|
|
|
|
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/4/2008 8:55:04 PM | ha ha..the one with the screwed up kids is the one who's dad still takes them on weekend. None of the other have active fathers. Oh and it is random. these women all have different background, lifestyles and ethnicites. I even have Jamacian covered.. ;)
hmm i assume that children with no parental involvement at all would grow up wrong all of the time..a lifetime in foster care..poor babies..
Thanks for helping prove my point. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/5/2008 7:00:39 AM | I think your post 225 was spot on. I don't think we disagree at all, except possibly with some statistical concepts like what it means to be random.
 | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/5/2008 5:04:38 PM | if need be a child could be raised by a pack of wild wolves... but c'mon what are we talking about here?
With the exception of extreme cirumstance where it has been proven that a condition of endangerment is present - a kid needs and has a RIGHT to have BOTH parents in their lives. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/5/2008 7:39:15 PM |
With the exception of extreme cirumstance where it has been proven that a condition of endangerment is present - a kid needs and has a RIGHT to have BOTH parents in their lives.
Rebecca you worded this perfectly.
The is exact the point of this thread.
Thanks for posting.
Kenny | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/6/2008 7:02:09 PM | With the exception of extreme cirumstance where it has been proven that a condition of endangerment is present - a kid needs and has a RIGHT to have BOTH parents in their lives.
Rebecca you worded this perfectly.
The is exact the point of this thread.
Thanks for posting.
Kenny
i agree..and in the past year i have noticed a lot more people posting on forums all over the internet and facebook understanding this speeking up and saying so .. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents/the truth about PAS
Posted: 5/6/2008 11:56:49 PM | There have been quite a few posts in this thread devoted to Parental alienation Syndrome. There have also been quite a few links to websites and articles regarding this same “syndrome”. What should have been included, was conveniently omitted in regards to this phenomenon, including specific facts deemed pertinent about the person who “authored” this particular affliction. It should be understood just what else the Phd who “discovered” this syndrome had to say in regards to what is proper and “natural” behavior between a parent and child, and what is natural in a child‘s development. We, the general public, have found certain aspects of this Dr.’s contentions to be unthinkable as well as criminal. (yes I said criminal) . While I realize that many parents use their children as pawns, I seriously caution any parent with good intentions from aligning themselves with this theory or its “founder”.
When you’re done reading this and the info on the posted sites, the question will beg; “why would any reasonable parent be such a great supporter of this theory, when it is clear that the man who “discovered’ it, is the same man who has authored published papers on why pedophilia is normal and often the result of children seducing their parents in a sexual manner”? To me, it calls into question, all credibility to the argument of parental alienation.
Please refer to the following websites for further information not included here. These three are of the many thousands of websites from widely accepted credible sources that oppose this theory while all along giving credit to the man ,Gardner, for his credentials as a child psychologist. The websites that are posted by the op, are completely biased to the Gardner’s contentions. As well, they offer no contradictory commentary so that the reader may draw their own conclusions. They do list hundreds of conferences the phd had spoken at, and lists of publications that referenced to his theory. What neither does, is include what the specific articles or conferences were about, or what stand either had taken on the PAS theory as a whole. It qualifies neither, other than to list is like a “who’s who”. Either one or all could have been a included PAS as a comparison to what we all have come to accept as non criminal and acceptable behavior between parent and child.
The sites, that I have used to research this post , have been clipped and pasted :
* www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/dallam/3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_alienation_syndrome
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/pasyndrome.htm
This third site is a link to an article published in NEWSDAY, in July of 2003, after the suicide of Richard Gardner Phd., and cites the following:"This is junk science," said Dr. Paul Fink, a professor of psychiatry at Temple University School of Medicine and a past president of the American Psychiatric Association in Arlington, Va. "He invented a concept and talked as if it were proven science. It's not."
Harvard's Dr. Eli Newberger, an assistant professor of pediatrics and an expert on child abuse, said he's been called on by state child protection agencies to evaluate ambiguous disclosures of abuse in divorce cases and believes that PAS deflects any real investigation into such allegations.
At the center of the storm, Newberger said, is Gardner and his theory.
"This is an atrocious theory with no science to back it up," he said. "This so-called diagnosis has been used to steer clear of the children's needs."
"There are lots of people who alienate their partners during a divorce," Fink said. "But it is not a syndrome, a disease or a disorder."
The theory of PARENTAL ALIENATION, is spearheaded, and authored by one who sees pedophilia as normal behavior between children and adults. Do be sure, at present, its only a theory, not officially recognized by either the medical or legal community. While there have been some courts who find in favor of the person alleging this syndrome against another, its clear to also note that many, most, of these decisions have also since been overturned.
PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a controversial theory which has had a profound influence on how child custody cases are handled by the legal system. PAS is based on the assumption that if a child rejects their father, the most likely cause of the alienation is the mother. Treatment involves separating the child from their mother, and punishing them both until the child cooperates with visitation. Richard A. Gardner, M.D., a clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University , is the founder and main proponent of this theory.
PAS has been the focus of ever-expanding attention since Gardner 's first publications on the disorder in the mid-1980s. PAS quickly became a popular defense against accusations of abuse that were raised during custody disputes. This defense became so successful that some courts awarded men alleging alienation sole custody of their children, even when abuse allegations were deemed credible.
Gardner (1987, p. 67) asserts that PAS has become increasingly common and he now sees manifestations of this syndrome in over 90% of the custody conflicts he evaluates - even when abuse allegations are not raised. Gardner (1998) states: "My experience has been that the sex-abuse accusation does not appear in the vast majority of PAS cases."
PAS is not based on systematic research; rather, Gardner (1987) developed this theory through his personal observations and work as an expert witness. Since the support for PAS has invariably been Gardner 's writings, it is important to examine Gardner 's beliefs and assumptions concerning children. Specifically, Gardner 's views on both pedophilia and sexual abuse must be examined, as these views form the context for Gardner 's observations during custody evaluations. It is also important to examine the instruments that Gardner developed to differentiate valid from false allegations of abuse - the Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale (SALS) and Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation - as they are derived from the same theoretical framework as PAS. (which are only Gardner’s personal observations of his own cases)
Gardner 's Views on Pedophilia
Gardner (1992b, pp. 670-71) considers sexual activities between adults and children to be part of the natural repertoire of human sexual activity and suggests that pedophilia may enhance the survival of the human species by serving "procreative purposes" (1992b, p. 24-5). According to Gardner (1992b, p. 593), "pedophilia has been considered the norm by the vast majority of individuals in the history of the world" and "it is a widespread and accepted practice among literally billions of people."
In addition, Gardner (1986, p. 93) believes that children are naturally sexual and may initiate sexual encounters by "seducing" the adult. Moreover, Gardner (1992b, pp. 670-71) maintains that sex abuse is not necessarily traumatic; the determinant as to whether sexual molestation will be traumatic to the child, is the social attitude toward these encounters. Accordingly, Gardner (1992b, pp. 593-4) believes that our society takes an excessively punitive and moralistic attitude toward those who act out their pedophilic impulses. In fact, Gardner (1991, p. 26) suggests that "all of us have some pedophilia within us."
It should be noted that Gardner's views on pedophilia are at odds with the scientific research on child sexual abuse which has consistently and conclusively shown the negative long-term effects of sexual abuse on children's lives (e.g., Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1996; Johnson, Cohen, Brown, Smailes, & Bernstein, 1999; Silverman, Reinherz, & Giaconia, 1996).
Gardner 's Views on Child Sexual Abuse
Notwithstanding his training as a child psychiatrist, Gardner 's writings and expert testimony usually benefit those accused of molesting children rather than the children involved in these cases. And despite his view that the vast majority ("probably over 95%") of all sex abuse allegations are valid (Gardner, 1991, pp. 7, 140), Gardner has spent much of his career crusading against what he considers to be an epidemic of false accusations that is sweeping our country. Gardner (1992b, p. 688) states: "I believe it is reasonable to say that at this time there are millions of people in the United States who are either directly accusing or supporting false sex-abuse accusations and/or are reacting in an extremely exaggerated fashion to situations in which bona fide sex abuse has occurred." To deal with the present "hysteria" over child sexual abuse, Gardner (1991, p. 120) suggests that society should "`come off it' and take a more realistic attitude toward pedophilic behavior." To this end, Gardner (1993; 1995a) calls for abolishing mandated reporting of child abuse, doing away with immunity for reporters of child abuse, and has lobbied for the creation of federally funded programs to assist those who claim to be falsely accused.
That’s an excerpt, the whole thing only makes matters worse on the behalf of the man who is the author and largest proponent of this THEORY. Understand this, its only a theory. I has no substantiated empirical clinical trials or evidence to support the theory.
Possibly the most disturbing portion of this research came as a default result. That being, there are thousands of sites supporting this whole theory. There are both male and female supporters of this theory, as well many of these proponents are professionals in the various clinical psychology professions. Now,, as a parent, doesn’t the possibility just send shudders down your spine? A noted psychologist promotes and supports pedophilia as a “reasonable and natural” part of a child’s development, and he has millions of followers, some of them judges and cops. (this screams NAMBLA )
Pardon me, but that really calls into complete question the validity of the op’s claim of parental alienation syndrome, and what effect it has on children. Perhaps these children are becoming delinquent because their parents are sexually abusing them and not because they are being raised in single parent homes. Certain persons who are normally charged with defining and enforcing laws against criminal sexual conduct with children see nothing wrong with having sex with your children. And this is why children go astray, because they have been let down and disenfranchised by the persons charged with their welfare and care. I would implore pof moderators to look at this evidence, the op and his followers, and seriously consider their memberships in this website and forums. They are clearly proponents of a theory from a man who sees pedophilia as harmless and natural behavior between a parent and child. Its called “guilt by association”. If you support this theory called PAS, then you also support what the doctor has based his theory on, as well as his supporting of returning children to the same parents who sexually abused them. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/7/2008 10:41:38 AM | "Here's a short list of people who have gone on to be successful, did NOT "come from money" and were raised by one parent only. You may recognize a name or two ... "
for the sake of truth in posting:
Oprah Winfrey was raised by her biological father and stepmother,
Gerald Ford's mother remarried when he was young and he identified with that man as his father figure. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/7/2008 1:53:32 PM | | p-dish check a prison near you and see how many inmates were raised by single parents ..and how many single parents were women ....take your blinders off ..you swore your kids are all doing very well? you might have kept them in school or out of jail but can they ever have a normal relationship with the opposite sex after being raised by such a man hater ?are any of your children sexually confused ? children raised with both parents in there lives have fewer troubles in many ways ..not every child falls victim to single parenthood ..but why should any ..?? when it is a well know fact single parenting has placed many youth in harms way growing up without both parents in there lives..many more then an acceptable amount if we are supposed to be creating an environment that is in the best interest of the children..this can not be continued..its wrong and proving harmful to a child's development to remove a willing parent from a child's life ..single parenting sole custody has proved to be abusive to many children ..the jails are full ..lets stop this nonsense.. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/7/2008 4:32:46 PM | while i realize that many of the inmates in prison today were raised in single parent homes, that is not the sole reason that they are in prison. there is more than just ONE SINGLE contributing factor as to why that occurs. there is a multitude of reasons, and when you combine them you get a clearer and more accurate picture as to why this happens. your mistake is to refer to a common thread as a sole reason. they are vastly different things.
check a prison near you, and you will find that many of these same inmates you speak of, also had many other things contributing to their disenfranchisement which led to their incarceration. Poor education and poverty are also contributing common thread factors. it is not a reasonable assumption that single parenting alone is the only or even main contributing factor. the nations prisons are also holding a significant percentage offinmates who came from wealth, privaledge and two parent families.
further,,, at the least, please dont take my word alone or anyone elses for the comments about PAS especially the ones in my last post,,, click the links and read it yourself, what was put there are from Richard Gardner Phd.'s own mouth and publishings. Prior to doping up and taking his own life in a rather gruesome manner, he published widely his thoughts on the normalcy and harmlessness of pedophilia and parent to child incest. All im saying is that the whole PAS theory loses all credibility when you factor in that conspicuously omitted fact about the author and theory itself. As well, anyone who would be such a vocal and strong proponent of such a theory loses their credibility.
I dont hate men, and its a ridiculous assumption to make on your part. As far as my children go, it wasnt some miracle that they are out of jail and in school. their lives didnt just happen to them any more than yours happened to you. There were several contributing factors as to why they are as well adjusted as they are. Not the least of which is was the specific effort i made to put positive role models of both genders in their lives as their father omitted himself from actively and consistently participating in their lives. Every birthday, christmas, parent teacher conference, dr. appt., extra curricular activity, HE CHOSE TO BE ABSENT.He chose to take advantage of the visitation infrequently. His level of involvement or lack thereof was his choice, not mine. He was always informed of the plans and was asked what worked for him in regards to seeing them at birthdays and holidays, he opted to not be involved. Instead, he chose the bottle and drugs. but just to update and since you are so curious, my son, who is 20 and the youngest just recently took an apt. together with his long term girlfriend who he has known since he was a junior in highschool. my oldest child, my daughter, 27, is also in a ltr with a very nice man who has given her the diamond and they are in the process of picking a date. my second child, my other daughter, 26, is in mourning at the moment, because her fiance' was killed in a auto accident recently.
children should not be, and generally arent raised in cocoons or bubbles that include only the influence of their "bio parents". Even ones in dual parent homes. Like mine, most of them are influenced greatly by all the adults in thier lives, from other family members to family friends, teachers, ministers, coaches, etc. Who the parents allow to demonstrate proper adult behavior has more of a bearing on the childs outcome than the model of the bio parent itself.
it is a rather pathetic commentary when a man claims how mean his ex is for the reason he doesnt see his children. to see your kids you only have to encouter her words for a few minutes a week, when you drop off and pick up. ingore her and get on with it already. "its her fault i dont see my kids cuz i cant stand to hear the ****in when i pick em up". Gee now, just how do you think your kids percieve that from you. personally i would walk thru fire for my kids and did deal with their fathers mouth so they could have a relationship with him. By default, his actions in relation to the positive male models as they were growing, has given them an accurate view of what a decent man is. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/7/2008 6:02:39 PM | This is what Dr. Gardner had to say about allegations rendered.
MISPERCEPTIONS VERSUS FACTS ABOUT
RICHARD A. GARDNER, M.D.
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
This document has been prepared to provide corrections for certain misrepresentations and misperceptions of some of my contributions. There have been unfortunate misinterpretations of some of my positions on a variety of issues. Some of these originated from conflicts in the legal arena, where attorneys frequently select out-of-context material in order to enhance their positions in a court of law. This is the nature of the adversary system, and it is one of the causes of the controversy that sometimes surround my contributions. Some of these misperceptions and misrepresentations have become so widespread that I considered it judicious to formulate this statement.
Misperception: Dr. Richard Gardner is biased against women
Fact: This cannot be reasonably substantiated by anything I have ever written, lectured on, or testified to in a court of law. With regard to the alleged gender bias associated with the parental alienation syndrome, the facts are that I will generally recommend that PAS-inducing mothers in both the mild and moderate categories retain primary custody. When PAS is severe, or rapidly approaching the severe level, and the mother is the primary promulgator, then I recommend a change of custody. But this represents only a small percentage of cases. And these are exactly the recommendations I make in my book The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).
Misperception: Dr. Gardner is an advocate for Men’s Rights’ Groups
Fact: I have never been a member of any Men’s Rights’ Groups. In fact, I have never been a member of any advocacy group whatsoever. Many men in men’s rights groups are very pleased with me because I played an important role in bringing to public attention the false sex-abuse accusation in the context of child-custody disputes and testified in support of innocent men in this category. However, in the same groups are many men who are critical of me because they claim I do not generally recommend custodial change for mothers who have induced mild and moderate levels of PAS in their children. As mentioned, I generally reserve such a recommendation for the relatively small percentage of mothers who have produced very formidable levels of moderate PAS and/or severe levels of PAS.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner testifies predominantly in support of men
Fact: There is absolutely no basis for this myth. I have testified on behalf of women who have been victimized by PAS-inducing husbands, and I have testified on behalf of men whose wives are PAS inducers. In fact, in the last few years, the number of PAS-inducing men against whom I have testified has increased formidably, to the point where I see the ratio now to be about 50/50.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner is a hired gun
Fact: When I agree to involve myself in a custody litigation there is a three-step process that each prospective client must take. First, every attempt must be made to involve me as the court’s independent examiner. If this fails I may be willing, after some exploration of the case, to be recognized as the inviting party’s expert, but I make no promises beforehand that I will support that party’s position. I require the inviting party to sign a document in which he (she) agrees to pay my fees, and even for my testimony, if I ultimately decide that the opposing party warrants my support. There have been cases when in the course of my evaluation I have concluded that the opposing party’s position is the more compelling one, and I have ultimately testified on that party’s behalf.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s publications are not peer reviewed
Fact: I have published approximately 150 articles of which approximately 85 have been in peer review journals.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner has his own publishing company, Creative
Therapeutics, Inc., and publishes all his books through his own
company
Fact: I do own Creative Therapeutics, Inc., and since 1978 I have published most (but not all) of my books through Creative Therapeutics. The implication is that Creative Therapeutics is some kind of a vanity press and that if not for it, I could not find publishers for my books. The facts are that between 1960 and 1968 I published books with the following other publishers: Bantam Books—4, Jason Aronson, Inc.—6, Avon Books—1, Doubleday—1, Prentice-Hall—2, G. P. Putnam’s—1. Furthermore, Creative Therapeutics has not published any of the multiple foreign translations of my books. In 1991 Bantam published the second edition my book, The Parents Book About Divorce. Furthermore, I periodically receive invitations from other publishers to write books. The main reason why, in recent years, I have published through Creative Therapeutics is that I have much more autonomy regarding book size and content, and the returns are more favorable.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner is on the Executive Board of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMS Foundation)
Fact: I have never been on this board. A review of any of their periodicals listing membership will support my statement that I am not included on their Executive Board. I am certainly sympathetic to the Foundation’s position with regard to the belated accusations of sex abuse by women who have been led by others to believe they were abused in childhood when there is absolutely no evidence for it. Such sympathy does not preclude my recognition of the fact that bona fide sex abuse is a widespread phenomenon and that there are even women who may have limited recollection of their abuses. I am in agreement with the Foundation’s position that psychotherapy has been oversold to the public, and it is a far less scientific method of treatment than generally believed. However, I believe that the Foundation’s position on psychotherapy is too stringent and goes to the point that no form of psychotherapy is considered efficacious.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner believes that pedophiles should be granted primary custody of their children
Fact: I consider pedophilia to be a psychiatric disorder, an abominable exploitation of children. I have never supported a pedophile in his (or her) quest for primary child custody. Because I have testified on behalf of falsely accused defendants, there are some who claim that I am reflexively protective of pedophiles and sympathetic to what they do. There is absolutely nothing in anything I have ever said or written to support this absurd allegation. When I conclude in a custody dispute that an accused father has pedophilic tendencies, I will advise the court to provide protection for the children. I would certainly not recommend primary custody for such a parent.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner supports and is fully sympathetic to the practice of pedophilia
Fact: There is absolutely nothing that I have ever said in any of my lectures, or anything that I have written in any of my publications to support this allegation. This is my position on pedophilia: I consider pedophilia to be a form of psychiatric disturbance. Furthermore, I consider those who perpetrate such acts to be exploiting innocent victims with little, if any, sensitivity to the potential effects of their behavior on their child victims. Many are psychopathic, as evidenced by their inability to project themselves into the position of the children they have seduced, and ignore the potential future consequences on the child of their abominable behavior.
Accordingly, we all need protection from pedophiles. Jail is certainly a reasonable place to provide us with such protection. This is especially the case because the vast majority of pedophiles are not going to be cured, or even helped significantly with their problems, by psychotherapy—the assertions of some psychotherapists notwithstanding. By adulthood the pedophilic orientation has been deeply embedded in the brain circuitry and is not likely to be changed by such a superficial approach as “talk therapy.” Nor is it likely to be changed to a significant degree by conditioning techniques, i.e., “behavior modification.” It is as reasonable to believe that one could accomplish this goal as it is to believe that one could change an adult homosexual into a heterosexual and vice versa.
I am also in favor of Megan’s Law, which requires that communities learn about the presence in their midst of pedophiles who have just been released from prison. I do believe, however, that the same laws should be applied to those who have been convicted of certain other crimes such as rape (which in a sense is similar to pedophilia), murder, arson, and other felonies that present formidable risks to the community. In short, I have absolutely no sympathy for pedophiles, and the fact that I have testified in courts of law in defense of innocent parties—who have been wrongly accused of pedophilia—does not mean that I am in any way sympathetic to those who actually perpetrate such a heinous crime.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner believes that pedophilia is a good thing for society
Fact: I believe that pedophilia is a bad thing for society. I do believe, however, that pedophilia, like all other forms of atypical sexuality is part of the human repertoire and that all humans are born with the potential to develop any of the forms of atypical sexuality (which are referred to as paraphilias by DSM-IV). My acknowledgment that a form of behavior is part of the human potential is not an endorsement of that behavior. Rape, murder, sexual sadism, and sexual harassment are all part of the human potential. This does not mean I sanction these abominations.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner believes that the vast majority of incestuous sex-abuse accusations are false
Fact: I believe that the vast majority of incestuous sex-abuse accusations are true. There are other categories of sex-abuse accusations, e.g., accusations against babysitters, clergy, scout masters, teachers, strangers, and accusations in the context of child-custody disputes. Each category has its own likelihood of being true or false. It is in the category of child-custody disputes that I believe that the vast majority of accusations are false, and there is support for this belief in the scientific literature. This category represents only one of many, and although false accusations in child-custody disputes is common practice, this category represents only a small fraction of all groups combined. When one combines all groups, I hold that the vast majority of sex-abuse accusations are true.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner is in strong support of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)
Fact: I have never been a member of this organization, and I am opposed to its primary principles. Adult men who have sex with boys are exploiting them, corrupting them, and contributing to the development of sexual psychopathology in them. NAMBLA’s position is that if the child consents, then the pedophilic act is acceptable and even desirable. This is a rationalization for depravity. Children can be seduced into consenting to anything, including murder. Society needs to protect itself from those who would exploit our children. Jail is one reasonable place to provide such protection.
Misperception: The PAS is not a syndrome
Fact: There are some who claim that the PAS is not really a syndrome. This criticism is especially seen in courts of law in the context of child-custody disputes. It is an argument sometimes promulgated by those who claim that PAS does not even exist. The PAS is a very specific disorder. A syndrome, by medical definition, is a cluster of symptoms, occurring together, that characterize a specific disease. The symptoms, although seemingly disparate, warrant being grouped together because of a common etiology or basic underlying cause. Furthermore, there is a consistency with regard to such a cluster in that most (if not all) of the symptoms appear together. Accordingly, there is a kind of purity that a syndrome has that may not be seen in other diseases.
For example, a person suffering with pneumococcal pneumonia may have chest pain, cough, purulent sputum, and fever. However, the individual may still have the disease without all these symptoms manifesting themselves. The syndrome is more often “pure” because most (if not all) of the symptoms in the cluster predictably manifest themselves. An example would be Down’s Syndrome, which includes a host of seemingly disparate symptoms that do not appear to have a common link. These include mental retardation, mongoloid-type facial expression, drooping lips, slanting eyes, short fifth finger, and atypical creases in the palms of the hands. There is a consistency here in that the people who suffer with Down’s Syndrome often look very much alike and most typically exhibit all these symptoms. The common etiology of these disparate symptoms relates to a specific chromosomal abnormality. It is this genetic factor that is responsible for linking together these seemingly disparate symptoms. There is then a primary, basic cause of Down’s Syndrome: a genetic abnormality.
Similarly, the PAS is characterized by a cluster of symptoms that usually appear together in the child, especially in the moderate and severe types. These include:
1. A campaign of denigration
2. Weak, absurd, or frivolous rationalizations for the deprecation
3. Lack of ambivalence
4. The “independent-thinker” phenomenon
5. Reflexive support of the alienating parent in the parental conflict
6. Absence of guilt over cruelty to and/or exploitation of the alienated parent
7. The presence of borrowed scenarios
8. Spread of the animosity to the friends and/or extended family of the alienated parent
Typically, children who suffer with PAS will exhibit most (if not all) of these symptoms. This is almost uniformly the case for the moderate and severe types. However, in the mild cases one might not see all eight symptoms. When mild cases progress to moderate or severe, it is highly likely that most (if not all) of the symptoms will be present. This consistency results in PAS children resembling one another. It is because of these considerations that the PAS is a relatively “pure” diagnosis that can easily be made. As is true of other syndromes, there is an underlying cause: programming by an alienating parent in conjunction with additional contributions by the programmed child. It is for these reasons that PAS is indeed a syndrome, and it is a syndrome by the best medical definition of the term.
Misperception: PAS does not exist because it’s not in DSM-IV
Fact: There are some, especially adversaries in child-custody disputes, who claim that there is no such entity as the PAS, that it is only a theory, or that it is “Gardner’s theory.” Some claim that I invented the PAS, with the implication that it is merely a figment of my imagination. The main argument given to justify this position is that it does not appear in DSM-IV. The DSM committees justifiably are quite conservative with regard to the inclusion of newly described clinical phenomena and require many years of research and publications before considering inclusion of a disorder. This is as it should be. The PAS exists! Any lawyer involved in child-custody disputes will attest to that fact. Mental health and legal professionals involved in such disputes are observing it. They may not wish to recognize it. They may refer to it by another name (like “parental alienation”). But that does not preclude its existence. A tree exists as a tree regardless of the reactions of those looking at it. A tree still exists even though some might give it another name. If a dictionary selectively decides to omit the word tree from its compilation of words, that does not mean that the tree does not exist. It only means that the people who wrote that book decided not to include that particular word. Similarly, for someone to look at a tree and say that the tree does not exist does not cause the tree to evaporate. It only indicates that the viewer, for whatever reason, does not wish to see what is right in front of him (her).
To refer to the PAS as “a theory” or “Gardner’s theory” implies the nonexistence of the disorder. It implies that it is a figment of my imagination and has no basis in reality. To say that PAS does not exist because it is not listed in DSM-IV is like saying in 1980 that Lyme Disease did not exist because it was not then listed in standard diagnostic medical textbooks. The PAS is not a theory, it is a fact.
But why this controversy in the first place? With regard to whether PAS exists, we generally do not see such controversy regarding most other clinical entities in psychiatry. Examiners may have different opinions regarding the etiology and treatment of a particular psychiatric disorder, but there is usually some consensus about its existence. And this should especially be the case for a relatively “pure” disorder such as the PAS, a disorder that is easily diagnosable because of the similarity of the children’s symptoms when one compares one family with another. Over the years, I have received many letters from people who have essentially said: “Your PAS book is uncanny. You don’t know me, and yet I felt that I was reading my own family’s biography. You wrote your book before all this trouble started in my family. It’s almost like you predicted what would happen.” Why, then, should there be such controversy over whether or not PAS exists?
One explanation lies in the situation in which the PAS emerges and in which the diagnosis is made: vicious child-custody litigation. Once an issue is brought before a court of law—in the context of adversarial proceedings—it behooves one side to take just the opposite position from the other if one is to prevail in that forum. A parent accused of inducing a PAS in a child is likely to engage the services of a lawyer who may invoke the argument that there is no such thing as a PAS. And if this lawyer can demonstrate that the PAS is not listed in DSM-IV, then the position is considered “proven.” The only thing this proves is that DSM-IV has not yet listed the PAS.
Another factor operative in the controversy relates to the false sex-abuse accusation that is commonly a spin-off of the PAS. It is such a common problem that there are many who equate PAS with false sex-abuse accusations. Those who deny the existence of false sex-abuse accusations at the same time frequently deny the existence of the PAS. Therefore, people who claim that the PAS exists may find themselves criticized as individuals who do not believe in the existence of true sex abuse.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner utilizes coercive interview techniques in which he bludgeons children into saying whatever he wants them to
Fact: I make every attempt to videotape my interviews of children alleging sexual abuse. I have done hundreds of hours of such interviews. Not once has anybody been able to demonstrate coercive interview techniques in the course of these. In fact, my interviews are often viewed in another room—via a monitor—by parents, lawyers, mental health professionals, and sometimes the child’s own therapist. Not once has anybody ever come forth with the complaint that my interviews were coercive, even under circumstances in which the parties were able to interrupt my interview while it was in progress. The interview tapes are available to both sides and yet not once has an opposing attorney ever taken such a tape and even tried to demonstrate to the court that my interview was coercive.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner has been barred from testimony in many courts of law throughout the United States
Fact: This is pure myth. To date I have testified directly in approximately 30 states and in others via telephone. I have been testifying since 1960. Not once has a court of law not recognized me as an expert.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner claims that he is a Clinical Professor of Child Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, yet he does very little teaching there
Fact: The implication of this statement is that I am somehow misrepresenting myself. I have been on the faculty of the Columbia Medical School since 1963. In earlier years I did more teaching than I have in recent years, but such reduction in teaching obligations is common for senior medical school faculty members. More importantly, people who do significant research and writing generally do far less teaching. This has been my position.
When I was promoted to the rank of full professor in 1983, I was the first person in the history of Columbia’s Child Psychiatry department to achieve that rank who was primarily in private practice (rather than full-time faculty). I had to satisfy all the same requirements necessary for the promotion of full-time academics. And this was also true when I was promoted to the associate professorial rank some years previously.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s protocols for evaluating sex abuse are not recognized by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Fact: My protocols not only follow the guidelines delineated in “Guidelines for Conducting the Sex-Abuse Evaluation” published in 1998 by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, but my book, Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation, is cited as one of the references. Even more importantly, I was invited to serve as a consultant to the committee formulating this document.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s sex-abuse protocol has no scientific validity
Fact: My book Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation provides scientific references to the vast majority of the criteria that I use for differentiating between true and false sex-abuse accusations. No competent professional has ever claimed in a court of law or in a publication that any single criterion in this volume lacks scientific validity. Actually, the criteria that I use are derived from the same literature that others use when differentiating between true and false accusations. However, my list of differentiating criteria is generally longer and more exhaustive than any of the lists I have seen.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s interest in the field of child sex abuse is probably related to the fact that he himself is tainted somehow in this realm, e.g., he was sexually abused himself as a child, or he himself is a sex abuser
Fact: I was never sexually abused as a child. I have never sexually abused a child, nor have I ever been accused of such behavior.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s interest in child-custody disputes probably stems from the fact that he himself was involved in such a dispute
Fact: I have never been involved in a child-custody dispute involving my children.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s work is “controversial”
Fact: The implication here is that because controversy exists there is something specious about my contributions. It is true that most newly developed scientific principles become “controversial” when they are dealt with in the courtroom. It behooves the attorneys to take an opposite stand and create controversy where it does not exist. This is inevitable in the context of adversarial proceedings. A good example of this phenomenon is the way in which DNA testing was dealt with in the OJ Simpson trial. DNA testing is one of the most scientifically valid procedures. Yet the jury saw fit to question the validity of such evidence, and DNA became, for that trial, controversial. Those who discount my contributions because some are allegedly “controversial” sidestep the real issue, namely, what specifically has engendered the controversy, and, more importantly, is what I have said reasonable and valid? The fact that something is controversial does not invalidate it.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner has a publicist
Fact: There was a period of approximately nine months (fall 1992 to summer 1993) when I did engage the services of a publicist. The purpose was to bring public attention to one very important case in which I was involved. That was the only time that I have used the services of a publicist.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner is extremely expensive and only represents rich people
Fact: My fees are higher than average, but commensurate with that of people at my level of experience and expertise. I have also done a significant amount of pro bono work. At any given point I usually have one or two pro bono patients for whom I dedicate myself as assiduously I would had they been paying me. I do not differ here from many other physicians whose fees from those who can pay enables them to provide services at low cost—or even at no cost—to others.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s work on the PAS and sex abuse is not generally recognized by the professional communities
Fact: This vague statement does not identify which people in which professional communities do not recognize my work. As indicated elsewhere on this website, there are approximately 65 articles published in scientific journals on the parental alienation syndrome. Furthermore, institutions in both the legal and mental health realms have invited me repeatedly to lecture on the PAS and sex abuse, and thousands have attended my lectures throughout the United States, in Canada and in some countries abroad.
Misperception: The PAS has not been recognized in courts of law
Fact: Again, no mention is made regarding which courts of law. Although there are certainly judges who have not yet recognized the PAS (I have no hesitation using the word “yet”) there is no question that courts of law with increasing rapidity are recognizing the disorder. Elsewhere in this website are cited 37 cases in which the PAS has been recognized. I am certain that there are others which have not been brought to my attention.
Misperception: The PAS is a discredited theory
Fact: Those who promulgate this myth do not state who has discredited the PAS and by what authority. The facts are just the opposite. An ever-increasing number of legal and mental health professionals are writing articles on the PAS and citing it in courts of law. These two are cited in this website.
Misperception: Gardner believes that judges, lawyers, juries, and evaluators who involve themselves in sex-abuse lawsuits become sexually “turned on” in the course of the litigation
Fact: As the media well knows, sex and violence attract attention. People are more likely to read about these issues than less “interesting” topics. To deny prurient interests is to deny reality. This does not mean that I believe that people are sitting in the courtroom in a state of high sexual excitation while the trial is going on.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner believes that everybody has pedophilic tendencies
Fact: I believe that all people are born with the potential to engage in every kind of atypical sexual behavior known to humanity. It behooves parents and other caretakers to suppress socially unacceptable behavior and to channel the child’s sexual urges into socially accepted forms. This should happen in early childhood. In our society the pedophilic potential has been suppressed successfully for the vast majority of individuals. Those who have not experienced such suppression become pedophiles. There have been other societies in the history of the world that have not suppressed pedophilic tendencies. The fact that such suppression has not taken place is a fact of history. This does not mean that I suggest that we emulate such societies or that I approve of pedophilia. Human sacrifice has been widespread in many societies in the history of the world. This also is a fact of history. To state this fact does not mean that I approve of the practice.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s custody evaluations do not follow the guidelines delineated by the American Psychological Association
Fact: My child-custody evaluative procedures follow every one of these guidelines. Those who promulgate this myth do not say specifically what in these guidelines is not subscribed to by my child-custody evaluative procedures. In fact, my publications describing my procedures have been cited in the 1994 American Psychological Association’s “Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluation in Divorce Proceedings.” The Guidelines cite the first edition of my book on the parental alienation syndrome as well as my 1992 volume True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s sex-abuse evaluations do not follow the guidelines delineated by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Fact: Again, those who promulgate this myth do not state exactly which aspects or elements in my protocol do not follow these guidelines. The facts are that they do. In 1997 the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry published “Practice Parameters for the Forensic Evaluation of Children and Adolescents Who May Have Been Physically or Sexually Abused.” I was a consultant to the committee that prepared this document, and my 1992 and 1995 books which describe my protocols are cited in this document.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s PAS has given abusing parents the weapon to use against their accusers. Specifically, they deny their abuse and claim that the children’s animosity is the result of the accuser’s programming
Fact: I do not deny that some bona fide abusers are doing this. The implication of the criticism, however, is that somehow I am responsible for such misrepresentation of my contribution by these abusers. PAS exists, as does child abuse. There will always be those who will twist a contribution for their own purposes. The second edition of my book The Parental Alienation Syndrome provides evaluators with detailed criteria for differentiating between true abusers and PAS indoctrinators.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s work has contributed to sex-abuse hysteria in this country
Fact: In a way, this is a compliment, because it credits me with the power to create a national hysteria that did not exist before my publications. Describing a phenomenon does not mean that I created it. My book Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited was published in 1991, at least six or seven years after the hysteria began. (The reader may recall that the McMartin accusations surfaced in 1983 and the Kelly Michaels accusations in 1988.) Obviously, the sex-abuse hysteria phenomenon was well under way before the publication of my book.
Misperception: Gardner is responsible for judges all over the United States and Canada disbelieving mothers claiming that their children were sexually abused by their husbands. As a result children are not being protected from their pedophilic fathers
Fact: Again, there is a compliment here in that I, a single person, could have such an enormous influence over the judiciary over a whole continent. The alternative explanation, namely, that my contributions have brought to light the abomination of false sex-abuse accusations is not acknowledged by those who promulgate this myth.
Misperception: Dr. Gardner’s work has resulted in people committing suicide and homicide
Fact: There is no question that I have been involved in a few cases in which such tragedies have occurred. I do not differ, thereby, from the vast majority of other psychiatrists who have been in full-time practice for over 40 years. The implication here is that I somehow have been personally responsible for these deaths. Unfortunately, considerations of confidentiality prevent me from making any public statements regarding these particular cases. The old adage is applicable here: “There are two sides to every story.” And my side, without revealing any specific information about any specific case is this: I have never been involved in a case in which I have been directly responsible for anyone’s suicide or anyone’s homicide. And in every such case I could, if I had the opportunity, provide compelling evidence that these terrible consequences had absolutely nothing to do with me.
Richard A. Gardner, M.D.
Cresskill, New Jersey
June 9, 1999 | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/7/2008 6:04:07 PM | This is very true:
while i realize that many of the inmates in prison today were raised in single parent homes, that is not the sole reason that they are in prison.
It is simplistic to either ignore or isolate any factors that contribute to people's struggles.
These factors are lead mainly by poverty. It rises far above any other factors and often confounds their effects. Other factors, even after controling for poverty, seem to be race, education, family history, and yes, the presence of two positive parental influences.
Nobody is saying all poor people/black people/uneducated people/children of criminals/children from single parent homes end up in prison. Children can't help any of these factors, and often their parents can't either, so it doesn't even make sense to point fingers.
I stay very involved in my children's lives because I know it's for their benefit. I also encourage their mother's involvement, even though it's harder on me, for the same reason. Not that they couldn't survive or even thrive without her. I just know that they have a much greater chance with her involved rather than wondering why she's not. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/7/2008 6:20:39 PM | | Parental Alienation was and is the reason I started this thread. There are hundreds of factors which can lead a person to become criminal. One of which is PA and the resulting one parent raising of children who are victims of this abuse. Dr. Gardner begain the studies. There are thousands who have since and are currently doing further studies. There is no doubt that Dr. Gardner's initial studies were not completly accurate. I challenge anyone to provide an initial study on anything which was completly correct. There is one fact that not one person on the face of this planet can refute; Parental Alienation is real and ever growing. It causes devistation like no other syndrom of modern time. People like me will not give up trying to stop it. I am of the opinion after numerous posts by numerous persons that those who argue so hard against anything which may help get rid of PA are likely Alienating parents who do not want change because they will lose their power over the Target Parent. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/7/2008 7:54:56 PM | . Dr. Gardner begain the studies. There are thousands who have since and are currently doing further studies.
uh uh,, all of them, most of them, students of the late dr. gardner. which does not make it surprising that they support this theory. again its ONLY A THEORY. its a theory that includes the notion that pedophilia and incest are normal parts of a childs healthy development. anyone who supports these notions has no credibility in the accepted medical, legal, & psychological communities.
OP? how can you simply deny the pedophilia and incestual portions of this theory? Who can you allign yourself with the same notions dr. garner had?, including the elimination of "mandatory reporting" iin cases where abuse is suspectec? Do you even understand that sexual contact between children and adults is not only improper?, it is also harmful? Pardon me for sayin it, but you're appearance of being obtuse makes one wonder just what it is you actually understand about the accepted notions about sexual abuse.
"Dr. Gardner begain the studies. "
dr. gardners "sudies" weren't empirical studies at all. what he did was happen upon a notion of his own accord and ran with it in hopes of furthering his career. "his studies", in fact they were self biased findings based on only clinical observations of his own ( NOT ANYONE ELSE) . they were not sanctioned studies at all. ( Do you understand the term "emprical study"?) he also was called up on in court as an "expert witness", by parents ( mostly men) alledging this syndrome as the reason why they didnt have contact with their children. Many of these men had already been found guilty of abusive behavior towards both their ex's and their children. this "expert testimony" was a self fulfilling prophecy to further his own career and notions. The entire notion is self involved, self determined bias.
when one accepts this PAS, as valid, then one also, by default, agrees that incest is normal between a parent and child and that pedophilia is also acceptable.
the psychological and legal communities do recognize that playing children as pawns is detrimental to both the child and both parents. what it does not agree with is that "playing pawns" is not a psychological disorder or syndrome. at best its only a knee jerk reaction to stress, whos results tie up the court dockets with nonsence that should be resolved by the adults. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:29:04 AM | the problem with post 235 as is with this whole PAS, nonsence is that there is no one other than Dr. Gardner claiming what is fact. Like his theory, there is no science or accepted medical theorum to back it up.
""Misperception: PAS does not exist because it’s not in DSM-IV""
""To say that PAS does not exist because it is not listed in DSM-IV is like saying in 1980 that Lyme Disease did not exist because it was not then listed in standard diagnostic medical textbooks.""
the difference between the acceptance and or inclusion of lyme disease into the DSM-IV and that of PAS in the same catagory is simply that lyme disease was seen in many clinical settings and areas of the globe as well as having accepted medical practices to back up the claim. PAS, had one doctor with a notion.
and lets be fair, speaking of the man like he is still alive is particularily odd. the guy offed himself. doped up, and then took a large knife, inflicted several deep wounds before the final thrust of the blade thru his heart. NOT THE SIGN OF A HEALTHY MIND.
THE TRUTH ABOUT PAS AND DR. GARDNER IS NOW IN THE OPEN HERE FOR ALL TO SEE. HE WAS A DERANGED LUNATIC WITH DEVIANT SEXUAL TENDANCIES AND FANTASIES ABOUT CHILDREN. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/8/2008 1:54:45 PM | ptirsh;
So, leaving PAS aside do you agree or disagree with the concept of shared parenting?
If not, because I know you are extremely good a picking apart others posts, what are your ideas? In past posts you have said that the system is broke and does need to be fixed. As a solution you said that we should focus on the child's rights rather on the parent's rights. We can agree on that but a statement such as "the focus should be on the children's rights" is too vague. It's like someone said to me that they want lose weight or get in better shape, without specifics as to how that will happen then the statement has little meaning.
If you were a lawmaker what criteria would you use in order to determine custody, access etc... (this would be cases where both parents wanted to be actively involved in the childs life)? | |
|
| |
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/8/2008 3:58:48 PM | "the focus should be on the children's rights" is too vague
you may see it as vague, but when you keep it in context and then are capable of comprehending that context,, its crystal clear. THE CONTEXT: (REPEATED JUST FOR THE VAGUELY INCLINED)
the system as it stands now is centered around what is fair for the parents, both of them and either of them. It is not centered around the specifics of each case and within those parameters what is the best situation for the child. I have said the system is biased, as part of its flaws. One of those biases include that old notion that the one with more money is better suited to take custody of the child. the present system is built on an across the board formula of calculating visitation and custody and maintenance. NOWHERE IN ALL THAT DOES "WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILD" EVEN COME INTO PLAY.
when someone says " i want to get in better shape", Its a statement of desire. what is so difficult to understand about the meaning of that statement? from your words, it would appear that without you having knowledge of what the persons motivation is for doing that, or what method they would chose to achieve the goal, you have trouble comprehending the meaning. Thats irrational. Regardless of the motivation or method to achieve, the same desire is present. by your words, a person would have to run their reasoning and game plan by you for approval before you can qualify their desire.
I dont "pick apart a post". I RESPOND TO MANY SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF IT.
Interesting question: "what would i do as a law maker?"
another interesting question: do i agree with the concept of "shared parenting". As I understand it, its a concept based on a utopian ideology about parents motivations and desire to be actively involved. First flaw with the idea,,, we are talking about adults who cant agree on whats best for the child, or didnt bother to agree on parenting styles before getting married. How do you suggest we get them to agree on something so critical after the divorce? Personally, I dont want the government that deep into my house and personal business on a daily basis. It has been suggested that punitive damages need to be in place when parents dont hold up their end of the agreement. Well no, thats not entirely true, all that has really been suggested is that mom be held accountable when the kids dont visit dad. It didnt allow for when the kids simply dont want their schedules interrupted on the weekends, or if they just get to the point of teenagers and dont want to spend their weekends with dad instead of their friends. As well, there hasnt been much if anything said in regards to punitive damages for dear old dad if he doesnt bother to exercise his right to visit after having taken up the courst precious time demanding the opportunity be written in stone. And just what punitives would we assign to either parent that the child wasnt also being subjected to. If mom has custody and the cops show up to toss her in jail when 17 yr/o jr. didnt want to spend prom weekend with dad and then mom didnt force the issue with the child, the child pays the price too. I am not in support of that. the suggestion of punitive damages has all the earmarkings of getting way easily way out of control.
getting back to your question about "what would i do?". I would firstly toss out all the present "formulas" and start from scratch. I would start by asking a few key questions of each individual case. That firstly being, "is the child happy and thriving in his/her present environment. Using the PRO/CON method, i would list all the pro's and all the con's and weigh them against eachother to determine if removing the child from its present living situation is warranted. The absent parent desiring the child to live with them is not reason enough to move the child. I would then determine what agreements and disagreements the parents have about the fundamentals of their parenting styles. i.e. "are they working together or just battling for pole position". if the latter is the case, i would require (before the divorce decree is finalized) these two successfully complete two parenting classes ( attended together) and then have follow up with a clinical social worker who would determine what strides, if any the pair have made to collectively parent the child(ren) in question. If the csw gives a positive report to the court, then divorce and custody can be granted. I would want to see an 5 yr (at least) follow up with the csw. I dont think its always or often necessary to move the child from one residence to the other when they are fine in the one they are accustomed to.
IF, upon request of divorce, the parents present a provable united front and plan to continue to collectively parent their child(ren), then i would still want a csw to report to the court on that contention before the divorce is finalized and the matter of final custody and child support is determined.. the csw's focus is on that of the childs benefit, and not what either parent desire in the way of custody or visitation.
oh and one last thing,, the csw would be a private contractor with the court and the parents would pay for the services of that csw, not the taxpayers. Oh, and, I would toss out that name "friend of the court". lets be fair, that entity is noones friend, its a juvenile court facilitator. focusing on childrens rights is easily understood when you take the focus of the parents out of the equasion. then all you are left with is to determine what is in the best interest of the child. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/8/2008 7:19:00 PM | "One of those biases include that old notion that the one with more money is better suited to take custody of the child."
I beg to differ on this sentence since it is usually in what i have observed the one who is has the higher income, usually the father, who moves out since he has the financial means to do so and therefore is only given access rather than custody.
"when someone says " i want to get in better shape", Its a statement of desire. what is so difficult to understand about the meaning of that statement?"
The statement above "I want to get in shape" does clearly explain the desire, but desire without the how means nothing. That is what I meant by the statement being too vague, it does not explain the how like you did before.
"it would appear that without you having knowledge of what the persons motivation is for doing that, or what method they would chose to achieve the goal, you have trouble comprehending the meaning. "
No trouble comprehending the meaning, just LMAO at the fact that you can't see that a statement of desire does not tell a person how they are going to accomplish a goal. But I guess that level of comprehension is beyond yours.
"That firstly being, "is the child happy and thriving in his/her present environment. Using the PRO/CON method, i would list all the pro's and all the con's and weigh them against eachother to determine if removing the child from its present living situation is warranted. The absent parent desiring the child to live with them is not reason enough to move the child."
Great, so the person who does not leave the family home having weighed the pros and cons would then gain custody with all else being equal. So then it is logical that if you want to maintan custody that you should not leave the family home since this would diminish your case since you would automatically the become the absent parent.
In order for that to work in Canada we need a shift in the manner in which police respond to disputes. What they do here is they ask the man to leave always, regardless of who is doing what. In the above senario then the man would become the absent parent and therefore lose custody.
I guess for me what it boils down to is, if I go out to work, financial support my family, which results in less time with the kids, how does that make my contribution to the family any less than the person who spent more time with the kids. Are both not equally important because at present one is reduced to simply a wallet for that contribution while the other gets custody because it maintains the status quo for the children. So in essence one contribution is valued more than the other but both are equally important to the well being of the family and the child.
The one thing under the present system I have told other single fathers to do is imbed themselves in their children's lives. Be there to pick them up from every soccer practice and take them back to mom's place, become their soccer coach, be there for every parent teacher conference, if the child is sick, she takes a day off then you take a day off the next day, if they need to go to the doctor be there at the doctors appointment etc...., that to me is how shared parenting works. As I have told them be part of your children's life, if the other parent doesn't like that, too bad because they are your kids too. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/8/2008 8:40:28 PM | I love the last paragraph. But truly, why limit it to single fathers? Isn't that parenting?
I also totally agree that the current status quo (Mom almost always ending up with custody) is a direct result of the father leaving the family home when things fall apart. I'm sure it seems like a good thing to do at the time, in fact quite a bit of self sacrifice to say "I'm the one that will start over." However, the consequence is that any custody dispute is pretty much decided by that one action. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/8/2008 9:20:46 PM | Posted By: p-trishTHEdish on 5/8/2008 6 04 PM
Subject: Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Message: the problem with post 235 as is with this whole PAS, nonsence is that there is no one other than Dr. Gardner claiming what is fact. Like his theory, there is no science or accepted medical theorum to back it up.
I would very much like to add my 2 cents worth in here. P-dish, you made the comment above. I have singled out that for the reason, that unless you are the "targetted parent", you have no idea what it is like.
I married a wonderful man a few years back. He has 4 children by 2 diff mothers, both of these women intentially and deliberately went out to "poison" the childrens minds about their father. I should also add that they did an exlempary job at it. The 3 eldest children have not communicated anything with their father in over 5yrs now. Although my wonderful husband is good enough to pay all their bills/expenses and so forth. We have done nothing wrong. Regardless of what you choose to or not to believe. It was heartbreaking for my wonderful husband to walk away from these children. Yet the mothers of the children are able to ( in our country) claim Child Support, Adult Child Matience ( to which we are obligated to pay because the oldest child is studying "underwater basket weaving" for the next miserable 7 yrs of our life), they are also able to stake a claim on my wonderful husbands superannuation and any other money that is brought into our home.
I understand that not all "custodial parents" are not this way, but believe me there are plenty more out there turning one parent against the other than you would like to believe.
Children need both parents, rightly or wrongly. Why is it that you need 2 parties to make this child, yet because you have a uterus you are the only person this child needs?
It literally sickens me what PAS does to the children in the long term, and what the non custodial parent has to deal with. Makes my resolve never to have children even stronger.
I sincerley hope that you are never targetted P-dish, but then again if you were, you would have a glimmer of understanding for those of us that are.
Cawz | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/8/2008 10:51:57 PM | Hi,
I'm new to this forum and have been reading quite a bit of this thread. I find it astounding that anyone who would call themselves a parent, be they mother or father, would ever argue the point over whether children need both parents or not.
When every person who has been taking part in this thread had their children with their spouses/partners, at that time they would have all stated the obvious belief that all normal people hold, which is that children need both parents equally in their lives to gain a well rounded upbringing.
Then there is a separation of the parents and often the father is booted out with the use of an AVO which is akin to him having to climb back up Mt. Everest just so he can eventually get to see his kids.
But, all of a sudden it is now believed by the govt and mostly mothers and some fathers who don't give a toss about their kids, that children only need one parent to have a well rounded upbringing. This means custody is usually given to the mother!
This new belief flies in the face of so many studies done world wide that show single parent families as being less ideal than those with both biological parents being fully engaged.
Now, before you jump down my throat demanding proof of these studies, I will tell you that I don't have this material proof, because I am relying on what I have read, seen and heard in all media for the last 10 years.
Girls:
I think it was 2003 where a study in Australia revealed that without an intimate (loving/guiding) relationship between a young girl and her biological father, there is a massive increase in early pregnancies, drug use, unprotected sex, early abortions, crime of all sorts, but also a physiological change whereby girls actually mature sexually somewhat earlier than those girls who have their father still in their lives and still have a good relationship with him.
Then of course, there are the boys who go off the rails because they don't have their father there to set them straight and guide them.
The problem is, we don't have shared parenting as the default position when there are children involved from the moment of separation.
Obviously there cannot be shared parenting if one parent is not available due to working commitments or there are other circimstances that will put the child at risk.
Derrrr, that's a no brainer!
So, why the hell are we even arguing over that point?
The greatest factor behind the drive for sole custody is Parental Alienation.
This is a crime of opportunity that is perpetrated by a criminal, who is happy to further abuse a child by having one parent removed from their lives and to have that parent isolated and vilified. The child is then told that this parent is virtually the scum of the earth and that they will be far better off never having anything to do with that parent.
This does not happen in the majority of cases, but it does happen in a very large number of them.
The list of tactics used are longer than the A to Z of the Webster's Dictionary, so I won't bother trying to type them in here.
Parental Alienation is not a gender crime, it is a crime almost always committed by the parent who takes the initiative and gains the upperhand. The other parent is usually well and truly on the back foot and cannot effect a decent response or defense against all the allegations and will be always known as not being worthy (a loser) and a potential child abuser.
I read one persons comment here that stated that the people in this forum who are aguing against equal shared parenting, are obviously people who are alienating children from the other parent in their children's lives. Well, I think I have to agree with this person, because no normal parent would ever disagree with a child having both parents in their lives equally, if there was no serious reason why they should be barred.
Peope who alienate children from another good parent in my opinion are narcissists and are criminals.
These people are committing the most heinous form of child abuse that a parent could ever commit and I think they should spend a stint in prison for what they do.
But that will never happen, because this subject is so highly emotional that it will take decades before any govt will truly take a look at this crime of passion and opportunity and then do something to stop it.
Just my 5 cents worth, of which I do expect some of you to take to with some degree of venom.
Thanks for the opportunity to put my bit in. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:06:04 AM | No trouble comprehending the meaning, just LMAO at the fact that you can't see that a statement of desire does not tell a person how they are going to accomplish a goal. But I guess that level of comprehension is beyond yours.
and i laugh my a$$ off that you say it has no meaning just because you cant qualify how they plan on attempting the desire. the meaning of the statement doesnt change simply because you werent told of the plan to achieve. the idea isnt vague simply because the person hasnt informed you of the plan, or because you dont know how they plan on getting in shape. it might help you to understand if you dont worry so much about how they plan to get in shape but rather just focus on the face value of the statement.
Great, so the person who does not leave the family home having weighed the pros and cons would then gain custody with all else being equal. So then it is logical that if you want to maintan custody that you should not leave the family home since this would diminish your case since you would automatically the become the absent parent.
again, your statement is about a parental desire of custody, rather than putting the childs best interest first before your desire to have custody. your statement is about you and what you want, not about your childs interests. focusing on who gets awarded custody in a court decision makes you appear to think that this is some sort of competition and the custody of your child is the prize. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/9/2008 8:42:37 AM | "again, your statement is about a parental desire of custody, rather than putting the childs best interest first before your desire to have custody. your statement is about you and what you want, not about your childs interests. focusing on who gets awarded custody in a court decision makes you appear to think that this is some sort of competition and the custody of your child is the prize"
How would you decide then if you or your husband would leave the family home. Are you really saying that if you thought it was in the best interest of your children that you would have left them home? I do not know very many mothers that would do that, they want to be with their children.
What I have seen in my experience is that the father usually is the one to move out since he has the economic means to support himself and pay the level of child support that is required to maintain the kids in their current standard of living. Now, I will say that this is changing since allot of women in my profession make just as much or more than me. So, if they have the economic means to move out then they can move out.
But one parent is going to have to make the sacrifice to move out and then potentially lose time with their kids. For allot of fathers this was the case but with the economic dynamics of families changing there will also hopefully be changes here also and that women will not see themselves as being best for the kids but do what is in the best interest of the kids. The courts are also changing in this direction also here in Canada.
What I see is without having a criteria to base the statement "putting the childs best interest first" then it is left way too much to the interpretation of the courts. The problem here is in Canada allot of what judges do is based on common law, or following the same judgements as what was done before, hence if mother custody is the norm before then all things being equal that is how a judge will rule.
BTW, the meaning of the statement does not change, you are correct. But that is the desire or goal. Just like "the best interest of the child", we need the next steps so that judges have a criteria and the right questions to ask rather than a vague statement of fact. Just like you said above, the desire is the best interest of the child, how this is determined is through your pros and cons (ie: the criteria) and the social worker. This would remove the bias since it would not be based on common law anymore but a set of criteria to truly be based on what is best for the child. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/9/2008 9:12:34 AM |  hi, i am a single mom, not by choice.
i have two wonderful children, both boy's. I am a proud momma and find i am blesed, very fortunate and grateful they are here healthy and strong in my life. My family life is tightly knit and woven with my children. My oldest is 8 andmy youngest is 2, they are my life, my blood from my veins. I am looking out for their every need 24 hours a day. I must be choosy when i pick out a partner for their father has chosen not to be any part of them whatso-ever, quite disappointing and sad. he lives with a life threatening disease. yet for a long period of time until he met somone new, he blamed that disease for palying a huge role for abusing me, betraying me and leaving me to find the answers to why, it was scary, frightening and i knew its not what i wanted for my children so i got up looked him in the eye one day and asked what he really wanted, he said he cannot do it, for he made a big mistake. he cried, felt sorry for himsefl, but i told him it was nto going to work anymore, the excuses. I wanted him to let me know right there if he weanted more in a relationship, why did he have to tell me too late. He looked for somone more like himsefl, inmature, he went to be with anthoer who was as old as his daughter she at thetime was only17- and pregnant with his child, i was left 6moths pregnant when he decided to leave. He said i was pushing him aside anyways and that from the beginning the was only there for my oldest. He denied my youngest yet we were inseprable and i had no means to be unfaithful tryting hard to meet the issues at hand while we were struggling to stay together as a family. We began to find new romance, had fallen in love all over again then suddenly he left. he told me he found his match, even if she was much younger but he felt she was amture to know that she wanted him in her life and that they knew for a fact it was not going to end anytime soon and were in love and were very happy, geez thank ***hole! Nice move. I was left to pick up the pieces again. here I am two and ahlf years later, still without trusting anyman, fianlly coming outof the closet to seek my mate who will not betray my feelings for them, betry my childrens hopes and feelings as individuals, and not waste my time, I feel we deserve achance to become a family with a chosen mate who fits into my expectations. i finally foudn him i believe. After years of grief and depression, he lifts me up with happiness and laughter i look forward to everyday. Except im still pushing him away. being so used to that cloud of grief, not knowing what to expect, i still keep up my barricades and barrier myself inside them with my children. Praying that We won't get betrayed or hurt again. Its going to take a strong man to knock that down, he is strong physically, ementally and spirtiually and emotionally, something i need and wanted for so long, but is he going to stand there and really help me knock that down not telling me from the other side that hes's feeling he is wasting time and wants someone else to come along and will keep his options opened, leaving me once again to hang there in greif and desperation, then walk away. | |
|
| Shared Parenting Kids Need Both Parents
Posted: 5/9/2008 9:13:40 AM | hi, i am a single mom, not by choice.
i have two wonderful children, both boy's. I am a proud momma and find i am blesed, very fortunate and grateful they are here healthy and strong in my life. My family life is tightly knit and woven with my children. My oldest is 8 andmy youngest is 2, they are my life, my blood from my veins. I am looking out for their every need 24 hours a day. I must be choosy when i pick out a partner for their father has chosen not to be any part of them whatso-ever, quite disappointing and sad. he lives with a life threatening disease. yet for a long period of time until he met somone new, he blamed that disease for palying a huge role for abusing me, betraying me and leaving me to find the answers to why, it was scary, frightening and i knew its not what i wanted for my children so i got up looked him in the eye one day and asked what he really wanted, he said he cannot do it, for he made a big mistake. he cried, felt sorry for himsefl, but i told him it was nto going to work anymore, the excuses. I wanted him to let me know right there if he weanted more in a relationship, why did he have to tell me too late. He looked for somone more like himsefl, inmature, he went to be with anthoer who was as old as his daughter she at thetime was only17- and pregnant with his child, i was left 6moths pregnant when he decided to leave. He said i was pushing him aside anyways and that from the beginning the was only there for my oldest. He denied my youngest yet we were inseprable and i had no means to be unfaithful tryting hard to meet the issues at hand while we were struggling to stay together as a family. We began to find new romance, had fallen in love all over again then suddenly he left. he told me he found his match, even if she was much younger but he felt she was amture to know that she wanted him in her life and that they knew for a fact it was not going to end anytime soon and were in love and were very happy, geez thank ***hole! Nice move. I was left to pick up the pieces again. here I am two and ahlf years later, still without trusting anyman, fianlly coming outof the closet to seek my mate who will not betray my feelings for them, betry my childrens hopes and feelings as individuals, and not waste my time, I feel we deserve achance to become a family with a chosen mate who fits into my expectations. i finally foudn him i believe. After years of grief and depression, he lifts me up with happiness and laughter i look forward to everyday. Except im still pushing him away. being so used to that cloud of grief, not knowing what to expect, i still keep up my barricades and barrier myself inside them with my children. Praying that We won't get betrayed or hurt again. Its going to take a strong man to knock that down, he is strong physically, ementally and spirtiually and emotionally, something i need and wanted for so long, but is he going to stand there and really help me knock that down not telling me from the other side that hes's feeling he is wasting time and wants someone else to come along and will keep his options opened, leaving me once again to hang there in greif and desperation, then walk away. | |
|
|
| Page 10 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
