The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a term coined by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner, and introduced to his paper in 1985, to describe a series of specific behaviors he considers shown by children who have been psychologically manipulated to show unwarranted fear, disrespect or hostility towards parents and/or other family members - usually, by other parents and during child custody disputes.
The parental seclusion syndrome is not recognized as a disorder by the medical community or Gardner's law and theory and related research has been heavily criticized by law and mental health scholars for lacking validity and scientific reliability. However, the concept of separate but related parental seclusion, the estrangement of children from parents, is recognized as the dynamics in several divorced families.
The success of PAS has been rejected by the expert review panel and the UK and Wales Court of Appeals in the UK and the Canadian Department of Justice recommends not to use it. PAS has been mentioned in several family court cases in the United States. Gardner described PAS also accepted by the judiciary and has set various precedents, but legal analysis of the actual cases shows that in 2006 this claim was incorrect.
Video Parental alienation syndrome
Deskripsi awal
The parental seclusion syndrome is a term coined by child psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner who made good use of his clinical experience in the early 1980s. The concept of one parent trying to separate their child from another parent as a punishment or part of a divorce has been described at least since the 1940s, but Gardner was the first to define a particular syndrome. In his 1985 paper, he defines PAS as "... a disorder that arises mainly in the context of child custody disputes.Main manifestations are children's campaigns about contamination of parents, untreated campaigns, disturbing results from a combination of indoctrination by an alienating parent and the child's own contribution to slandering an estranged parent. " He also stated that indoctrination can be intentional or unconscious in the alienated part of the elderly. Gardner initially believes that parents (usually mothers) make false accusations about child abuse and sexual abuse against other parents (usually fathers) to prevent further contact between them. While Gardner initially described the mother as an alienator in 90% of PAS cases, he later stated both parents were equally likely to be alienated. He also later stated that in his experience allegations of sexual harassment do not exist in most PAS cases.
Maps Parental alienation syndrome
Characteristics
Gardner described PAS as a preoccupation with children with criticism and depreciation of parents. Gardner states that PAS occurs when, in the context of a child custody dispute, one parent intentionally or unconsciously tries to alienate a child from another parent. According to Gardner, PAS is characterized by a group of eight symptoms that appear in children. This includes polluting and hate campaigns against targeted parents; weak, absurd, or reckless rationalization for this cessation and hatred; lack of the usual ambivalence of targeted parents; a strong statement that the decision to reject parents is their own ("independent thinker phenomenon"); reflexive support from parents who are favored in conflict; lack of guilt over the treatment of estranged parents; use of scenarios and phrases borrowed from alienated parents; and pollution not only from the parents but also to the family and friends of the parents. Although frequent quotations of these factors are in the scientific literature, "the values ​​considered to be derived from these factors have not been explored with professionals in the field".
Gardner and others divide PAS into light, medium, and heavy levels. The number and severity of the eight symptoms shown increases through different levels. The recommendations for management vary according to the severity of the child's symptoms. While the diagnosis of PAS is based on the child's symptoms, Gardner states that any change in custody should be based primarily on the alienated parental symptoms level. In mild cases, there are some parental programs to targeted parents, but little or no visit disruption, and Gardner does not recommend visits ordered by the court. In moderate cases, there are more parental programs and greater resistance to visits with targeted parents. Gardner recommends that major prisoners stay with parent programming if brainwashing is expected to be discontinued, but if not, the prisoner should be transferred to the targeted parent. In addition, therapy with children to stop alienation and restore a damaged relationship with targeted parents is recommended. In severe cases, children display most or all of the 8 symptoms, and will refuse to visit targeted parents, including threatening to escape or commit suicide if the visit is forced. Gardner recommends that children be removed from alien parents' homes to transitional homes before moving to the intended parental home. In addition, therapy for children is recommended. Gardner's proposed interventions for moderate and severe PAS, including court-ordered transfers to estranged parents, fines, house arrest, detention, have been criticized for their punishing nature against alienated parents and alienated children, and for the risk of abuse of power and rights abuses - their civil rights. Over time, Gardner revised his views and expressed a lack of support for the most aggressive management strategies.
Reception
Gardner's original formulation, which labeled mom almost exclusively as an exile parent, was supported by dad rights groups, as it enabled fathers to explain their children's reluctance to visit them and blame their ex-wives. In contrast, women's groups criticize the syndrome, worried that they allow perpetrators of violence to claim that allegations of abuse by mothers or children reflect brainwashing. Gardner himself emphasizes that PAS is only applied in situations where no abuses or neglect actually did not occur, but in 1998, noting the increased awareness of PAS has led to an increase in misapplication as a satisfactory legal maneuver.
PAS has been cited in high-conflict divorce and childcare cases, particularly as a defense against allegations of domestic violence or sexual harassment. The status of the syndrome, and thus received in the testimony of experts, has been the subject of dispute over the extent to which PAS has been accepted by professionals in the field, as well as scientific methodologies that can be tested, tested, have a known error rate, have been published and reviewed by colleagues peers.
PAS has not been accepted by experts in psychology, child advocacy or the study of child abuse or law degree. PAS has been heavily criticized by members of the legal and mental health community, stating that PAS should not be accepted in child custody hearings based on science and law.
There is no professional association that recognizes PAS as a relevant medical syndrome or mental disorder. PAS is not listed in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Problems Related from WHO. It is not recognized by the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association. The American Psychological Association refused to give a position to the PAS, but voiced concern over the lack of supporting data and how the term was used. The presidential task force of the APA in 1996 on Violence and Family expressed concern that the upbringing apparatus used PAS as a means of granting custody to fathers despite the history of violence, concerns expressed by other commentators. The United States National Child and Family Judge Council rejected PAS, recommending that it be not used for parenting considerations.
Absence of DSM
PAS is not included in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Gardner and others lobbied for inclusion in the DSM-V revision. In 2001 Gardner argued that when DSM-IV was released, there was insufficient research to include PAS, but since then, there have been quite a number of scientific articles and concerns on PAS that deserve serious consideration. A survey of US prisoner appraisers, published in 2007, found that half of the respondents disagreed with inclusion, while the third held that it should be. A related formulation, named a parental alienation disorder, has been proposed, suggesting that the inclusion of PAS in DSM-5 will encourage appropriate research and treatment, as well as to reduce a valid and reliable construct abuse. In December 2012, the American Psychiatric Association announced that PAS will not be included in the DSM-V revision. However, there is now a diagnosis included in the DSM-V that reflects the impact of parental behavior on children, especially the problem of parent-child and child-related relationships. The main difference is that the diagnoses listed in the DSM relate to the mental health of the individual being diagnosed, as opposed to trying to describe the disturbance of relationships between different people, whether parent-child or parent-parent.
Scientific status
Gardner's formulation of PAS was criticized as lacking in scientific basis, and as a hypothesis that its supporters had failed to meet the scientific burden of proof for acceptance. The first publication on the PAS is self-published and not reviewed by peers, and although subsequent articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals, most consist of anecdotal evidence in the form of case studies; In addition, limited research on PAS lacks evidence of validity and reliability. The lack of objective research and replication, falsifiability, and independent publications has led to claims that PAS is a pseudoscience or waste science. PAS supporters agree that large-scale, systematic controlled studies of PAS's validity and rally are required, complementing a small study in 2004 that suggests that practitioners can reach consensus based on written reports.
The theoretical foundation of PAS has been described as incomplete, simple and erroneous because it ignores several factors (including the behavior of children, parents and other family members) that can contribute to parental isolation, family dysfunction and disruption in attachment between parent and child. In this view, PAS confuses the child's developmental reaction to divorce with psychosis, greatly exaggerating the number of false allegations of child sexual abuse, disregarding the scientific literature which suggests that most allegedly sexual abuse of children is well established and thus well-intentioned to protect a child of a cruel parent, exaggerates the destructive effects of parental seclusion on children and proposes unsupported and harmful drugs for PAS. Concern has been stated that PAS lacks sufficient scientific support to be considered a syndrome and that Gardner has been promoting PAS as a syndrome based on a vague behavioral grouping. Despite concerns about the validity of testimony on PAS, this has been deemed inappropriate by family court judges. Supporters of PAS and others agree that using the appointment of the syndrome may not be appropriate because it shows more scientific legitimacy than is currently feasible.
While PAS is not accepted as a syndrome, parental alienation is a somewhat less controversial dynamic that also appears in mental health literature and law. Because Gardner proposes PAS, other researchers in the field have suggested not to focus too much on the diagnosis of the syndrome and more on what has been described as an "alienated child", and the dynamics of the situation that has contributed to alienation.
Clinical status
PAS has been criticized for making clinical work with isolated children more confusing and to labeling children with mental diagnoses who can react angrily to their parent's separation or divorce. Gardner's analysis has been criticized for improperly assigning all child behavior responsibilities to one parent when children's behavior is often, but not always, the result of the dynamics in which parents and children play a role.
Gardner disagreed with criticism of the PAS as too simple, stating that although there are various causes why a child may become alienated from the parents, the main etiological factor in the case of PAS is brainwashing parents, and otherwise there is no PAS. Gardner also stated that those who were initially critical of PAS because caricatures were not directly involved with families in custody disputes and that criticism of this nature faded in the late 1980s because the disorder was widespread.
Gender
PAS has been criticized for being sexist, used by fathers to marginalize legitimate fears and concerns about harassment, and women's and other groups oppose the legitimacy of PAS as a danger to children. After initial publication, Gardner revised his theory to make father and mother alike tend to alienate or become indoctrinators and disagree that PAS's acknowledgment is sexist. Gardner then points out that he believes men are equally likely to be PAS indoctrinators. The study of children and adults labeled as PAS suffering suggests that mothers are more likely than fathers to be aliens.
In court
Canada
Early Canadian court cases received expert opinion on PAS, using the term "syndrome" and agree with Gardner's theory that only one parent is fully responsible for it. Gardner testified in one case (Fortin v. Major, 1996) but the court did not accept his opinion, concluding that the boy was not alienated by the evaluation of a court-appointed expert who, unlike Gardner, had met with family members. More recent cases, when accepting the concept of alienation, have noted the lack of recognition in the DSM-IV, and generally avoided the term "syndrome", stressing that changes in custody are stressful to children and should only occur in the most severe. case. A 2006 research report by the Canadian Department of Justice describes PAS as "empirically unsupported" and likes a different framework for dealing with alienation issues that have more research support. The decision about possible alienation of parents is considered a legal decision, which will be determined by the judge based on the facts of the case, rather than the diagnosis made by a mental health professional. There is recognition that the rejection of parents is a complex issue, and that differences must be made between pathological alienation and reasonable estrangement.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, the acceptance of considerations on the PAS evaluation was denied both in expert reviews, and by the Court of Appeals.
United States
PAS has been cited as part of the process of determining child custody in the United States. Based on PAS evaluations, US courts have given single custody to several fathers. PAS has been challenged under the Frye test, to evaluate whether it has been accepted by the scientific community. Although Gardner claimed PAS was generally accepted by the scientific community and passed Frye's test in two states, a 2006 court case analysis involving PAS and cited by Gardner concluded that this decision did not set a legal precedent, that PAS was seen negatively in most law. scholarships, and that Gardner's writings do not support the existence of PAS. Of the 64 cases of precedent-bearing, only two decisions, both in New York State and in criminal courts actually set precedents. Both held unacceptable PASs and one case found that PAS failed Frye tests because an appropriate professional community generally did not accept; this decision is upheld in the appellate court. Gardner listed fifty cases on his website that he claimed set a precedent that made PAS acceptable, but nobody actually did it; 46 does not set a precedent or does not discuss acceptance and the remaining four are problematic. One case noted that the court found that the PAS passed the Frye test, but the findings were not reviewed on appeal so that it set a precedent, such as the court "[discard] the words 'parental alienation syndrome'" and focus on "the willingness and ability of each parents to facilitate and encourage close and sustained relationships between parents and children "under the supervision of state children, the best interest factors. In the second case, the appeals court did not discuss the PAS; the third case specifically chose not to discuss the acceptance of PAS and the fourth did not make a decision on PAS.
At least in one jurisdiction of the United States, child support has been suspended on the basis of parental alienating behavior. For example, in New York in The material of Robert Coull v. Pamela Rottman, NYS3d 834, 131 AD 3d 964 (2015), in which the father is prevented from seeing his son by the mother of the child through a "pattern of alienation", the support of the child is suspended. The decision was not based on psychological diagnosis, but instead was based on patterns of alienation and behavior by mothers and their behavior during the trial process. Focus on parental behavior allows the courts to base their decisions "after accepted psychological and diagnostic concepts... without mentioning the controversial and potentially inflammatory concept of PAS"
See also
References
External links
- The parental seclusion syndrome in Curlie (based on DMOZ)
- National Coalition Against Alienate Parents
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments