| --PEERgroup --Parental Equality Enforcement Resource |
| Professionals involved in this case have clearly stated that Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the motivating force behind Katy's outrageous and pathological behavior. What is PAS? The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is the systematic denigration by one parent by the other with the intent of alienating the child against the other parent. The purpose of the alienation is usually to gain or retain custody without the involvement of the father. The alienation usually extends to the father's family and friends as well. Dr. Richard Gardner in his book 'The Parental Alienation Syndrome' states (P.74) "Many of these children proudly state that their decision to reject their fathers is their own. They deny any contribution from their mothers. And the mothers often support this vehemently. In fact, the mothers will often state that they want the child to visit with the father and recognise the importance of such involvement, yet such a mother's every act indicates otherwise. Such children appreciate that, by stating the decision is their own, they assuage mothers guilt and protect her from criticism. Such professions of independent thinking are supported by the mother who will often praise these children for being the kind of people who have minds of their own and are forthright and brave enough to express overtly their opinions. Frequently, such mothers will exhort their children to tell them the truth regarding whether or not they really want to see their fathers. The child will usually appreciate that "the truth" is the profession that they hate the father and do not want to see him ever again. They thereby provide that answer - couched as "the truth" - which will protect them from their mother's anger if they were to state what they really wanted to do, which is to see their fathers. It is important for the reader to appreciate that after a period of programming the child may not know what is the truth any more and come to actually believe that the father deserves the vilification being directed against him. The end point of the brainwashing process has then been achieved. Here are some highlights from the premiere text on the subject, authored by Dr. Richard Gardner. If you consider all the Evaluations and Reports submitted to the court, it becomes clear that Dr. Gardner's characterizations of the typical PAS mother precisely describe Katy Cook. Miller and Bonaventura are complicit in the destruction of Terry Cook's relationship with his daughter because they suppressed evidence and refused to act on the warnings and specific recommendations offer by the psychological professionals they appointed. Gardner makes clear that meaningful action must be taken against the brainwashing mother, not just empty threats. Clearly, neither Miller or Bonaventura have ever been willing to do that. The emotional abuse of Teri Ann Cook is a the result of their unwillingness to protect this child from the malicious campaign of destruction by her mother. Excerpts from... The Parental Alienation Syndrome A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Professionals (Second Edition) Richard A. Gardner, M.D. Clinical Professor of Child Psychiatry, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons “It is important for examiners to appreciate that a parent who inculcates a PAS [Parental Alienation Syndrome] in a child is indeed perpetuating a form of emotional abuse in that such programming may not only produce lifelong alienation from a loving parent, but lifelong psychiatric disturbance in the child.” page xxi “Hysterical individuals, in association with their overreaction, may become quite dramatic, sometimes akin to a theatrical performance.” page 47 “Their children, as well, recognize that every criticism they make of the alienated parent will enable them to enjoy significant attention.” page 47 “Hysteria is on a continuum with paranoia. In hysteria the distorted idea is capable of modification. When the paranoid level is reached, the idea becomes a fixed delusion and cannot be changed by logic.” page 50 “When paranoids are confronted with strong evidence, often incontrovertible, that their delusional ideas are false, they will typically provide vague responses, not answer questions directly, and use a wide variety of other diversionary maneuvers designed to avoid direct confrontation.” page 55 “Paranoids can be extremely cruel. The delusion may serve as a rationalization for sadism. After all, destroying one’s persecutors is at least self-protective and, in some cases, can be viewed as serving some noble end, often of great value to society.” page 58 “They exhibit repeated failures to conform to socially acceptable norms. There is an arrogance associated with such refusals in that psychopaths operate as if the social requirements do not apply to them.” page 65-66 “Parents who induce a PAS in their children often lack shame and guilt, especially over the cruelty visited upon the victimized parent. They seem to have no conscience, no internal self-blame, no remorse. Programming parents see absolutely nothing wrong in asking an excluded and vilified parent to contribute to provide food, clothing, shelter, and pay all educational expenses--yet not have any contact at all with the children. Such alienators will induce similar shameless exploitation in their programmed children. Inducers of a PAS feel little guilt over the wide variety of exclusionary maneuvers that deprive the targeted parent of opportunities for input into school activities, attendance at school recitals, participation at sport events, and the wide variety of other activities that can be such an important source of joy to the healthy parent.” page 67 “Such a parent will typically proclaim deep love of the children. Yet, inducing the PAS in a child is a form of emotional abuse in that it can bring about permanent destruction of the child’s bonding with the targeted parent. This cannot be considered an act of love. Rather, inducing a PAS in a child is a form of emotional abuse, clear and simple.” page 68 “Psychopaths are typically deceitful. They are often flagrant liars and ‘lie with a straight face.’” page 68 “Psychopaths can be very skillful manipulators.....an alienator can actually convince the court that the targeted parent has indeed perpetuated the alleged abominations. But even if the court is not convinced, the children are, because being suggestible and gullible, they are easily ‘conned’” page 69 “Programming of children into such a campaign of denigration is indeed an extremely sadistic act.” page 70 “Psychopaths are irresponsible and unreliable.” page 70 “In child-custody disputes, the ‘end’ is gaining primary custody of the children. In the service of this goal, the programming parent operates on the dictum that all is fair, including programming the children to deprecate obsessively and to remove themselves completely from a previously loved parent.” page 71 “Typically the child is obsessed with ‘hatred’ of the parent, (The word hatred is placed in quotes because, as will be discussed, there are still many tender and loving feelings felt toward the allegedly despised parent that are not permitted expression.)” page 77 “A father with whom there had been joyous experiences is now referred to as boring. When asked the activities the children engaged in with the father prior to the separation, the child will often say, ‘I don’t remember.’ When the examiner asks incredulously about the child’s lack of memory for all pleasurable events that occurred prior to the father’s departure, the child claims complete amnesia. It is as if there had been a total obliteration of that segment of the child’s brain in which were embedded memories of the life with his (her) father prior to the father’s departure.” page 79 “The hatred of the alienated parent often extends to include the parent’s extended family. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents--with whom the child previously may have had loving relationships--are now viewed as similarly obnoxious.” page 107 “Garbarino and Scott (1992) consider the PAS to be an example of what they refer to as 'the psychologically battered child'.” page 112 “A common factor that contributes to the PAS child’s obsessive hatred of the victimized parent is the utilization of the reaction formation mechanism. Obsessive hatred is often a thin disguise for deep love. This is especially the case when there is absolutely no reason to justify the preoccupation with the despised person’s defects. True rejection is neutrality, when there is little, if any, thought of the person.” The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Each time these children think about how much they hate their vilified parents, they are still thinking about them.” page 112 “A paranoid alienator may be so successful in programming the child against the victimized parent that the child will take on the programmer’s paranoid delusions. In such cases, the child may exhibit morbid fear at the prospect of the vilified parent’s coming to the home--lest the terrible consequences predicted by the alienator be realized.” page 113 “Furthermore, PAS is often a diversionary maneuver for the alienating parent in that it directs attention away from any deficiencies she (he) may have and focuses instead on the alleged defects of the targeted parent...The PAS child identifies, then, with a “perfect” individual, and this is viewed by the child as a way of attaining the state of perfection of oneself.” page 115.” “Children in the severe category are generally quite disturbed and are usually fanatic. They join together with their mothers in a folie-a-deux relationship in which they share paranoid fantasies about the father.” page 122 “The programming parent and the child develop a symbiotic relationship under these circumstances, and they have trouble differentiating themselves from each other.” page 122 [PEERgroup note: Teri Ann's perfect day off would be to provide for her mother - Moultrie’s report.] “The child may become a mere automaton, reflexively verbalizing the litany of denigration whenever called upon to recite it. In such cases, the DSM-IV diagnosis Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified may be warranted.” page 131 “At times the criticisms may even be delusions, but the child is brought to believe entirely the validity of the accusations. The child may thereby come to view the targeted parent as the incarnation of evil.” page 131 “A common maneuver utilized by indoctrinating mothers is to insist that the victimized father not attend school recitals, sport events, etc.” page 135 “Typically, the PAS-inducing mother considers the pace of expansion [of visitation] much too rapid. No matter how slow and turtle-like the father’s proposed expansion of visitation, the mother complains, ‘You’re pushing things too fast’ and will find a wide variety of excuses to slow down the rate of expansion.” page 144 “Another argument given to stall the expansion is, “When he’s old enough, he’ll be able to decide for himself how much time he wants to visit.” page 145 “Obstructing the father’s attempts to obtain information about school activities is a common maneuver utilized by PAS-inducing mothers.” page 147 “A common PAS maneuver is not giving the father copies of school photographs.” page 148 “One exclusionary maneuver that I have seen on many occasions relates to the child’s name...Of significance here is the message to the child that the father is so odious that the traditional bearing of his name is somehow undesirable, especially because it is viewed by the mother as an ongoing remnant of his existence.” page 149 [PEERgroup note:Teri Ann is now called simply Ann (i.e., Teri/Terry] “The parent who expresses ‘neutrality’ regarding visitation (“I respect her decision regarding whether she wishes to visit her father [mother]’) is likely to utilizing such neutrality in the service of PAS indoctrination. The healthy parent appreciates how vital is the child’s ongoing involvement the noncustodial parent and encourages visitation, even when the child is ‘not in the mood’. The healthy parent does not accept inconsequential and frivolous reason for not visiting. Under the guise of neutrality, a PAS-inducing parent engender and foster alienation. The ‘neutrality’ essentially communicates to the child the message that the deprecated parent cannot provide enough affection, attention, and other desirable input to make a missed visitation a loss of any consequence....Related to the neutrality maneuver is the alienating parent who repeatedly insists that the child be the one to make the decision regarding visitation. Such a parent hammers away at the child with this principle. The child generally knows that the parent basically does not want the visitation., and so the child then professes the strong opinion the he (she) does not wish to visit. We see here a good example of the “independent-thinker” phenomenon. Such an alienating mother might say, after the child refuses, ‘I respect your strength in standing up for your rights.....These same mothers would not ’respect’ the child’s refusal to go to school, keep a doctor’s appointment, or assume other important obligations. There is only one category of refusal that is respected, and that is refusal to have anything to do with the father.” page 152 “Alienating parents will use just about any excuse known to humanity to justify obstructing the visitation program...” page 155 “There are some PAS-inducing mothers that will remove every object in the home that is in any way reminiscent of the father....” page 155 “The mother who moves away to a distant city or state is essentially communicating to the children that distance from the father is not a consequential consideration.” page 156 “Obstructionism is often the ‘name of the game’ for programming parents....Lawyers are predictably obstructionistic and this is often a conscious and deliberate stratagem used by attorneys....Not only is the alienator’s lawyer likely to obstruct, but even the victimized parent’s own attorney may be slow in responding to his (her) our client.” page 159 “Anyone who doubts the validity of the programmer campaign will be rejected and will certainly not be selected as a new partner. Therapists, too, become similarly involved. Once again, therapists are selected on the basis of their willingness to support the PAS alienator’s position. A therapist who even suggests that more conciliatory involvement with the targeted parent might be judicious is immediately rejected.” page 166 “The aid and support of other friends and relatives are usually enlisted. Again, there is the selection process. All people are divided into two groups: those who support the PAS campaign and those who do not. The former become ‘friends’ and the others are rejected.” page 166 “The PAS campaign of denigration is basically based on fantasy. Nuclei of reality represent but a small part of the total package. The rest consists mainly of fantasies, misrepresentation, fabrications, exaggerations, delusions, and often vicious and deliberate lies.” page 167 “We tend to see the world similarly to those we love and often show poor judgment with regard to belief in the things that they say, even preposterous things.” page 167 “Judicial restraints and threats are ignored (often with impunity), and the name of the game here is to get away with as much as one can. It is very much a situation in which ‘the end justifies the means.’ Many of these mothers rely on judges’ passivity regarding the enforcement of their orders, threats of meaningful sanctions notwithstanding.” [PEERgroup note: This is EXACTLY what has happend in MIller and Bonavenutra's courtroom.] page 168 “Because PAS-inducing mothers are usually living separately from their husbands and cannot retaliate directly against them, they may wreak vengeance by attempting to deprive the former spouses of their most treasured possession, the children. And the brainwashing program is an attempt to achieve this goal.” page 168 “These mothers are always on the attack with an array of tactics, including relentless litigation. Programming children against the father, and thereby getting the children to join forces with her against him, is yet another weapon. Lying and deception are also routine.” page 169 “The legal system, for reasons that are presented throughout this book, predictably serve as a useful tool for enabling such women to vent their rage on their estranged husbands.” page 169 “In association with such power maneuvers, PAS-indoctrinating parents recognize that time is on their side. They know that the court’s predictable delay is likely to result in ever-deepening entrenchment of the children’s campaign of denigration...With rare exception, one can always rely on court delays.” page 170 “Inducing PAS in children is very simple to do, considering their cognitive immaturity and suggestibility. Court delays and the predictability of nonaction by the court increase the likelihood that there will be no untoward consequences to the parent for making use of this powerful weapon. Relevant here is the wisdom attributed to Lord Acton: ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Parents inducing a PAS are corrupt. They have to be corrupt because they corrupt their children. Moral and ethical parents do not corrupt their children by the inclination of a PAS. Courts, by their delays and ultimate inaction, corrupt PAS-indoctrinating parents and contribute thereby to the corruption of their children.” page 171 “Murdering someone generally only takes a few seconds or a few minutes and might not be as gratifying to the murderer as someone who brings about the slow death of one’s victim. Inducing a PAS in children, alienating them from their father, one of the two most important people in their lives, can bring about a slow death to a loving father. And when the false sex-abuse accusations added, he might die in prison. If most had a choice between a quick death and the slow death of their hated victims, they would choose the slow death. In a sense, then, inducing a PAS in a man’s children is better than murdering him. It provides more power than murder with no consequences (at least to the indoctrinator).....And her [the PAS inducing mother] stronger binding with the children increases the likelihood that she can engage their [the children’s] services as her allies. The children, then, are used as pawns in the power struggle.” pages 171-172 “This is consistent with my view that inducing a PAS is a form of emotional abuse. When PAS mothers ‘win’ in the courtroom, they not only win custody, but they win total alienation of their children from the hated spouse. The victory here results in psychological destruction of the children that, I believe, is what PAS-inducing mothers may basically want anyway, their professions of underlying love notwithstanding. Perhaps some of them are dimly aware, at some level, that their unrelenting litigation, indoctrination, and alienation will be destructive to their children.” page 176 “Clawar and Rivlin (1991) consider a mother’s induction of a campaign of alienation in the children to serve as a diversionary maneuver from her own parenting difficulties. In other words, she is using the mechanism of projection.” page 177 “A very good example of projection process is the false sex-abuse allegation. Mentioned elsewhere (Gardner 1987a, 1991a, 1992c, 1993c, 1995a, 1999), bona fide sex abuse can certainly take place at the same time that there is a custody dispute. However, the frequency of false accusations under these circumstances is quite high, especially because of the vengeance and exclusionary benefits to be derived from such an accusation. Not surprisingly, then, a sex-abuse allegation has been a common addition to the PAS. Many such sex-abuse accusations are conscious and deliberate, and the accuser knows quite well that the spouse did not in any way sexually molest the child.....The mother’s own suppressed and repressed sexual fantasies are projected onto the child and father....Such an accusation, then, is sometimes (but certainly not always) best viewed as a product of the mother’s own mind--having no basis in reality--and is therefore likely to have within it an element of projection.” page 178 “We are living at a time when being a victim enables an individual to enjoy a certain amount of attention and even public respect and admiration. This principle is best exemplified by victims’ survivor groups, so much in vogue in recent years. Wallowing in self-pity about one’s past victimizations provides for many a source of morbid gratification. It is unfortunate that mental health professionals who provide such ‘therapy’ are ignorant of the fact that such groups do more harm than good in that they continually muckrake and more deeply entrench past traumas that are best forgotten. Mothers who induce PAS often covert the situation to one in which they and the children are victims of the alleged abuses perpetuated upon them by the alienated parent. Although, in reality, he is the victim of the PAS indoctrinations, she considers herself to be victimized by the alienated parent.” page 186 “And then, after the case ultimately comes to trial, judges can be relied upon to do very little, if anything at all, to provide meaningful consequences and/or sanctions for PAS parents--especially mothers. Judges have no problem putting fathers in jail who renege on their support and/or alimony payments....Most agree that such withholding of funds is a form of emotional abuse of the ex-wife and the children. Inducing a PAS in a child is also a form of emotional abuse, possibly even worse than defaulting on one’s financial obligations. Yet, judges do very little about PAS mothers, who ignore and defy court orders with impunity. Judges may threaten sanctions, such as transfer of custody, monetary penalties, and even jail--but it is extremely rare that something meaningful is actually done. One reason is that it is politically incorrect for judges to come down to harshly on women. In contrast, it is politically correct for judges to come down heavily on men.” page 201 “Gould (1998), who is appreciative of the power of the time weapon in PAS, puts it well: ‘Time is the alienating parent’s most powerful weapon, The longer an alienating parent has to influence a child, the stronger the alliance between the alienating parent and the child. As the child becomes older, the influence appears more and more as though it is the child’s reasoned decision . . . the deliberate, slow nature of the court system may significantly contribute to the child’s belief about the targeted parent.’” page 202 “. . . children’s suggestibility and their need to integrate themselves to adult authority play an important role in the development of the PAS.” page 202 “In some cases of severe PAS, the programming parent is psychotic, usually paranoid. Such a parent has been so ‘successful’ in inducing a PAS in the child that the child has taken on the parent’s psychotic (paranoid) symptoms. In such cases the DSM-IV diagnosis Shared Psychotic Disorder (Folie a Deux) is warranted. The programming parent’s delusion not only promulgates the child’s paranoia, but there is a feedback mechanism operative in which the child’s delusion strengthens the parent’s. For example, the mother may not have included in her delusional scenario the complaint that the father has physically abused the child. The child, in an attempt to integrate himself (herself) to the mother may claim that the father is physically abusive when there is absolutely no evidence for such. Originally, this was a conscious, deliberate fabrication on the child’s part. The mother accepts it as a valid complaint, incorporates it into her delusional system, and repeatedly asks the child questions regarding the details of the physical abuses. The child, in order to comply, creates an expanding physical abuse scenario that, when repeated many times, is ultimately believed by the child as an actual event.” page 202 “Mothers of these children are often fanatic. They will use every mechanism at their disposal (legal and illegal) to prevent visitation.” page 207 “Such mothers do not respond to logic, confrontations with reality, or appeals to reason. They will readily believe the most preposterous scenarios. Skilled mental health examiners who claim that there is no evidence for the accusation are dismissed as being against them or as being paid off by the husband. And this is typical of paranoid thinking: it does not respond to logic, and any confrontation that might shake the system is rationalized by incorporation into the paranoid scenario.” page 207 “Then there are the courts. The Constitution requires courts to act with deliberate speed and ensures that individuals will have a ‘speedy trial’. I have never seen this happen” page 213 “Such a passive approach to dealing with PAS is often encouraged by well-meaning but misguided therapists. Typical advice is: ‘Take it slow. As they get older, they will come to appreciate how they’ve been brainwashed and they’ll come around.’ As mentioned so many times throughout the course of this book, time is on the side of the alienator. This is just the opposite of the advice that a victimized parent needs. The therapist’s statement that when the children get older they will then appreciate what happened cannot possibly be the result of personal experiences on the part of the person who provides such advice . . . There is just so much time one can spend talking about the good old days. Unfortunately, PAS victims too often fall into the hands of such therapists and passively follow such misguided advice, with the result that they lose their children entirely.” page 214 “To be meaningfully involved in treatment one must satisfy at least two fundamental provisos: (1) the individual must have insight into the fact the he (she) has psychological problems, and (2) the individual must have motivation to alleviate the psychological difficulties. With extremely rare exception, people who are PAS indoctrinators satisfy neither of these provisos. They have no insight into the fact that the maneuvers by which they are injecting poison into the brains of their children is a psychopathological process, and they have no motivation to alleviate this problem, so formidable are the ‘benefit’ (as they see them). Their psychopathology blinds them to devastating effects upon their children of such indoctrinations. Such a court order [for family therapy] is just what an indoctrinating parent wishes for, because the treatment will predictably be a failure, and by the time the case gets back to court, one or two years later, the PAS will be even more deeply entrenched in the children.” page 215 “Although each of the family members may warrant individual therapy, they all need to be seen by one therapist, the divorce status of the family notwithstanding. I have seen many cases in which the judge has ordered each of the parties to have a separate therapist . . . The individual therapist is going to be deprived of important information that can only be gained from joint interviews among family members. Because programming parents are notoriously uncooperative regarding entering treatment in which the focus is to confront them with their pathological utilization of their children, court-ordered family therapy is crucial.” page 319-320 “Courts are not going to be successful in alleviating the problem of PAS families by simply ordering people to cease and desist from programming children or obstructing visitation. . . the programming is often subtle and even unconscious, and no court order can possibly prevent the communication of these thoughts and feeling to the children.” page 320 “Parents who induce a PAS in their children exhibit a parental deficiency. As mentioned so frequently throughout this book, it is a form of emotional abuse. Accordingly, it must be one of the factors under consideration in a child-custody dispute and is clearly a deficit when one is comparing parental assets and liabilities. When it is present to a severe degree, the transfer of custodial status may be the only way of protecting the children from the permanent destruction of the parental bond.” page 324 “When working with these families, it is important that one therapist be utilized. This is not a situation in which the mother should have her therapist, the father have his therapist, and the children their own. Such a program, although seemingly respectful of each party’s individual needs, is not likely to work for PAS families. Such fractionalization reduces communication, sets up antagonistic subsystems within the family and is thereby likely to intensify and promulgate the pathological interactions that contribute to the PAS” page 326 “Typically, PAS indoctrinators in the moderate and severe categories will either refuse meaningful involvement in the treatment program or, if they profess such interest, will ultimately be uncooperative, obstructionistic, and do everything possible to sabotage the therapy. They may profess interest and cooperation, but their behavior attests to just the opposite. Rand (1997a) states that they ‘can create a facade of wanting peace and cooperation, while covertly continuing the campaign of aggression and sabotage.’ Many are devious and will dupe naive examiners into believing that they want rapprochement between the children and the father.” page 329 “Most of the alienators in this and the severe category are not receptive to insight therapy in which they delve into the reason for their exaggerated animosity.’ page 330 “Therapists must realize that PAS children need them to serve as an excuse for visiting the victimized. When ‘forced’ by the therapist to visit the alienated parent, they can say to the programmer that the therapist is mean, cruel, etc., and that they really do no want to see the despised person, but that the therapist ‘made them’.” page 332 “With rare exception, in the course of such expansion, PAS-inducing parents will complain that the therapy is going too rapidly and not giving the children enough time to adjust . . . It is a serious error for the therapist to allow himself (herself) to be controlled by PAS inducers into slowing down and even preventing a reasonable expansion of visitation." page 336 “Therapists do well to view one aspect of the children’s treatment as a kind of ‘debriefing’ and ‘deprogramming’.” page 336 “One must try to help the PAS children appreciate that they have been brainwashed” page 336 “In family sessions the therapist should ‘smoke out’ the lies. This is much more likely to be accomplished in family sessions than in individual meetings. The therapist should express incredulity over the children’s vilification of the father.” page 337 “Most judges are aware that they cannot order an impotent husband to have an erection or a frigid wife to have an orgasm. Yet they somehow believe that one can order someone to have a conviction for the commitment to therapy. Often the order is a way of the judge just ‘getting rid of the case’ and moving on. In such situations a judge may have little, if any, conviction for therapy (a justifiable position in my opinion) but orders the treatment because it is acceptable, presumably judicious, thing to do. Accordingly, the evaluator does well to discourage the court, if possible, from such a misguided order.” page 354 “If there is to be any hope for the survival of the relationship between the children in the severe category and their father, there must be a transfer [of custody] to the father’s home.” page 354 “In severe cases of PAS . . . more stringent measures must be taken. If there is any hope of alleviating the children’s symptoms, the first step must involve a transfer of physical custody to the home of the father.” page 355 “Temporary placement in a transitional site appears to be an excellent solution to this problem.” page 355 “It is important to reiterate that mothers in the severe category are not going to comply readily with court orders to cease and desist from their brainwashing. In fact, their ignoring of court orders is one of the reasons why they warrant placement in the severe category. The main purpose of the program presented here is to enforce the mother’s separation from the children--for varying period depending on the case--in order to protect the children from the mother’s ongoing campaign of manipulation and programming. Accordingly, during this early phase it is crucial that there be no contact at all between the children and their mother, either directly or indirectly, e.g., via telephone or mail. All these contacts will be utilized by the mother to continue her brainwashing and will thereby lessen significantly the likelihood that this transitional program.” page 356 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Six Phases of Transition [necessary to treat severe PAS]: Phase 1 Placement in the transitional site. Here, the children are removed from the alienator’s incessant campaign of programming, yet they are not living with their victimized parent. During this period at the transitional site, all contact with the mother should be cut off, including mail and telephone calls. Then after a few days of accommodation to the new site, the father should visit the children at the site. There, the children will start to have the living experience that no harm will come to them. Over the next few days or weeks (depending upon their tolerance), visits with the targeted parent (again at the site) should increase in both frequency and duration. Phase 2 At some point (hopefully in a short time), the children should begin visiting in the home of the victimized parent for short periods, after which they return directly to the transitional site. Gradually, the visits to the targeted parent’s home should be lengthened, until the point where they can start living there on an ongoing basis. During this period there should be no contact with the alienating parent, even via mail and telephone calls. Phase 3 The children are discharged from the transitional site and live with the targeted parent on an ongoing basis. In the early part of this phase, once again, no mail or telephone calls from the alienating parent should be allowed. If the alienating parent is seen in the area of the victimized parent’s home (stalking is common in such situations), this is to be reported immediately (thorough proper channels) to the court, after which serious sanctions, such as a fine, a reduction in alimony payments, and even incarceration (or hospitalization [in selected cases] should be seriously considered. The children require living experience that the terrible consequences that they have anticipated will not be realized. Any interruption of this process by the indoctrinating parent is likely to cause them to regress. Phase 4 Carefully monitored contact with the indoctrinating parent can be permitted--on a trial basis. The first step should be limited and monitored telephone conversations. It is not likely that the alienating parent will reduce the programming, but at least limitations can be placed on it. If it appears that the programming parent has enough self-control and/or that the obsession with brainwashing the children is brought under some control, longer telephone conversations can be permitted. During this phase, similarly monitored mail communications may be permitted. Phase 5 Monitored visits with the alienating parent in the targeted parent’s home may be tried, the frequency and duration determined by the alienating parent’s ability to reduce the inculcation of animosity toward the victimized parent. Phase 6 In some cases, carefully monitored and judiciously restricted visits to the alienating parent’s home might be tried. Obviously, this would be possible only in those situations in which the alienating parent’s animosity has become reduced to the degree that there is a limited risk of programming (programming runs the risk of undoing the benefits derived from implementation of the previous phases in this program). There are some cases in which this phase can never be reached because the alienating parent might kidnap the children, refuse to return them, or otherwise subjet them to relentless programming against the victimized parent. It is hoped, however, that some contact with the mother might be possible. page 358-359 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “It is important to reiterate that mothers in the sever category are not going to comply readily with court orders to cease and desist from their brainwashing. In fact, their ignoring of court orders is one of the reasons why they warrant placement in the sever category. The main purpose of the program presented here is to enforce the mother’s separation from the children--for varying period depending on the case--in order to protect the children from the mother’s ongoing campaign of manipulation and programming. Accordingly, during this early phase it is crucial that there be no contact at all between the children and their mother, either directly or indirectly, e.g., via telephone or mail. All these contacts will be utilized by the mother to continue her brainwashing and will thereby lessen significantly the likelihood that this transitional program.” page 356 Some were paranoid before the litigation; most were paranoid and exhibited paranoid deterioration as a result of the litigation (Gardner, 1986). The children join the programming parent in a folie-a-deux relationship and come to harbor the same delusions about the targeted parent that the programmer exhibits. As mentioned, when both programmer and child are paranoid the DSM-IV diagnosis of shared psychotic disorder (297.3) may be justified . . .I wish to emphasis again that the vilified parent I am discussing here are those who have had reasonably good relationships with their children prior to the onset of the child-custody dispute and, although they may certainly have some problems, are far healthier than the programming parent. The only hope that children in this category have for reconciliation with the vilified parent is transfer to his (her) home. Because the children are not going to comply with a court order to go there voluntarily, and because the alienator cannot be relied on to meaningfully comply with court orders to this effect, the only hope for such reconciliation is the utilization of the transition plan described in Chapter Ten . . . If not, then the already attenuated bond between the parent and the children will be deteriorated further, generally to the point of complete disintegration.” page 382 ". . . I have seen far too many cases in which the stalling maneuvers are clearly the judge’s. There are many who have difficulty making a decision. They are constantly finding excuses for continually pushing ahead the final ruling. Some will threaten sanctions against an uncooperative alienator but never follow through on them. Judges must be made aware that PAS inducers are notorious for flaunting judicial rulings.” page 383 “Judges who order therapy often do not appreciate that they are unwittingly being maneuvered by cunning programmers. PAS-inducing parents fully appreciate that time is on their side; in fact, time is their greatest weapon. Therapy predictably can be avoided and drawn out. It may take months and even years to get back to the court in order for the targeted parent to plead that the order to go to therapy was not complied with or that, if there was ostensible receptivity, there was lack of cooperation and obstructionism. All this could have been predicted by the victimized parent as well as the programming parent who welcomed the order as providing yet another opportunity to use ‘the time weapon’.” page 384 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One final quote from the First Edition of The Parental Alienation Syndrome: “Therapy for the children . . . is most often not possible while the children are still living in the mother’s home. No matter how many times a week they are seen, the therapeutic exposure represents only a small fraction of the total amount of time of exposure to the mother’s denigration’s of the father. There is a sick psychological bond here between the mother and children that not going to be changed by therapy as long as the children remain living with the mother. While still in the mother’s home, the children are going to be exposed continually to the bombardment of denigration and other influences (overtly and covertly) that contribute to the perpetuation of the syndrome.” page 226 (First Edition) |
 |
|
| Parental Alienation Syndrome |