Canadian Symposium on PAS teaching how to do custody change scam

An upcoming symposium is planned in March of 2009 to train 2000 more psychologists and lawyers to commit this fraud in court. To check out the website google Canadian Symposium on Parental Alienation – don’t want to give free publicity by linking. You can check out the video below to see how seriously this fraudulent theory is being propagandized. It has been appalling how the “Cottage Industry” of family law has culminated in this horrible scam which is really a profiteering fraud that is being pushed as some legitimate legal tactic. Sorry, but Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is not a valid, medically accepted disease. It is the sick philosophy of one man, the Pro-Pedophilia Dr. Richard Gardner. Every person using this hypothetical theory is supporting the fraudulent perverse theories of a pedophile supporter. Everyone who has morals and actually cares about the well-being of children needs to be aware that PAS is a shield for child abusers.

It is very lucrative for lawyers and therapists because the money to be made is in defense of criminals. Victims only cost the state money trying to defend them and protect the public, but defending child abusers – hey – there is real money to be made in that. What is totally disregarded in these cases is that there is a spouse and child/ren who apparently don’t like the way they were treated by the person they don’t want to associate with. Since batterers who abuse their spouse are more than twice as likely to abuse their children, when these so-called professionals claim the child has not been abused, they have NO RIGHT to discount what the child is saying whatsoever. So the whole theory of PAS is based on the person named as the abuser by a child and/or by a protective parent claiming that the people who say they are victims are lying. This is total crap. Why? Because if they weren’t abusive it would just be easier to stay together? This is just one of many reasons this theory is faulty. The reactions of an abused child are claimed to be the result of the protective parent’s actions rather than a reaction to the person they name as the abuser. It is Orwell’s 1984 coming true.

The symposium claims to have the leading authorities on PAS. One of these so-called leading authorities is J. Michael Bone – the UNLICENSED mental health professional from Florida. What happened to his license? He had multiple ethics complaints against him for using this fraudulent and biased theory to perpetrate custody change fraud. These horrible evaluations that children are subjected to are with the sole intent of discrediting whatever the child and custodial parent say. It is similar to what a rape victim has to go through when testifying against there abuser, only these poor children cannot get away from these unethical people. They have infiltrated the courts and have cross referral relationships all over calling it collaborative law. It really should be called corruption, collusion, and cronyism.

Another couple of speakers at the symposium are Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, and M.A., Bob Hoch, M.A. of the Rachel Foundation, which is currently the subject of a lawsuit for the following:

The Children were mentally and emotionally abused by Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, Robert Hoch and Dr. Jack Ferrell.

The Children were also threatened on more than one occasion. Specifically, the Children were told that they would not be able to leave Texas nor would they be able to see their mother unless they cooperated with the Rachel Foundation’s “reunification” program.

The Rachel Foundation, Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, Robert Hoch and Dr. Jack Ferrell applied numerous circumspect methodologies in their evaluation and “treatment” of the Children and have used their influence to purposefully harm Plaintiff, acting outside the scope of any implicit or explicit permission granted Defendants by Plaintiff or any court or other agency.

As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff has suffered considerable emotional distress.

Additionally, The Rachel Foundation employed people of dubious character, with Jack Ferrell who has two arrests, and Dr. Barry Bricklin who was charged by the FTC for fraudulent claims. There are also Ethics complaints against  therapists at the Rachel Foundation with the psychology board.

Anyone having information on any of the other speakers, please post a comment.

Here is a video on the symposium pushing the fraudulent theory as if it were real – amazing propaganda job. These pushers must have gotten lots of money from the abuser’s lobby.

Parental Alienation Family Law Video

Wonder what the waiting period is after custody change fraud for them having the non-custodial parent claim they are alienated and putting the child through it again? Seeing as any non-custodial parent can make demands and then when the demands are not met, this conforms to the fraudulent PAS theory – why? how? because any action by any custodial parent can be claimed to be alienating – that is the beauty of the theory in that it can be changed at will and interpreted in any way that the PAS accuser wants to opine. There have even been people who have lost custody of their children after being deemed “unconscious alienators”. Apparently the mere act of existing and being a better parent makes them an “unconscious alienator”. The list of alienating offenses never ends, with more objectionable thoughts and actions being added daily. There really isn’t anything a custodial parent does that can’t be deemed alienation by an unethical psychologists who is being paid to “make up” this list of alienating offenses.

Here are the purveyers of this PAS fraud who will be speaking at the Canadian Symposium:

(The Thought Police-People Who Accuse Thought Crimes)

Pamela RichardsonAmy J. L. Baker,Ph.DJ. Michael.Bone, Ph.D.Jayne Major, Ph.D. Richard Sauber, Ph.D. Terence Campbell, Ph.D., ABPP Dr. Douglas Darnell, Ph.D. Glenn Caddy, Ph.D. Demosthenes Lorandos, J.D., Ph.D. Abraham Worenklein, Ph.D. Gene Colman – Gene C. Colman Family Law Center Anne-France Goldwater – Goldwater, Dube Attorneys At Law Pamela Stuart-Mills Hoch, M.A., Bob Hoch, M.A. of the Rachel Foundation Lawsuit David L. Levy, J.D. Michael Gough – President – Internet Visitation C. Gwendolyn Landolt – National Vice President – Real Women Of Canada Susan Cook – Susan Cook Mediation & Family Services Dr. Marty McKay – Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, ABPP J. Michael Bone, PhD Bob Finlay, M.A. Godfrey T.A. Turnbull, CFP, CLU, CDFA, CIMA Brian Ludmer

Does anyone else recognize the danger of these Thought Police-People Who Accuse Thought Crime?

Lookout! Any custodial parent can be accused. All that needs to happen is for your ex-spouse to hire one of these people.

And for all the Father’s Rights guys who think this can’t happen to them – ANY PARENT MALE OR FEMALE CAN BE ACCUSED OF PARENTAL ALIENATION, JUST BY BEING A GOOD PARENT!

JUST WAIT ALL YOU FR’s WHO PUSH THIS THEORY SO MUCH, JUST THINK YOU COULD BE ACCUSED OF BOTH ABUSE AND ALIENATION. BUT IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ABUSE YOU HAVE A CHANCE OF CLEARING YOURSELF. TRY DEFENDING AGAINST THESE WITCHCRAFT ACCUSATIONS WHERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE IS JUST THE PSYCHOLOGIST MAKING THE PROCLAMATION THAT YOU ARE AN ALIENATOR. TRY DEFENDING AGAINST THAT!

Maternal Deprivation Research

There have been numerous studies regarding Maternal Deprivation, with a large source of information coming from Bowlby, based on Spitz and Goldfarb, and also from unethical animal experimentation. Overwhelmingly, research shows that severing this natural bond between a mother and child causes severe emotional and behavioral problems, such as depression and psychosis. The phrase maternal deprivation is the terminology used in the early work of psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, John Bowlby on the effects of separating infants and young children from their mother. Some of the research was previously used to discourage mothers from working or using childcare, but it seems important to revive these studies as children are being deprived of their mothers intentionally by abusive men who claim to be “parentally alienated” in an ongoing scandal that rivals that of the Catholic Priest sexual abuse cover up.  

Maternal Deprivation Abuse (MDA), has been identified as occurring with great frequency in legal proceedings, with specific unethical lawyers, psychologists, and judges perpetrating the the same scam on mother after mother with similar horrific results for the children. There has been death by suicide, suicide attempts, depression, academic distress, retaliation by a child against a PAS claiming father, and untold misery for the victimized children and mothers.

Based on Bolwby’s theories, Maternally Deprivation affects children as follows:

• Complete or almost complete deprivation could “entirely cripple the capacity to make relationships.”
• Partial deprivation could result in acute anxiety, depression, neediness and powerful emotions which the child could not regulate.
• The end product of such psychic disturbance could be neurosis and instability of character.(Bowlby J. (1951) pps. 11–12)

 

“Mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health.” (Bowlby, 1953.)  Child psychoanalyst John Bowlby (1907–1990). 

 

Maternal Deprivation Abuse

Maternal Deprivation, or Motherlessness, is occurring with alarming frequency due to the unethical treatment of women and children in family court. Maternal Deprivation is inflicting abuse by severing the mother-child bond. It is a form of abuse that men inflict on both the mother and children, especially men who claim they are “parentally alienated” from their children when there are complaints of abusive treatment by the father.

Maternal Deprivation occurs when men seek to keep their children from being raised by their mothers who are the children’s natural caretakers. Some men murder the mothers of their own children. Others seek to sever the maternal bonds by making false allegations of fictitious psychological syndromes in a deliberate effort to change custody and/or keep the child from having contact with their mother when there are legal proceedings. A twisted form of Maternal Deprivation is to kill the children, so that the mother will be left to suffer. Sometimes there are family annihilation murders where the father kills the children and himself (or dies by cop), but the mother is not killed because she has received protective orders and her children have not as in the case of Jessica Gonzales.  

In seeking to define this form of abuse certain common elements are found in the Maternal Deprivation scenario as follows:

• History of domestic abuse that could be physical, psychological, sexual, and/or social abuse occurring on or off again, occasionally, or chronically which could be mild, moderate, or severe, including homicidal and/or suicidal threats. 
• Legal proceedings relating to abuse
• Hiring of “Fathers Rights” attorney
• Use of “Hired Gun” mental health professionals to make accusations of psychological disorder against the mother and children in deliberate effort to excuse abuse and change custody or grant visitation that is contrary to safety concerns. Another name for these unethical professionals are “Whores of the Courts“
• Raising claims of “psychological disorders” against the mother such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS), Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, Malicious Mother Syndrome, Lying Litigant Syndrome, Hostile Aggressive Parenting or any other mother-blaming psychological disorder that can be used by the unethical professional to re-victimize the victims.
• Infliction of “Legal Abuse” by continually and excessively filing motions so that the mother continually has to defend herself and her child(ren) causing financial and emotional devastation.
• Can occur in response to child support legal proceedings as retaliation.

The intent of “Maternal Deprivation” is to punish the mother and the child for revealing the abuse and to falsely claim that they are not abusive. This very commonly occurs as there are more and more “abuse-excuse” parental alienation accusing professionals who use this scientifically invalid theory over and over to achieve specific goals of the person paying them. Maternal Deprivation can also occur in response to child support legal proceedings. When occurring in this manner, Maternal Deprivation is a response to the financial demands as retaliation. Suddenly the father who had little prior involvement wants to take the kids half the time to avoid child support obligations, etc. When the men are really abusive, they ask for sole custody and demand the mother of the child pay them.

Although some people call this “Maternal Alienation”, a distinction needs to be made as the pro-pedophilia “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and the use of the word “Alienation” are most often used AGAINST battered women and abused children. There needs to be a distinction between the phony psychological syndrome and the intentional infliction of abuse on a mother and child by intentionally severing their natural bond. This distinction can best be made by NOT using the label of “Alienation” which will always be associated with the pro-pedophilia monster Doctor Richard Gardner.

Some of the characteristics of the especially heinous abusers who inflict Maternal Deprivation include but are not limited to the following:

• Angry
• Abusive
• Violent
• Coercive
• Controlling
• Threatening
• Intimidating
• Demanding
• Domineering
• Harassing
• Stalking
• Tyrannical
• Oppressive
• Forceful
• Manipulative
• Deceptive
• Unethical
• Un-empathetic (Lacks Empathy)
• Entitled
• Immature
• Self-centered
• Neglectful
• Guilt inducing
• Pushy
• Intentionally tries to humiliate mother and/or child
• Harsh, rigid and punitive parenting style
• Outrage at child’s challenge of authority
• May use force to reassert parental position
• Dismissive of child’s feelings and negative attitudes
• Vents rage, blames mother for “brainwashing” child and takes no responsibility
• Challenges child’s beliefs and/or attitudes and tries to convince them otherwise
• Inept and unempathic pursuit of child, pushes calls and letters, unannounced or embarrassing visits 

There is a distinct overlap of the intimate terrorist type domestic violence abuser with the Maternal Deprivation abusers as follows:

 

• Coercion and threats
• Intimidation
• Emotional abuse
• Isolation
• Minimizing, denying and blaming (Hallmarks of PAS)
• Using children
• Economic abuse
• Male privilege

The people who most often engage in Maternal Deprivation Abuse are most often: 

• Abusive men
• Vindictive second wives who don’t want to deal with the real mother of the children
• Paternal grandparents who raised dysfunctional children (abusers)

The effects of Maternal Deprivation often cause the children to become psychotic, depressed, and sometimes suicidal or to have suicidal ideations. Another terrible reaction is when the child retaliates against the parent who accuses Parental Alienation Syndrome as in a Texas case where the child killed his father. Other times when the Maternal Deprivation abuser completely takes over the will of the child by using brainwashing techniques similar to those used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to force ideological changes in captives, these children often have a sort of trauma-bonding with the abuser and model their behavior. Sometimes these children will also abuse the mother in the same manner as the father. Another generation is created to carry on the abuse, and will likely do the same to their own spouse and children.

 

 

 

For more articles involving Maternal Deprivation:

Failure of Family Court System Leads To Death and Devastation

Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster

Child in imminent fear shoots father – vindicated in appeal – PAS fraud nightmare

Cincinatti PAS

VAWnet Joan Meier on PAS-Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews

And many more articles throughout Battered Mothers Lose Children to Abusers and all the links on the sidebar.

Maternal Deprivation Abuse will be featured on BMLCTA Blog in an effort to wipe out this heinous crime against mothers and children.

 

Ethical Scientific Experts Denounce “PAS” Reprogramming

From the Leadership Council

Experts Warn About Dangers of Deprogramming Treatment 

February 10, 2009: Specialists in childhood trauma and therapy from the Leadership Council have grave concerns about the ethics of deprogramming treatment described in a recent article published in the Globe and Mail (see: Judge Blocks Sending Teen for Deprogramming Treatment, Feb 7, 2009).

We support the decision of the judge who refused to court-order deprogramming treatment (sometime called Reunification Therapy) overturning a 2008 arbitrator’s order that the 14-year-old boy be coercively treated. The controversial treatment is designed to “deprogram” children who are “alienated” from one of their parents during divorce.

Various forms of this type of “treatment” have sprung up over the last decade. The therapy usually involves confining the child in a location away from home, and isolating the child from the parent to whom the child is most attached. The attachment to the favored parent is challenged, while encouraging the child with intensive sessions to re-accept the rejected parent.

Some children have reported receiving treatment involving threats and coercion. The child may be told that he or she may not return home until they have accepted a more favorable view of the denigrated parent. One child the LC has interviewed described recurrent nightmares of the de-programming episodes that were used on him. In addition, there have been several lawsuits related to this type of approach. (see: http://rachel-foundation-lawsuit.com)   

This so-called “therapy” is reminiscent of the kind of brainwashing techniques used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to coerce false confessions and to force ideological changes in captives.   While these techniques can produce changes in belief and in behavior, we are concerned that these techniques are harmful to the mental health of children.

We are also concerned that deprogramming treatments may violate basic ethical principles that guide practice. According to the American Psychological Association’s ethical standards, the goals of psychologists are the welfare and protection of individuals. We question whether deprogramming treatment protects the welfare of the children involved. We have listed some of our concerns at the end of this release. (see: Concerns)

Deprogramming treatment raises philosophical and legal questions which remain unresolved in our approach to children. Are children simply the property of adults whose legal interests can control what children think and believe? In what sense does the child’s intellectual and emotional freedom have precedence over these legal interests? While these complex issues are not yet resolved, the controversial nature of this deprogramming treatment would argue for caution in safeguarding the mental health of children while we wrestle with these complex questions.

One of the concrete dangers of this type of therapy is that it has been used to force children into reunification with adults that have committed violent crimes against them, thus putting the children at risk of further victimization.

The Leadership Council has spoken with several victims of this type of therapy who were traumatized by the treatment. One young man says he continues to have flashbacks from his forced isolation from his mother and from continually being confronted by a therapist who told him his beliefs were wrong. After reunification with the parent he had been coerced to accept (in this case his father), he discovered that this parent was indeed abusive, his previous beliefs had been correct, and he felt betrayed and maltreated by the courts that had ordered this therapy. This case clearly illustrates that therapy that stems from the agenda of an interested legal party may be detrimental to the autonomy and welfare of the child for whom it is ordered.

Sometimes reunification therapy does not involve confinement and separation from the primary parent, but involves forced therapy sessions with a rejected parent. Many of the same ethical questions apply to this type of therapy as well, as the child is often forced to attend these sessions against his/her will.  If the child is being forced to reunify with a parent he has clearly stated was abusive to him or her, the child may react with increased symptoms, suicidal ideation, or even suicide attempts.

Does this mean that children shouldn’t receive therapy in situations where a child is estranged from one of their parents? No.

There are respectful and accepted techniques available that do not involve coercion or confinement that can help children in these situations. For example, one technique involves listening to children and helping them sort through their often conflicted feelings about their parents. This form of therapy, when done with a neutral therapist who is committed to safeguarding the interests of the child, is a more humane and appropriate approach. In addition, this is the approach that is most likely to be effective.

For all of these reasons, the LC strongly supports the judge’s decision described in the Globe and Mail article, and advises parents seeking remedies for children from whom they are estranged to seek less coercive and more ethical forms of treatment. Also, courts should resist ordering children into any treatment that is coercive and experimental. Instead, any court-ordered treatment should abide by APA ethical guidelines and be based on empirical evidence.

Children have a right to their thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and opinions. The legal interests of warring adults should not be the agenda that drives the mental health approach used for vulnerable children.

Our Concerns Regarding “Deprogramming” Therapy

1. Being Confined and Isolated from Family and Friends in an unfamiliar Setting May be a Traumatic Experience for Children Leading Them to Feel Trapped, Helpless, and Powerless.

Isolating a child from everyone they are familiar with and attempting to force a new view of their parents, especially by strangers who know little about the child’s experiences with their parents can be traumatic. This is of particular concern as many children being exposed to these techniques have reported a history of abuse from the very individuals they are being forced to reunify with. 

One girl subjected to this treatment was placed in a treatment facility by her father. The therapists adopted the father’’s viewpoint and the child was repeatedly told that her father who had abused her on a numerous occasions, hadn’t. She finally parroted what she was told to say in order to get out the facility where she was being held. When returned to her father, she ran away from home and lived on the streets until she was able to get a judge to listen to listen to her. She was finally allowed to return to her mother after a hearing in which the young teen’s concerns were finally listened to.

Coercive and punitive “therapies” are especially inappropriate when used on children who have already been traumatized. These children may find this kind of setting a “trigger” for further post-traumatic reactions. Forced reunification against a child’s will and without taking into consideration the child’s point of view and emotional well-being, can be expected to reinforce a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in an already vulnerable child. Such “treatment” can be expected to do more harm than good, and could potentially cause lasting emotional harm. 

2. According to APA Ethical Standards, Psychologists Respect and Protect Civil and Human Rights (Preamble to the APA Ethical Guidelines)

The right to one’s belief system is considered the most basic of human rights. The confinement of a child who has committed no wrong doing away from parents and friends in unfamiliar surroundings in order to force them to adopt a new belief system may violate a child’s basic civil rights.

3. According to APA Ethical Principles, Individuals have a Basic Right to Self-Determination (Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity)

Being forced to change one’s belief system may violate the principle of self-determination.

4.  According to APA Ethical Principles, Psychologists Avoid Multiple Relationships to Avoid Conflicts of Interest (APA Ethics code: 3.05) 

According to ethical standards set forth by the APA, “a psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the person with whom the professional relationship exists.”

A psychologist who has contracted with a parent to force a child against his will into a relationship is engaged in a dual relationship. One with the contracting parent and one with the client-child. The child’s goals and interests may be in direct conflict to those of the parent that has engaged the therapist. This dual role presents an unavoidable conflict that would keep the child’s feelings, beliefs, and desires from being central during treatment.  

5. According to APA Ethical Principles, Psychologists Must Engage in Therapeutic Services Only After Obtaining Informed Consent – Even when a Client is Not Legally Capable of Giving Informed Consent, The Psycologist Still Must Explain the Procedures, Consider the Individual’s Preferences and Gain Their Assent Prior to Treatment. (APA Ethics code: 3.10).

According to ethical standards set forth by the APA, “For persons who are legally incapable of giving informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an appropriate explanation, (2) seek the individual’s assent, (3) consider such persons’ preferences and best interests..”

It is not possible to obtain meaningful informed consent from children who are isolated from family and friends, confined in a facility and subjected to coercive treatment.

Doctor Who Intentionally Severs Bonds With Mothers Is a Monster

This Dr. Harry Harlow was not just unsympathetic, but a monster just like the unethical doctors who forcefully remove children from loving mothers by claiming parental alienation to give them to their abusers. Why do they do this? Because they get paid by the abuser to do this! It’s a fraud on the courts that needs to end!

From the Top Ten Unethical Psychological Experiments
The Well of Despair 1960

     Dr. Harry Harlow was an unsympathetic person, using terms like the rape rack and iron maiden in his experiments. He is most well-known for the experiments he conducted on rhesus monkeys concerning social isolation. Dr. Harlow took infant rhesus monkeys who had already bonded with their mothers and placed them in a stainless steel vertical chamber device alone with no contact in order to sever those bonds. They were kept in the chambers for up to one year. Many of these monkeys came out of the chamber psychotic, and many did not recover. Dr. Harlow concluded that even a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression, while science writer Deborah Blum called these, common sense results.
     Gene Sackett of the University of Washington in Seattle, one of Harlows doctoral students, stated he believes the animal liberation movement in the U.S. was born as a result of Harlows experiments. William Mason, one of Harlows students, said that Harlow kept this going to the point where it was clear to many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for life or people would find this offensive. Its as if he sat down and said, Im only going to be around another ten years. What Id like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind. If that was his aim, he did a perfect job.

Any doctor removing a child from their mother using the fraudulent theory of parental alienation or other phony psychobabble BS needs to be exposed for the monsters they are. They come up with phony rhetoric and say it in a convincing manner, much like they did back in Salem when they accused women of witchcraft.  

This Parental Alienation Custody Change Fraud is going to go down in history as one of the most unethical psychological social engineering experiments of all time. The scandal is on the same level as the cover up of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church. It’s time people start to wake up and recognize that these doctors are covering up for all types of domestic abuse against women and children for PROFIT.

If you click on the links regarding Dr. Harry Harlow, you will find out that he received awards from psychological associations. Maybe this will start to get people thinking that there are groups of people doing unethical experiments and they do support each other on their theories and cover up for each other. The APA also published the Rind Study which tried to justify child sexual abuse as being acceptable and not that harmful to children. There is a common thread between all of these sick studies that push quack theories to justify unacceptable behavior. Only with Parental Alienation Theory, the whole idea is to call the victims liars which re-victimizes them. All that is needed to do this is to pay an unethical doctor to testify who will ignore real evidence and substitute in their fraudulent rhetoric.

When people realized the horrible treatment of animals that Harlow inflicted, the result was an animal liberation movement. What needs to happen as a result of these unethical parental alienation scams is for children to have a liberation movement and demand to have rights to be heard and to make their own decisions.

And Intentionally Scaring Monkeys

Unlicensed Practice of Psychology by J. Michael Bone

Besides Richard Gardner, J. Michael Bone has done immeasurable harm to parents and children victimized by the fraudulent intentional custody change theories that lie at the core of the hypothetical theory of Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome. The non-custodial parent is favored in every way. Any demand, any complaint by a non-custodial parent can be recast by these unethical psychologists as parental alienation. Just have a child who is abused who refused to visit the abuser, and the protective parent and victimized child will be patholized and vilified by these unethical so-called experts. Research published by both Bone and Gardner reflect their own viewpoints and own ideas. Others may have jumped on this money train to make endless amounts of highly profitable work to the detriment of the victims, but the ideas behind the theories lack evidence to substantiate them. This “lack of evidence” is the official statement by the APA on Parental Alienation Syndrome. But the APA does not seem to want to ever restrain any research and appears to do nothing in the way of discipline regarding far fetched theories, no matter how offensive. Just as in the Rind Study which required an act of congress to denounce it, Parental Alienation is based on pro-pedophilia ideas. One wonders why anyone would condone these studies unless they agreed with them.

J. Michael Bone advertises extensively, offering training, lecturing, consulting and has multiple websites pushing his parental alienation ideas. Upon further investigation though, J. Michael Bone is not a licensed mental health professional. It appears that his license was relinquished after multiple complaints regarding his evaluations. Disciplinary hearings were held in February of 2007. His license was relinquished after complaints were filed regarding failure to consider other theories or to follow ethical regulations.

Anyone forced to undergo parental alienation evaluations is forced under duress by court order to go to these crackpot psychologists who everyone knows repeatedly “diagnose” or more accurately stated, ACCUSE parental alienation. No custodial parent forced into any of these evaluations will ever be the same after having to fend off these phony accusations of hypothetical theories. Especially when the psychologist is able to just make this stuff up. These sham exams have no more validity than witchcraft accusations. They can claim that a behavior of a child is the result of something the custodial parent has done, but in REALITY there is no scientific way of ever proving this correlation with the accuracy required to make it provable by scientific standards. The theory summarily rejects any other possible causes for a child’s behavior, other than it’s always the fault of the custodial parent.

Children who complain of abuse and refuse visitation should be listened to as to what the problem is. Histories of domestic abuse and child abuse are very valid reasons for not wanting to endure forced relationships with the offending party!