Batterer's Terrorist Tactics are Not "PAS"

We are noticing that some women who have lost custody to batterers who subsequently have succeeded in barring them from contact with their children, or turning the children away from them believe that what they are experiencing is "parental alienation syndrome."

However, "parental alienation syndrome" as described by the late Richard A. Gardner involved a "campaign of denigration" and manipulating tactics. What made this theory so popular was that it gave language to a perception of often subtle hidden family dynamics that otherwise did not have a label in the law. Coercive control and outright terrorism, such as using illegal means to cause false charges to be brought, interfering with lawful investigations, and fabricating evidence required no new label.

Abused women not infrequently are the targets of a pattern of criminal and terroristic behavior that goes far beyond what parental alienation syndrome ever was described as by Gardner or intended to be applied to. We are concerned that as more and more abused women lose custody to batterers in family courts, they are embracing the very ideas that enabled their abusers to gain custody in the first place.

"Parental alienation" is a psychological theory and a legal defense theory that is used sometimes on its own, but often in connection with the denial of an accusation of abuse, to turn tables on the accusing parent and find an explanation for a child's fear of or unwillingness to visit an accused parent, to explain a child's preference for one parent over the other, and to explain similarly otherwise "inexplicable" child positions in the claimed absence of the target parent having done anything wrong, and no clear indicators that the "alienating" parent did either.

What Gardner described as "PAS" therefore was an internal psychological process of identification that a child purportedly had with a parent who encouraged this
identification with them at the expense of the other parent. Gardner never clearly described how this identification could lead to false accusations of abuse, and this is a gaping hole in his theory. But it's important to remember that Gardner and his followers were not using PAS to describe illegal, terroristic behaviors, battery, destruction of property, locking children in rooms to prevent them from calling parents, falsifying documents, and similar behaviors. No one needed a psychological theory to explain these kinds of things -- or a child's reaction to them.

Controlling, coercive, illegal acts often done by abusive and controlling people, usually men, are not subtle, and do not encourage an identification with a parent. These behaviors encourage compliance by threats and fear. If views of the child do change internally when exposed to tactics like this over time then it is more likely a form of "Stockholm Syndrome" or attachment to the abuser, rather than the alignment with one parent and negative reaction to the other that Gardner described as "alienation".

One dangerous thing about Gardner's theory is that in large part these mysterious processes of alienation are invisible, or at least unseen. That's why a psychological theory was needed. Criminal, fraudulent, coercive acts are visible and obvious.

A recent and comprehensive article on PAS and its use in the court system, by Jennifer Hoult can be downloaded HERE.

Media Distortions by Fathers' Rights Advocates

Glenn Sacks has complained about recent responses to his and other fathers' rights advocates' comments about joint custody. In one of his columns of August 1, 2006, " Feminist Columnist Slams Glenn, ACFC Over North Dakota Shared Parenting Initiative," he attacks Trish Wilson's recent commentary with distortions and misrepresentations.

One has to wonder: if the facts have to be distorted to make your case, isn't that a clue that perhaps your conclusions are incorrect?

The joint custody advocates' primary claim is that men are not being treated equally as parents by the courts. But let's look at what that word "equality" actually means in the law, and not the propaganda and rhetoric.

"Equality before the law" means that persons who are in similar positions will be treated similarly. Thus, for example, if a father is a child's primary caregiver, that fact will be given the same weight as it would if a mother is a child's primary caregiver. And, for example, if a husband is a dependent homemaker spouse, he would be as entitled to alimony as a wife in the same position.

However, a contrived equality of outcome when persons come before the law in dissimilar positions would be tantamount to disparate treatment. It would require taking persons who were not equally situated and treating them differently in order to effect "equality." That's not what "equality under the law" means; in fact it's the anti-thesis of it.

Leaning on his erroneous premise of "equality," Sacks criticizes Wilson's point that "ninety percent of parents settle without the need for court intervention in deciding what form of custody is best for them and for their children." Sacks claims that her "statement is misleading because it implies genuine agreement between parents." Sacks writes that "such accords aren't made in a vacuum -- they're bargained in the shadow of the law. What happens in most cases is that fathers must agree to having a very limited role in their children's lives because they don't have the tens of thousands of dollars (or more) necessary to fight for shared parenting in family law proceedings which are heavily stacked against them."

But Sacks's position is specious. Not only are the fathers coming into court without a marital track record of having been equal carers of the children and household, but when it comes to litigation, it is the men who generally have greater access to funds to litigate, more time to litigate, and more sophistication and ability to network, hire lawyers, and make a case. And be this as it may, the reality is that most men simply don't want joint custody. They don't want it for the very same reasons they were not doing half or more of the housework and childcare when they were married. Their careers and habits don't suddenly alter merely because they are getting divorced. And that's why the vast majority leave "custody" where it de facto was during the marriage, changing as little as possible in their and their children's lives.

Sacks also criticizes Wilson's statement that "when dads make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time." This was the finding of every single state gender bias commission who looked at the issue (there were 40 of them.) Sacks pretends that Wilson's statement is based on one small study of 60 women, and purports to debunk that as nonrepresentative. But it wasn't. The reality simply is not debatable. Sacks also claims that the Massachusetts gender bias task force findings by lawyers and scholars have been discredited, based on speculations made by libertarian men's rights journalist Cathy Young in an opinion piece. But she did not get her facts right or conclusions correct then. Repeatedly citing to secondary opinion sources that were wrong to begin with is not tantamount to documentation. It doesn't matter how many times a claim is made, such distortions just do not gain veracity with repetition, any more than the children's game of telephone.

The reasons mothers more often end up with custody after divorce encompass all of the same reasons that mothers end up being the majority of child caregivers and homemakers while marriages are intact. To the extent the factors moving this include bias, it's bias that's occurred long before anything that ever happens in connection with a divorce. In fact, that more men post divorce end up with far more custody time than they ever spent caregiving, homemaking, or with their children during their marriages attests to a divorce court bias that far and away favors fathers.

Trish Wilson on Shared Parenting

Trish Wilson's op-ed is in response to a column that Glenn Sacks and Mike McCormick had written about shared parenting.

Posted on Sun, Jul. 30, 2006

VIEWPOINT: Don't force 'shared parenting' on children
By Trish Wilson

BOSTON - Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks have written a lot of misconceptions about shared parenting in their viewpoint, "Initiative helps children of divorce".

"Shared parenting" is a feel-good euphemism for joint physical custody. Shared parenting has been rejected in Maryland, Colorado, Tennessee, New York, Illinois, Nevada, California, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. A shared parenting bill has been shelved in Massachusetts; it is dead for the time being.

Custody should be determined on a case-by-case basis. One particular form of custody (such as shared parenting) should not be forced on parents when other forms of custody would be more appropriate for them and especially for their children.

Shared parenting already is an option for parents who choose to try it on their own. There does not need to be a presumption for it. Ninety percent of parents settle without the need for court intervention in deciding what form of custody is best for them and for their children.

Most parents do not choose shared parenting because they recognize how hard it would be on them and especially on their children. They also recognize that in most cases, the mother had been the primary caregiver of the children, and they believe she should continue in that capacity. That is why mothers most often get sole custody. It is not because of bias against dads in court.

When dads make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time.

Courts are not biased against fathers. Lynn Hecht Schafran found in "Gender Bias in Family Courts," published by the American Bar Association Family Advocate, that "despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts (gender bias) task force, for example, reported that fathers get primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases.

"The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time." While shared parenting may work for parents who freely choose to try it, shared parenting has been shown to be detrimental to children who are exposed to conflict between their parents. When one parent wants shared parenting and the other doesn't, there will be conflict between those parents that shared parenting will not alleviate.

Shared parenting asks a lot of children. It is harmful to children who cannot handle the restrictive schedule. Many of them cannot handle the shunting back and forth between homes very well. They also must keep track of which home they are to be in on a given day, which is stressful for them.

They can lose track of their friends, and their extracurricular activities can suffer. They can miss birthday parties, sleepovers and evening school activities.

In the cases where shared parenting has worked, the families had these qualities in common: The parents had an amicable relationship, their divorce was amicable with little or no conflict, they had higher-than-average incomes, they had only one child, neither parent (especially the father) had remarried, they lived within close proximity of each other, they had flexible job schedules, the child could handle the shared parenting arrangement, the parents chose freely between themselves to try shared parenting - and they chose to make it work.

There should not be a presumption for shared parenting in North Dakota. It ignores the desires of most parents, who don't want shared parenting. It also ignores the contributions of the primary caregiving parent, most often the mother, and it ignores the needs of children. It ignores the child's development as the child ages.

Hopefully, North Dakota will reject a presumption for joint custody, as many states and countries have already done.

---

Wilson is a member of the National Network On Family Law Policy and the Family Court Reform Coalition.

Domestic Violence And The Darren Mack Case

FROM OUR READERS: A LOSS OF CONTROL: The warning signs for violence

Mack case can provide us clues

By SOL GOTHARD, JAY SILVERMAN and TASHA AMADOR
SPECIAL TO THE REVIEW-JOURNAL

The Darren Mack case shocked Nevada and the nation. Could anyone have predicted that this millionaire "Father of the Year" might allegedly attempt to murder Judge Charles Weller and brutally stab his wife, Charla, to death? (Mack is awaiting trial on the charges.) The answer is yes. Both of these tragedies were predictable and preventable.

Though many have stated there was no forewarning that Mack might be a "ticking time bomb" who could allegedly commit murder, the reality is there were many warning signs that were ignored. What huge red flag was missed in the Mack case? Domestic violence. This case has made national headlines, but it has been largely overlooked in the media that this is a domestic violence case. Failure to identify domestic violence in divorce cases is a critical nationwide problem in family courts that can endanger judges, the public's safety, and the abuser's partner and children. The shooting of Judge Weller shows this failure can be deadly. In order to prevent future tragedies, including attacks on the judiciary and others, policymakers should mandate the screening and identification of the well-known warning signs of abusers who pose a high risk for homicide.

The Mack case included many common warning signs of an abuser who poses a high risk to commit murder: access to guns; controlling behavior; his wife's expressed fear that he would kill her; and separation -- all of which are significant predictors of intimate partner murder, according to a 2003 study funded by the National Institute of Justice. Domestic violence murders are not typically crimes of sudden, unanticipated violence where an abuser "just snaps," but instead are often the culmination of a predictable pattern of escalating abuse and violence.

Darren Mack was accused of domestic violence by his wife. These charges shouldn't be surprising, as Mack's controlling behavior and abusive tactics during his divorce clearly indicate his actions followed a pattern common to domestic violence perpetrators. This escalating abuse, particularly after separation, can lead to homicide.

The most dangerous period for the families of violent abusers (and others) is the time following separation. Research shows that separation is a powerful trigger for homicide among abusers, who become enraged at losing control over their partners and children. Domestic violence perpetrators can be extremely dangerous after separation/divorce, as they often increase their violence to re-establish their control and dominance. The majority of domestic violence murders occur after separation.

We are not suggesting that all separated abusers will commit murder. However, a careful assessment should be conducted to determine which individuals pose a higher risk for lethality. The Mack case clearly illustrates that a thorough investigation by trained family violence experts should be mandated whenever domestic violence allegations are raised during a divorce. These investigations must include emphatically validated protocols to assess homicide risk, specifically designed for use with domestic violence perpetrators. A legal strategist Mack hired stated that Mack displayed "no propensity" for domestic violence, because he passed psychological testing with "flying colors." However, psychological tests are ineffective in screening for domestic violence or partner homicide risk because domestic violence is not rooted in mental illness -- most abusers are not mentally ill, so they often do well on such tests, and appear normal. Identification of a pattern of controlling and coercive behavior is the most effective method of assessment for domestic violence (a profile Mack fit exactly).

As seen in the Mack case, domestic violence perpetrators can also pose a danger to judges. Abusers accustomed to firm control of their partners can become enraged that a judge is now in charge, and their loss of control of the situation can lead to attacking third parties, including judges. (Judge Weller, now recovering from multiple gunshot wounds, presided over Mack's divorce case). In June 2006, in another domestic violence/divorce case, Jeffrey Phillips was accused of making a death threat to "put a bullet" through the head of Judge Peter Hurd, who had issued a domestic violence order against Phillips.

Innocent bystanders, including children, are also at risk of homicide and can get caught in the cross-fire when the predictable warning signs of lethality in domestic violence perpetrators are ignored. John Allen Muhammad, charged in the 2002 Washington, D.C., sniper shooting case (a murder spree that left 10 people dead), had a history of domestic violence and divorce. The sniper boasted, "Your children are not safe, anywhere, anytime." Reports state that after threatening to kill his estranged wife, Muhammad traveled to Washington, D.C., to hunt her down, and unable to find her, began shooting people.

In a 2003 domestic violence case, after his wife filed for divorce, Tacoma Police Chief David Brame fulfilled numerous death threats by shooting and killing his wife in a shopping center parking lot, then killing himself. In another 2003 domestic violence murder/suicide case, William Hoffine, refusing to accept his divorce, ambushed, shot and killed his 14-year-old son in front of a grocery store as the boy jogged with his cross-country teammates.

Nevada U.S. Sen. Henry Reid has shown leadership in response to the Mack case by spearheading a federal bill to increase court security. However, much more needs to be done. To prevent future domestic violence-related tragedies, legislators should mandate the thorough investigation of domestic violence allegations in divorce cases as well as the identification of the common warning signs of violent abusers who present a higher homicide risk.

While many question how anyone could have predicted that Darren Mack might have committed murder, the answer lies in the words of Charla Mack: "He is out to get me and someday he will probably kill me." We need to start listening.

---

Sol Gothard, a retired federal appeals court judge in Louisiana, is president of the Council for Family Court Reform. Tasha Amador is the group's vice president. Jay Silverman, an assistant professor at Harvard, is a psychologist and domestic violence researcher.

What's Wrong With Mutual Orders of Protection?

One would have thought this issue had been long-resolved, but it seems to be coming up with increasing frequency of late. What's wrong with mutual orders of protection against domestic violence? What's wrong with the state's saying, parent-like, to a complaining seeker of a restraining order "Well, now I'm not going to figure out who started this, so how about the two of you just stop squabbling with each other." In short:

Mutual Orders Are Worse Than No Order and Endanger the Victims.
"Mutual orders of protection are protective orders issued against both of the parties to a dispute. Typically they occur within the same document, but they need not do so. Indeed, they could be issued by two different courts at different times, provided that they are both in effect simultaneously.Usually mutual orders are issued after only one of the parties has sought a protective order, particularly when they are issued within the same document. Regardless of how the mutual orders are granted, they have many problems..."

The complete article, originally published in the Domestic Violence Report, can be read at http://www.scvan.org/mutual_orders.html

Get it; read it. It lays out the talking points.

Therapy "No Cure For Sex Offenders"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5130560.stm

Therapy 'no cure for sex abusers'
Psychological therapy for sex offenders can reduce re-offending rates, but does not provide a cure, a study says.

Researchers from the Universities of London and Leicester reviewed nine studies involving 567 offenders in the US, UK, Canada and Europe. Some treatment programmes have cut re-offending by up to 40%.

But experts said the British Medical Journal report was wrong to talk about curing as it was not a medical problem and could not be solved as such. Most sex offenders in the UK receive some form of psychological treatment, mostly from the NHS and prison and probation services.

"I think it is wrong to believe you can cure a sex offender", Donald Findlater, of the Lucy Faithfull Foundation. It tends to take the form of talking therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy. Under 10% of sex offenders end up re-offending.

Report author Belinda Brooks-Green: "Offenders who successfully complete a treatment programme re-offend less often and less seriously than those who do not show that they have understood and worked through the relevant psychological issues." But she warned sex offending cannot always be successfully treated.

"Better understanding of the outcomes of treatments - either controlling and moderating or harming and worsening behaviour - could at least focus on the most beneficial and cost-effective interventions."

Review
The review covered people convicted of paedophilia, exhibitionism or sexual assault.

But Zoe Hilton, policy adviser at the children's charity NSPCC, said she would like to see more research on the issue, particularly on the differences in re-offending between paedophiles and adult sex offenders.

She added: "In many ways it is not surprising, we know with good support and the will of the offender, we can reduce re-offending. "But it does depend on the individual."

And Donald Findlater, deputy director of child protection charity, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, and who used to run a treatment service for sex offenders, said: "I think it is wrong to believe you can cure a sex offender. You can't. You can manage the problem and psychological treatment has been shown to do that. "But you can't say someone is free of the problem and not a risk at all of re-offending."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/5130560.stm
Published: 2006/06/29 23:02:20 GMT

NY Paternity Ruling That Favored The Child

N.Y. High Court Says Mistaken Avowal of Fatherhood Imposes an 'Equitable Paternity'
New York Law Journal

He who acts like a father, is a father -- at least legally -- the New York Court of Appeals said in imposing "equitable paternity" on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a girl and acted accordingly. The man had argued that the order to pay child support on behalf of a child he did not father effectively saddled him with an involuntary adoption, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to public policy. But the court focused not on whether he got a raw deal but on the best interests of the child.

-----

More from the article:

"Mark did not dispute his paternity. Instead, he helped pay for Shondel's pregnancy, visited the girl he thought was his and made her a beneficiary of his life insurance. He also signed a letter affirming his fatherhood so the child could obtain immigration papers. In 1999, he married another woman, and they have children."

"The next year, Shondel moved to New York and lodged a paternity petition in Brooklyn, and Mark filed a separate visitation petition. A court-ordered DNA test proved that Mark was not the father. "

"At that point, Mark attempted to sever ties with the girl. But he was equitably estopped from disclaiming paternity and ordered to pay child support. The child support amounted to $78 weekly, plus retroactive support of $12,859. Mark has had no personal contact with the child since March 2000. "

"On appeal, Mark argued that the imposition of "equitable paternity" effectively saddled him with an involuntary adoption, in violation of the Constitution and contrary to public policy. "

"But the 2nd Department, and now the Court of Appeals, focused not on whether Mark got a raw deal, but on the best interests of the child."

"In allowing a court to declare paternity irrespective of biological fatherhood, the Legislature made a deliberate policy choice that speaks directly to the case before us," Judge Albert M. Rosenblatt wrote for the 5-2 majority. "The potential damage to a child's psyche caused by suddenly ending established parental support need only be stated to be appreciated. Cutting off that support, whether emotional or financial, may leave the child in a worse position than if that support had never been given."

"Like the lower courts, the Court of Appeals found that Mark had in every way held himself out to be the child's father -- buying her Christmas and birthday presents, referring to himself as "daddy," introducing her to his family, and regularly communicating with her. Mark had claimed he had rarely seen or had contact with the child, but none of the courts hearing his case believed him. "

"The issue does not involve the equities between the two adults; the case turns exclusively on the best interests of the child," Judge Rosenblatt wrote. "The Legislature did not create an exception for men who take on the role of fatherhood based on the mother's misrepresentation ... [T]he mother's motivation and honesty are irrelevant; the only issue for the court is how the interests of the child are best served."

-----

The child's welfare is most important, not dad's rights. New York made the right decision in this case. Dad had already established himself by his actions as his daughter's father, even though he was not her biological father. Fatherhood is more than DNA. New York agreed with that, and ruled accordingly.

Dr. John Money Has Died

Dr. John Money, who became famous for his gender reassignment surgery, has died. He was in his eighties. His adult sex change operations were controversial. The Baltimore Sun described one of his more controversial cases, known publicly as the "John/Joan" case:

His belief that gender could be assigned to a child before age 3 played out in a radical experiment that proved devastating for him and the child upon whom it was performed.

Canadian parents of twin boys sought Dr. Money's advice in 1967 after one of their sons suffered a botched circumcision. Dr. Money advised them that with hormones and sex-change surgery, the child could be raised as a girl.

But by the time Brenda was a teen, it became clear the plan wasn't working. Brenda became known as a boy, David Reimer, who later was the subject of the 2000 book As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, by John Colapinto. In the book, Mr. Reimer decried the experiment and spoke of his anguish. Mr. Reimer committed suicide in 2004.

Dr. Money refused to speak publicly on the subject, said niece Sally Hopkins of Baltimore.

John Money also gave a positive review to a book by Dr. Theo Sandfort, entitled "Boys on their Contacts with Men - A Study of Sexually Expressed Friendships", which praised pedophilia. Money had also been quoted in support of pedophilia. He has said this the Spring, 1991, vol. 2, no. 3 issue of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, on page 5: "If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who's intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual...then I would not call it pathological in any way." On top of that, Money was a Penthouse Forum consultant. According to Dr. Judith Reisman, Money "led for an organized crusade to end age of consent laws. It was John Money who promoted the word "paraphilias" in order to refer to aberrant sexual conduct such as necrophelia, sexual sadism, bestiality, coprophilia, urophilia and pedophilia in a manner less clear and offensive to readers."

That is some sick stuff.

Such praise for pedophilia didn't stop the Children's Rights Council from allowing Money to serve on its board of advisors. Money's name had been removed from CRC letterhead a long time ago, possibly due to the bad publicity from the John/Joan case, reviews such as the one for the Sandfort book, and his stance on pedophilia.

Leadership Council on "Parental Alienation Syndrome"

The Leadership Council
610-664-5007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Child Abuse Experts Applaud Legal Community for Rejecting Parental Alienation Syndrome

July 11, 2006 Bala Cynwyd, Pa. - People who care about abused children finally have something to celebrate. Two recent high profile legal publications have rejected "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS), a controversial label often used to discredit allegations of child abuse or domestic violence in family courts. According to PAS theory, children's disclosures of abuse by one parent are reinterpreted as evidence of "brainwashing" by the other parent. The solution proposed by PAS theory is to immediately award custody to the alleged child abuser.

The newly revised, 2006 edition of "Navigating Custody and Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge's Guide," published by The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, includes a strong statement condemning the use of PAS which it calls a "discredited" syndrome that favors child abusers in custody determinations.

At the same time the Spring 2006 issue of the American Bar Association's Children's Legal Rights Journal provides a comprehensive analysis of all legal case involving allegations of PAS. This definitive review concludes that science, law, and policy all oppose the admissibility of PAS in the courtroom.

"PAS is junk science at its worst," says Dr. Paul Fink, President of the Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, and a former President of the American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Fink explains, "Science tells us that the most likely reason that a child becomes estranged from a parent is that parent's own behavior. Labels, such as PAS, serve to deflect attention away from those behaviors."

Judge Sol Gothard is glad to see that the legal community has joined other professionals in recognizing the harm that PAS can cause. Recently retired from Louisiana's 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, Judge Gothard has been involved in over 2000 cases of allegations of child sexual abuse. He states, "PAS has caused emotional harm, physical harm and in some cases, even death to children."

Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D., a Clinical Psychologist and Executive Vice President of the Council, has also seen first hand the long-term emotional damage this so-called syndrome has caused. "How do you explain to young children forced to live with abusers why the courts have considered them liars and ignored their cries for help?" Silberg has found that it can take years for these children to get past their feelings of betrayal by the system that was supposed to protect them.

Dr. Silberg views PAS allegations as part of a larger strategy in which abusive parents try to fool the courts, attorneys, child custody evaluators, and mental health professionals into believing that their children and ex-spouses are crazy when they raise concerns about safety. She notes the recent case of Darren Mack, accused of shooting his custody judge and stabbing his wife to death. Mack successfully convinced a custody evaluator that he was a loving parent with no violent tendencies, notes Silberg.

Stephanie Dallam, MS, a researcher with the Leadership Council, has spent the last 10 years researching PAS. She traces the syndrome to a controversial psychiatrist, Richard Gardner, who described sex between fathers and their offspring as normal and natural. In his voluminous self-published writings, Gardner blamed abused children's suffering on our society's "overreaction" to sexual abuse, notes Dallam.

Dr. Paul Fink concludes, "Children suffer when law embraces a 'syndrome' just because a so-called 'expert' coined a snappy phrase. Increasingly, courts are seeing through the PAS charade and refusing to allow the courtroom to be used as theater for the promotion of junk science."

The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence is composed of national leaders in psychology, psychiatry, medicine, law, and public policy who are committed to the ethical application of psychological science and countering its misuse by special interest groups. Members of the Council are dedicated to the health, safety and well-being of children and other vulnerable populations. More information can be found at: http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/