We
all love freedom in academia and in
the press. But academic freedom
and freedom of the press do not suggest
complete freedom from standards. You
are free to believe the world is flat
or deny the Holocaust, but you do
not expect these comments to make
their way to PBS or the Albany Times
Union. You also do not expect
them to be made by a Professor of
Law at one of the nation’s leading
law schools—George Washington University.
You expect law school professors to
be truthful, own up to mistakes and
misrepresentations of fact, and expect
deans of law schools to enforce these
standards. (Click here for a statement
by the American Association of University
Professors that states this about
Academic Freedom: “
As
scholars and educational officers,
they should remember that the public
may judge their profession and their
institution by their utterances. Hence
they should at all times be accurate,
should exercise appropriate restraint.
. .”) On
October 20
th, PBS ran a
show called “
Breaking
the Silence: Children Stories”
produced by
Tatge/Lasseur Production.
It is expected to air again on a number
of occasions. The innumerable
ridiculous statements are impossible
to discuss at length in one column,
including off-the-wall exaggerations
about the success of fathers in court
and percentage of fathers who are
actually violent. But one particular
statement was about a phenomenon known
as “Parental Alienation Syndrome,”
often abbreviated “PAS.”
As anyone with any commonsense knows,
when parents are separated, one parent
often attempts to alienate the child
from the other parent by making disparaging
statements about them, true or not.
Commonsense also suggest, and psychologists
nearly universally confirm, such conduct
is extraordinarily detrimental to
children, who wants to believe they
have both “a good dad” and a “good
mom.” Sometimes these
criticisms of the parent are internalized
as criticisms of themselves, for children
see their parents as extensions of
themselves. Family courts often
order parents not to make disparaging
remarks about the other parent in
the child’s presence. Sadly,
these orders are often ignored and
children are hurt. Even when
the attempt to alienate has been unsuccessful,
children are traumatized that one
parent is belittling the other parent
and are scared by the exposure to
conflict. The child often feels
that the one parent is conditioning
her love and/or approval on the child’s
acceptance of the derogatory statements
about the other parent, pressuring
the child to reject the other parent.
The child himself is often brainwashed
into making derogatory statements
about the other parent. Children
are highly susceptible to suggestion,
and parents can exploit this to get
children to believe things that are
not true or are exaggerated about
the other parent. Even when the child
does not actually reject the other
parent, the damage is often immeasurable.
The attempt to alienate the child
from the other parent is often called,
“parental alienation,” a phenomenon
that only a fool would deny, unless
you are producing a documentary for
PBS. As Dr. Darnall, a psychologist
who is an expert in parental alienation
defines it, “parental alienation”
is “any constellation of behaviors,
whether conscious or unconscious,
that could evoke a disturbance in
the relationship between a child and
the other parent.” In short,
parental alienation is the effort
to get the child into thinking the
other parent is a bum or otherwise
want to stay away from the other parent.
Much has been riding on the qualifier
“syndrome.” A “
syndrome”
is defined as a set of signs, features
or symptoms that characterize a specific
disease or condition. By definition,
“parental alienation
syndrome”
is the collective signs, features
or symptoms that indicate that a child
has been the victim of alienation
efforts by the other parent. To deny
that “parental alienation
syndrome”
exists, is to deny that parental alienation
exist, for to deny the existence of
the syndrome is to deny the existence
of the constituent symptoms that make
it up.
The term “
Parental
Alienation Syndrome” was coined
by the now deceased Dr. Richard Gardner,
who defined it as, “a disturbance
in which children are preoccupied
with deprecation and criticism of
a parent-denigration that is unjustified
and/or exaggerated." Definitions
of “Parental Alienation Syndrome”
differ, and Dr. Gardner tweaked it
himself in his lifetime. As
suggested by Dr. Darnall in my interview
with him, if “parental alienation”
is the attempt to alienate by the
parent, “parental alienation syndrome”
may be thought of as the actual result
the child experiences as a result
of that alienation effort. Dr. Darnall
offers
a different definition of “Parental
Alienation Syndrome,” as explained
on his website
ParentalAlienation.com: “Dr. Gardner's
definition states that the criticism
of the other parent must be unjustified
and/or exaggerated. I do not believe
this is necessary. One parent can
alienate the children against the
other simply by harping on faults
that are real and provable.”
During “Breaking the Silence,”
Professor Meier, in charge of
the domestic violence legal clinic
at my alma mater, George Washington
University Law School, states that
PAS has been dismissed by “every credible
expert that has looked at [Dr. Gardner’s]
work.” There is one problem;
the statement just is not true.
In 1997,
The American Journal of
Forensic Psychology ran a two-part
series entitled, “
The
Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome,”
by Deirdre Conway Rand, Phd.. In an
article entitled “Legal Recognition
of the Parental Alienation Syndrome,”
published in
The American Journal
of Family Therapy, Nancy Palmer
advocates that guardian ad litems
monitor PAS. A website devoted
to Richard Gardner himself,
rgardner.com, lists
99 studies published in peer-reviewed
journals where the primary focus is
on parental alienation (so much that
it is usually in the name of the article),
with another 46 articles that focus
significantly on PAS. One can
suppose that Professor Meier believes
that all these studies are not written
by “credible experts” in order to
extricate her from the misrepresentation,
but this is an argument that just
proves too much and is silly. She
just wasn’t shooting straight. Professor
Meier also states “Parental Alienation
Syndrome has been thoroughly debunked
by the American Psychological Association."
This statement is also not true.
According to Rhea K. Farberman, Executive
Director of Public and Member Communications
of the
American Psychological Association,
Professor Meier’s claim that PAS has
been thoroughly debunked is "incorrect"
and "inaccurate."
Farberman says that the APA "does
not have an official position on Parental
Alienation Syndrome--pro or con."
She adds: "
The
Connecticut Public Television
[those that produced the show] press
release is incorrect.
I have notified both Connecticut Public
Television and their PR firm of the
inaccuracy in their press release."
In my interview with Professor Meier,
she explained that the APA was bullied
into making the statement by fathers’
rights groups. To Professor
Meier’s credit, the APA did state
that “An APA 1996 Presidential Task
Force on Violence and the Family noted
the lack of data to support so-called
‘parental alienation syndrome’, and
raised concern about the term’s use.”
But the statement ended, “However,
we have no official position on
the purported syndrome.”
(Click here for APA press release.)
However you want to slice it, this
hardly constitutes “thoroughly discredited.”
“No official position” means “no official
position,” not “thoroughly debunked.”
This is an extremely important distinction.
Organizations often have individuals
in it with particular views, but that
hardly means they speak for the entire
organization.
In fact, as Professor Meier’s should
know, when she speaks in public, she
is to be clear she does not speak
for George Washington University Law
School. (
Click
here for a link the GW Faculty Handbook
in PDF format.) It is one
of the major caveats to academic freedom.
She, more than anyone, knew that the
task force did not speak for the APA,
and yet she knowingly made a misrepresentation
that the APA had an official position.
Nor will she retract her statement
now that everything has come to light.
When I spoke to Ms. Farberman herself,
she explained that a task force is
just an
ad hoc sub committee,
and does not speak for the whole association,
who in fact actually vote on such
matters through a representative body
known as “The Council of Representatives.”
The APA has simply never “discredited
PAS” and Professor Meier knows it.
After my interview with Professor
Meier, fully aware that the APA has
stated it has “no official position,”
she insists that the APA has it wrong,
and somehow, in someway, the “authoritative”
position of the APA is in finding
that there is no such thing as PAS.
How can you argue with the sophistical
logic that the spokesperson for the
APA does not in fact speak on behalf
of the APA when she says that a task
force’s opinions do not represent
the views of the entire organization?
Farberman would not comment on any
discussions with Meier, and advised
me that I would have to ask her for
her permission. Farberman did indicate,
however, that the documentary’s producers
did not contact the APA to verify
Professor Meier’s claim. (
Click
here for Professor Meier’s version
of “This is my story and I am sticking
with it.”)(
Click
here for the APA handbook, which discusses
the role of the Council of Representatives,
which speak for the APA by adopting
official positions.)
In her public statement, which she
has verified to me as being hers in
an e-mail, Professor Meier dismisses
the “no official position” comment
because, she claims, the APA Council
of Representatives takes no position
on diagnosis. She states:
APA does not adopt ‘official positions’
on matters such as this. Leading members
of the APA have noted that the APA
Board and Council never take an ‘official
position’ on a diagnosis. PAS is considered
a diagnosis and therefore would never
be the subject of an official vote
of that sort. The APA's statement
that it takes no ‘official position’
on PAS means nothing more than that
it takes no official position on any
diagnosis.”
While this is dubious reasoning (and
there is no indication for her actual
source of this assertion that the
council or representatives does not
vote on diagnosis), this still cannot
transmogrify a statement by the spokesperson
that the APA has no official position
into one of “thoroughly debunking.”
The simple syllogistic truth is that
if PAS is a diagnosis, and the APA
Council of Representatives takes not
positions on diagnosis as Meier’s
claims, ergo, the APA Council of Representatives
has no position on PAS. One
does not take a small number of the
APA’s members and hold it out as the
position of the organization when
the organizations own rules state
otherwise.
All Professor Meier’s has done is
take the statement that the APA has
no official position on PAS (of dubious
accuracy as explained below) and proffer
that as the reason why she can say
“the APA has thoroughly debunked”
PAS. Explaining why the APA
has no position on PAS is not an explanation
as to why one has wrongfully made
the misrepresentation that the APA
has an official position. Meier’s
stated
the APA (not just some
of its members) has discredited the
theory, when nothing could be further
from the truth. In the end, Meier’s
statement is wrong, the APA has not
discredited PAS, and one has a sense
of a professor that is being more
cute than candid in explaining herself.
Under the APA’s Bylaws,
Article IV, Section 5, the Council
of Representatives may vote on
any
matter—If they wanted to vote
on the validity of PAS, they could
have, at least their own rules seem
to state. Professor Meier waxes on
about a task force that simply does
not speak for the APA—the Council
of Representatives does. Web
links from the APA also indicate that
the Representative Council has indeed
voted on diagnosis in the past. Click
here for an APA web page where the
Council of Representatives
did in fact rule on a
diagnosis:
“Whereas the COUNCIL OF REPRESENTATIVES
already has urged APA members not
to use the proposed DSM-III-R DIAGNOSES
of Periluteal Phase Disorder, Self-Defeating
Personality Disorder, and Sadistic
Personality Disorder because they
lack adequate scientific basis and
are potentially dangerous to women”)
True, the APA does not list PAS in
the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM),
but that hardly means that psychologists
come to the absurd conclusion that
children are not alienated from one
parent by the other, or that they
do not show symptoms of this.
(Click here for a book critical of
the DSM)
(Click here for another book critical
of the DSM). Obviously, there
are any number of traumas that may
exist that are real but not characterized
specifically in the DSM, which once
listed homosexuality as a disease
in one of its earlier incarnations.
(Nor does listing in the DSM end all
debate. For instance, click here on
an APA book asking whether PreMenstrual
Dysphoric Disorder is real, entitled
“Is PMDD real?” Even though PDSM
is listed in the DSM, there is debate
whether it actually exist.)
One may feel anxiety and depression
from going broke and homeless and
there may no specific label in the
DSM for anxiety specifically related
to homelessness or economic deprivation,
but nobody to be taken seriously would
doubt the phenomenon exists. As Dr.
Darnall pointed out in my interview,
the APA has even produced a book called
Divorce Wars: Interventions With Families
in Conflict, by Elizabeth
Ellis. According to Dr. Darnall,
Ellis took Gardner's criteria and
put it in the format as if it were
in the DSM. Perhaps it could be argued,
using Professor Meier’s sophistical
logic, that since the APA published
the book, it has endorsed PAS and
has spoken “authoritatively.” There
is even a seminar offered by the APA
that discusses PAS. Is this
too, using Meier’s logic, “an authoritative”
statement.
(Click here for an APA seminar that
includes explaining how to identify
Parental Alienation Syndrome.)
Dr. Darnall argues that there is too
much an obsession with PAS’s failure
to be listed in the DSM, and labels
it “a distraction.” He admits that
while it not officially listed in
the DSM, and that there might be a
slight difference between PAS and
parental alienation, “the issue is
the not the title, it is the pattern
of behavior, and how that is destructive
to children.” In an effort to
backtrack, PBS tried to first claim
that the documentary was not really
denying that parental alienation existed—just
PAS. The co-producers of the documentary,
at their website, stated: "We
do not make the assertion that the
phenomenon of alienation does not
exist, simply that PAS seems to be
wrongly used as scientific proof to
justify taking children away from
a protective parent."
(Click here for comments by the producers
of “Breaking the Silence) An interview
I had with media relations staff Charlie
Rose (just a namesake of the PBS talk
show host) from a PBS affiliate,
WGBY in Springfield, Massachusetts,
went along with this mantra while
speaking to me at a protest of the
show just outside their studios, held
by the Berkshire Fatherhood Coalition
and the Fatherhood Coalition.
But the show really did not discredit
PAS while maintaining that parental
alienation was real (if, in theory,
this could be done at all).
The strong suggestion was that children
are not really alienated against one
parent by the other, and when children
go to court and make a claim against
the non-custodial parent, they should
nearly always be believed. Explaining
a child’s lack of affection for the
non-custodial parent as being caused
by alienating efforts of the custodial
parent was presented as a shyster
theory hoisted by psychologist and
lawyers upon gullible judges. An ombudsman
for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting,
Ken Bode, agrees with my take that
the comments on the PBS website were
backpedaling. Bode said
in his press release, “In this
case it appears that [the producers]
plainly got it wrong. In a statement
released to their website, the producers
now say something quite different
[about parental alienation] than they
did in the film.”
(Click here for Bode’s biography)
Under the premise that there is no
such thing as a false allegation,
Professor Meier states, “To win custody
of the kids over and against the mothers
will is the ultimate victory
. . .short of killing the kids.”
Not exactly a sanguine view of fathers
who are legitimately concerned about
alienation and the child’s welfare.
In fact, the APA spokesperson, Rhea
K. Farberman, could not identify the
difference between “parental alienation”
and “parental alienation
syndrome,”
and the documentary certainly did
not try to distinguish between these
very related and nearly interchangeable
concepts. The clear gist was
that the alienation claims are almost
always bogus and the monster stories
about the fathers were to almost always
be believed. It is but a replay
of an old effort by some unenlightened
domestic violence advocates to erase
the gray reality that sometimes women
and children tell the truth, and sometimes
they do not. The notion that
children cannot be brainwashed or
lie was the direct cause of the witch-hunts;
it is a dangerous proposition that
can lead to injustice and tragedy
when taken seriously.
In an ironic climax, a 16-year old
Fatima Loeliger tells about how her
father tried to alienate her against
her mother. (She was given a
fake name in the documentary.) According
to Fatima, the father stated that
the mother was on drugs, ran off back
to Africa, and was a whore.
Fatima claims that these were all
lies, and that she was depressed that
her father would try to do such a
despicable thing in an effort to divide
the bond between mother and child.
If her statements about her father’s
remarks were true, this would have
been PAS, certainly PAS as defined
by Dr. Darnall. It’s enough
to leave you banging your head on
your desk. It turns out the child’s
mother, Sadia Loeliger, actually
had a long history of child abuse
and was not the victim the film claimed
she was, detailed information which
is available at GlennSacks.com.
Breaking the Silence was a disaster
waiting to happen. It was underwritten
by a $500,000 grant from the
Mary Kay Ash Foundation, a subsidiary
of
Mary Kay Cosmetics, not exactly
a recipe for objective journalism.
(Click here to read about their grant.)
Cathy Hogan, PBS’s senior
director for program project management
and underwriting policy says, "We
have absolute confidence that none
of the funders in fact exercised any
editorial control.” It is impossible
to believe that this did not happen
in
Breaking the Silence.
Fathers’ rights groups were not contacted
and apparently neither was the APA.
Not a single father of the alleged
victims was interviewed.
(Click here for claim by film’s producers
that the Mary Kay grant did not affect
their journalism.) (
Click
here for the claim by the Mary Kay
Ash Foundation that the film’s producers
had complete independence.)
A similar pattern occurred when PBS
accepted funding by local Las Vegas
entities when doing an American Experience
show on Los Vegas. (To learn more
on this, click on the article “
Las
Vegas: Did PBS Load the Dice?”)
Recently,
Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who was
brought into bring political balance
to the politically left-leaning PBS,
was dismissed by the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting. With his
departure, shows that were meant to
balance to PBS like
The Journal Editorial Report,
featuring the editorial board of the
Wall Street Journal, were taken off
the air. (
Click
here for the Wall Street Journal’s
opinion on removing Tomlinson and
the Journal Editorial Report.)
Apparently, making efforts to provide
political balance in itself was “political
interference.” Under this culture,
it is not surprising the producers
of “Breaking the Silence” did not
feel any need to include statements
of fathers, psychologist who recognize
PAS, or interviews with fathers’ rights
groups. The left tells the truth.
When the right or the moderate middle
seeks their say, they are “introducing
politics.” According to a story
in the Boston Globe (discussed below),
the producers said they didn’t want
to interview fathers because “women’s
stories are often dismissed because
it is ‘he-said, she said,’” and they
did not want to reproduce that dynamic.
Reporting all sides can be pesky business.
Finally, PBS ombudsman Michael Getler
stated in a December 2
nd
release, “
A
Little About Me, A Lot About ‘Breaking
the Silence,’” “My assessment,
as a viewer and as a journalist, is
that this was a flawed presentation
by PBS. [I]t seemed to me that PBS
and CPTV were their own worst enemy
and diminished the impact and usefulness
of the examination of a real issue
by what did, indeed, come across as
a one-sided, advocacy program.” (
Click
her for Getler’s biography) Ken
Bode, the ombudsman for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
said in his scathing November 29
th
review, “My conclusion after viewing
and reviewing the program and checking
various web sites cited by critics
is that there is no hint of balance
in Breaking the Silence.” As
for the $500,000 grant by the Mary
Kay Ash Foundation, Bode said, “PBS
may find it has been the launching
pad for a very partisan effort to
drive public policy and law."
The documentary has been the source
of criticism by
Cathy Young of the Boston Globe
and
Roger Catlin of the Hartford Courant.
I both e-mailed and called Professor
Meier and had a long conversation
with her about PAS and the APA’s position.
I asked her once if she was going
to recant her statement about the
APA “thoroughly debunking” and she
said no. When I followed through
with another phone call, she said,
“I have no comment,” apologized and
hung up on me. I also contacted
Dean Fred Lawrence of GW Law regarding
the gross factual misrepresentations,
who replied by e-mail, “While I understand
your concerns, I conclude that this
is indeed one of those situations
in which the values of academic freedom
carry the day.” Ahh, sweet “academic
freedom.” The world where not only
are you entitled to your own opinions,
but your own facts, with accountability
to none.
Reviewing the program in the Albany,
NY, Times Union newspaper, Bob Port
in an op-ed entitled “
Custody
Fight” writes that producers of
Breaking the Silence “deserves a Nobel
Prize for honesty.” Perhaps
he should think again.
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III, Esq.
The author is a practicing family
law attorney, an alumnus of George
Washington University Law School,
and spokesperson of the Berkshire
Fatherhood Coalition.
79 Nancy Avenue
Pittsfield, MA 01201
(413)443-3150
IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE BERKSHIRE
FATHERHOOD COALITION is a group that
is now separated and distinct from
THE FATHERHOOD COALITION. The Berkshire
Fatherhood Coalition is an organization
dedicated to promoting the Father/Child
relationship and promoting gender
equality in family law.
