created for court evaluators that includes "the background and current, research-informed literature regarding parental alienation (including a full review of Richard Gardner’s own work in defense of pedophilia), its invalidity as a syndrome, and the inappropriateness of its use in child custody cases." The Workgroup Report was published in September of 2020. In the beginning of 2021, SB675 and SB355 were introduced to the State Senate to mandate training for judges and court evaluators in "the invalidity of parental alienation as a syndrome and the inappropriateness of the use of parental alienation in child custody cases."
THE MASQUERADE PART TWO: JOAN MEIER'S RESEARCH, CHILD CUSTODY OUTCOMES IN CASES INVOLVING PARENTAL ALIENATION AND ABUSE ALLEGATIONS
Meier received a $501,791 grant from the National Institute of Justice. In the abstract to her federally funded research, she refers to the "pseudo-scientific theory of PA" and the report is replete with already debunked standard PA myths and distortions. In this 2019 research report, Meier continues to spew the same ad hominem attacks that have been a recurring theme for over a decade in many of her "scholarly" papers that are listed in her CV.
The gold standard of any research study is its replicability and its peer review. Meier's research was not peer reviewed to date by a North American Research Journal. There are also critical research design flaws in her research that render the study not replicable and the results invalid. Since her results have significant implications about PA, Drs. Jennifer Harman & Demothenes Lorandos conducted a peer reviewed replication of Meier's research. This research appeared in the prestigious Psychology, Public Policy, and Law journal.
The Harman research invalidated Meier's conclusions about PA. As of February 2021, Meier has not produced any peer reviewed responses to the over 30 significant critiques that the Harman research opined about her research and conclusions. In spite of the significant critique of Meier's research, her "findings" have been widely reported in the media and posted on the internet. As in the case of the MD Workgroup, anti PA legislation is being introduced in many states based on Meier's research. For example, Hawaii HB 451 "prohibits courts from considering parental alienation syndrome in determining child custody."
Meier received a $501,791 grant from the National Institute of Justice. In the abstract to her federally funded research, she refers to the "pseudo-scientific theory of PA" and the report is replete with already debunked standard PA myths and distortions. In this 2019 research report, Meier continues to spew the same ad hominem attacks that have been a recurring theme for over a decade in many of her "scholarly" papers that are listed in her CV.
The gold standard of any research study is its replicability and its peer review. Meier's research was not peer reviewed to date by a North American Research Journal. There are also critical research design flaws in her research that render the study not replicable and the results invalid. Since her results have significant implications about PA, Drs. Jennifer Harman & Demothenes Lorandos conducted a peer reviewed replication of Meier's research. This research appeared in the prestigious Psychology, Public Policy, and Law journal.
The Harman research invalidated Meier's conclusions about PA. As of February 2021, Meier has not produced any peer reviewed responses to the over 30 significant critiques that the Harman research opined about her research and conclusions. In spite of the significant critique of Meier's research, her "findings" have been widely reported in the media and posted on the internet. As in the case of the MD Workgroup, anti PA legislation is being introduced in many states based on Meier's research. For example, Hawaii HB 451 "prohibits courts from considering parental alienation syndrome in determining child custody."
Now that you understand the unscientific battle of those who reject the research base of PA, please take action now!
Contact your State Senators and Representatives and ask them to oppose legislation that condones parental alienation and child abuse.
Then ask them to sponsor and promote legislation to protect our children
from PA and psychological child abuse.
Then ask them to sponsor and promote legislation to protect our children
from PA and psychological child abuse.