Media Archive - Media Articles

Studies are done when studies are funded. If the area is gender, the funding is feminist.

Lace Curtain Research and the Funding It Finds.

Now that men are in the minority in college (45%), and doing worse in almost all subjects except math and science in high school, and dropping out, committing suicide, and suffering learning disabilities at much higher rates, we would expect special financial aid to be available to boys - perhaps even more than to girls. Not the case.

Although women dominate the humanities, grants to study male-female issues given by the National Endowment for the Humanities are given almost exclusively to study only women, and from only a feminist perspective. The pattern is the same with the National Endowment for the Arts...

Other studies are conducted more directly by the government, such as the Census Bureau. Let's look...

Remember the headlines we read telling us how little men pay in child support, based on Census Bureau figures? All these Census Bureau's figures are based on the reports of women. And only women.

Only recently did the government commission a special survey including men. The men reported paying almost 40% more than the women reported receiving (between 80% and 93% of what the court had ordered), plus more payments in full and on time.

Why haven't we seen any “Men Pay 80%-93%” headlines? Because as soon as the men's perspective was discovered to be so different, the Family Support Administration had the study discontinued - it was not released. Which is another way of saying “censored.”

Another example. The National Longitudinal Survey provides the basis for thousands of articles about women every year. It is perhaps the most important study of how Americans' lives change during our lifetimes. Well, no longer. Since 1983, men have been dropped from the study. It is now the most important study about how women's lives change.

How was the dropping of men justified? Men are harder to study. Wasn't that was one of the reasons the medical community gave to feminists when feminists asked why women had been left out of many medical studies? The feminists rightly protested, “Go the extra mile - we have the right to know what does and doesn't apply to us.” The feminists were right, but the men are silent. The government can't hear what men don't say.

The Murder of All Justice

In the chapter on domestic violence, much of the censorship I discussed emanated from the US Department of Justice. It was the Department of Justice that censored abuse by women from a 1979 poll. Finally some professors discovered the data on the original computer tape. The Bureau of Justice Statistics' “Murder In Families” stressed women-as-victims although its own raw data showed 55.5% male and 44.5% female victims of family murder. Similarly, it issued a report on Violence Against Women, but none on Violence Against Men - despite the fact that two-thirds of the violence is against men. We saw also how the FBI hides the female method of killing by contract by calling it a multiple-offender killing.

I am unaware of a single government source with a focus on family or gender that does not now have a strong feminist bias. Some are bureaus of feminist bias...

There is no misuse of the lace curtain that is killing our fathers and their sons more than its misuse in the area of men's and women's health. We all benefit from more research on both sexes' health. So why have we been focusing on women's health during the past three decades to such a degree that we have an Office of Research on Women's Health but none on men's health? ...

The result? Most of the world assumes women just “naturally” live longer than men. They are unaware that in 1920, for example, American men died only one year sooner than women; today, they die seven years sooner. While dozens of studies are being done on the possible damage of silicone breast implants, the causes of men dying seven years sooner are virtually ignored. Nor are most of us aware of how quickly men's health is deteriorating. When I wrote The Myth of Male Power in 1993, the gap between male and female suicide was 3.9 to 1; now it is 4.5 to 1 (see table). In Great Britain, there is a recent 339% increase in male suicides by hanging alone. ";"Edited extract: Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say:

Studies are done when studies are funded. If the area is gender, the funding is feminist.

Lace Curtain Research and the Funding It Finds.

Now "; "11";"ftl";"The Forgotten Parent?";"The Age";"2003-04-17";"Mark Mordue";;"I once asked Tom Waits if he felt fatherhood had affected his songwriting in any way?

“Well,” he said, pausing to consider the full weight of the question, “it's harder to find the ashtrays.”

It's as good an observation as any on the mysterious rites of fatherhood. For though I'm a non-smoker, I can easily sympathise with Waits's predicament. My baby boy is now a full year grown, and as he graduates from crawling to walking and on into a whole new world of reaching, I am finding our entire house is also on the move.

When I look for anything these days, it is either chaotically below the ankles (this is his world: plastic, battery operated, relentlessly tuneful, jigsaw scattered, surprisingly bookish and marked by delicate thuggery) or safely above the waist (our world: full of glass and poisons, precarious, haphazard piles and a toilet I really wish he stop throwing things into).

My partner is meanwhile trying to find some time to look into the mirror again. After losing so much of her hair (a common experience) because of the physical trauma of birth, she finally feels as if it is growing back towards its natural state. It was always one of the most beautiful and distinct things about her (it's true, men can fall in love with a woman because of her hair), and I understood why it grieved and upset her to see it fall out by the handful while she battled our baby boy's sleeping and feeding problems and this new and not always perfect ideal of herself as a mother.

I, too, examine myself in battle-weary terms: the mid-life gut, the back problems from lifting my son, the less-than-stylish, food-flecked, sleep- deprived way I am appearing. Vanity may not be killed off with parenthood, but it is certainly given a battering. And with it some sense of whom one is or was, and the self worth that this “originality” previously involved. As a parent, you now live for another, but, you fear, sometimes, that you may have lost yourself into the bargain.

How all this love and pain and struggle and rage measure out into some modern concept of fatherhood is no easy task to pin down. I know the magic of my son's kiss on my neck as he nuzzles into me (and mostly fails to bite me with the four teeth he is now blessed with); the way he can literally glow like a saint when he sees me walking in the door. I know the crushing weight of sitting alone in a park, sobbing, thinking I am not going to make it, hoping no one sees me and finds out how hollowed out and broken I really am. That if I don't recover my family will be lost and everything my life might be worth along with them.

It seems to me modern fatherhood is this half-hidden thing, subsumed in glib and not especially flattering television images, our own strangely male inclinations to deep silence, and those private relationships with our fathers and mothers that shadow whatever we might like to be (or not be) as a parent.

Certainly, the story of fatherhood is the story of the father as a son, as well as the father of a son or a daughter. Every one of us has a story like this that we are trying to carry on and yet change in some vital way, I guess.

When the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) in the United States reviewed prime-time television on the five major networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, WB) a few years ago, they found that fathers were rarely portrayed, and that when they were it “was usually either as a competent man yet uninvolved father or as an involved father yet incompetent man”.

Much as I love Homer Simpson, perhaps something decent and intelligent and confessional from the horse's mouth is needed to update our image of ourselves, to clear the decks. Slowly, but surely, I'm beginning to believe, this “something” is emerging.

Ian Sansom's The Truth About Babies from A-Z, while owing some debts to Nick Hornby's writing, is a small attempt to fill in the gaps - combining a diary, a philosophical reference guide, a compendium of wise words and witticisms and interesting facts, and a literary attempt to grapple with modern fatherhood from the banal to the sublime.

He passes through a series of alphabetically arranged chapters that have a mock-reference authority to them: headings such as Baby Monitor, Depression, Friends, Hate, Motherese, Shit, Sleep, Touch, Truth and, finally, Zero, which consists entirely of this brief note: “A cup of tea and a slice of cake, spotted with wax, and the year's gone. Like snow in the hand. You're one.”

Every now and then Sansom also hits you with something harder, like his chapter titled Violence, in which he details trying to calm his child at night and its absolute refusal to be calmed. Very quickly, the scene escalates to him shaking the baby.

“I stop shaking. I lay you down in your cot and walk out of the room. I am ashamed. I don't tell anyone.”

Given its diary nature, the book is inevitably Sansom's dialogue with himself as he grapples with fatherhood and what it means. Since the book addresses his son in the first person throughout, it is also a prolonged love letter and time-capsule for his child. It is, in this way, about the deep, mucky, contradictory material of real love, the highs and the lows of fatherhood that are never entirely resolved.

One sees, though, that writing itself can be an act of selfishness. I read with cautionary distress Sansom's contrasting use of Bertrand Russell's pleased notes on fatherhood in his Autobiography (1967-69) with his daughter Katherine Tait's observations later in My Father Bertrand Russell (1975): “He played at being a father ... and he acted the part to perfection, but his heart was elsewhere and his combination of inner detachment and outer affection caused me much muddled suffering.”

Like many working fathers, my own father was often not around while I was growing up. Sometimes, I worry about this tendency myself, about the pressures I feel to be a provider, a wage earner. At the same time, I ponder any hint of selfishness masked within that drive, that in some way I might be putting my career before my family and excusing it with a false feeling of sacrifice. The best I can do is be aware of that duplicity, to try and find some democracy of action in the home as well as contribute some love that adds up to dishes done, garbage out, nappies changed, and a closeness that never ends up withering into what Paul Kelly once sang: “I've lost my tenderness. I've taken bad care of this.” (Careless).

I well remember my father's burning words to me on his hard labours and my blossoming education as a young man: how he didn't want me to “end up” like him. As a working-class man, he saw education as a way of lifting me up and out of the struggles he felt condemned to. When I reflect on his efforts and my mother's - and in many ways I belong more to my mother and even my grandmother's influence than my father's - I feel a profound debt towards and sorrow over my privileges, my luck, and an obligation to somehow convert all that into something of worth for my own son, to help propel him forwards. At the same time I want to avoid laying any burden of expectation upon his shoulders. Amid all those conflicting hopes and fears, I find that becoming a father is sending me back to my own family, to my parents, my sisters and my brother, to heal some distances I've allowed to grow in.

Every time fatherhood gets hard, even impossible, moments and then whole days of joy arrive. It's usually the simple things, like when my little boy and I are having a bath together or I am chasing him up the stairs, step by step, laughing. Or when we are watching early-morning television and it's the weekend and Rage is on and a clip for Eminem or Holly Valance appears (my son's current favourites) and we turn the volume up and all dance to the lullabies of the moment, he, his beautiful mother and me, raging along, making a noise and punching our arms in the air shouting “hey”. It feels to me right then and there that the family who dances together stays together, and that's about as wise and happy I can be as a father for today ";"I once asked Tom Waits if he felt fatherhood had affected his songwriting in any way?

“Well,” he said, pausing to consider the full weight of the question, “it's harder to find the ashtrays.”

It's as good an observation as"; "12";"ftl";"Time To Look At The Bigger Picture";"ACT New Zealand";"2003-04-11";"Dr Muriel Newman";;"Chief Youth Court Judge Andrew Beecroft yesterday identified six characteristics of serious youth offenders: 85 percent are male, the majority have no contact with their father, 80 percent do not go to school and have chronic drug or alcohol addictions, most have psychological or psychiatric issues, and 50 percent - up to 90 percent in some courts - are Maori.

He went on to explain that many of these boys have no adult male role model: “14, 15, and 16 year-old boys seek out role models like 'heat seeking missiles'. It's either the leader of the Mongrel Mob or it's a sports coach or it's Dad. But an overwhelming majority of boys who I see in the Youth Court have lost contact with their father. What I'm saying is that I'm dealing in the Youth Court with boys for whom their Dad is simply not there, never has been, gone, vanished and disappeared”.

The Judge also went on make a devastating comment: “every single young boy that we have dealt with has been abused as a child”.

This is why I am so passionately opposed to public policy and practice that incentivises family breakdown, and excludes fathers from the lives of their children - especially when the evidence is clear that children being brought up in families headed by a sole mother are at far more risk of child abuse than children raised by married parents.

The issue of fatherless children has been in the public eye this week, after revelations that the number of women on the Domestic Purposes Benefit who cannot - or will not - name the father of their children had grown to a record 16,500 this year from just under 14,000 when Labour took office.

In fact, the figures are much worse than that. An update I just received from the Minister shows that the number has grown to 17,117 - or one in six of the women on the DPB. Of those, 50 percent were Maori and 30 percent European.

The reasons why these women have not named the father of their children fall into three basic categories: women who are colluding with the father to avoid the child support system, women who cannot get the father to agree to be named on the child's birth certificate, and women at risk who have been the victims of abuse or attack.

Women who are victims should clearly be protected not penalised, and those violent and abusive fathers punished for their crime.

Nor should the women be penalised who cannot get the fathers to agree to be named on their child's birth certificate. Instead, those fathers should - subject to paternity testing - be made to pay. Any claiming they did not agree to the pregnancy should think again - it takes two to have a baby, and each must take full responsibility.

For the majority of the women who refuse to name the fathers of their children, the sanctions must be even handed: if - having reached a mutually agreeable financial arrangement - a woman shields the father from his child support liability, then she should accept responsibility for becoming the breadwinner herself. It is simply unacceptable for an able-bodied couple to abrogate the full financial support of their children to the taxpayer. Either the father should be made to pay up, or the mother should get a job - and DPB eligibility should be based on the naming of the father.

Inherent in all of this should be the absolute right for named fathers to require paternity testing. At present, a liable father can request paternity testing, but it requires the mother's agreement. In spite of overseas evidence showing 10-20 percent of liable fathers are not the biological father of a child they are providing financial support for, in New Zealand men cannot have the test done as of right.

Where a couple colludes to avoid child support, fathers must be required to either pay their contribution, or engage in community work to help repay taxpayers who are carrying their burden. Those who refuse should face imprisonment. But central to these changes is a thorough review of the Child Support Act. New Zealand's child support system is an anachronism and needs urgent reform. This was called for as early as 1994 by Judge Trapsky, who undertook a comprehensive review and proposed far-reaching changes, which were steadfastly ignored by successive governments. Central to a revamped child support system is the need to take each parent's full financial situation into account, rather than just that of the non-custodial parent. Further, allowance should be made for the time each parent spends with their child. But, most importantly, shared parenting - rather than maternal sole custody - should be introduced as the norm when a couple separates. Shared Parenting is a system that is not only far better for children - giving them the support of both parents, and extended family - but in those countries where it is the law, child support non-compliance is extremely rare. The Labour Government is now talking tough on this issue, but must be careful that the law changes that they are proposing are well informed, balanced and fair. If they follow the plan outlined above then, not only will they be addressing an area of law in urgent need of reform but, they will also be protecting the fundamental right of New Zealand children to know who their father is. --- Dr Muriel Newman, MP for ACT New Zealand, writes a weekly opinion piece on topical issues for a number of community newspapers. You are welcome to forward this column to anyone you think may be interested View the archive of columns at: http://www.act.org.nz/action/murielnewman.html Visit ACT New Zealand's web site: http://www.act.org.nz If you no longer wish to remain on our mailing list please advise by return email Muriel appreciates the opportunity to keep you informed and thanks you for your continued interest in ACT New Zealand. If you are interested in the Shared Parenting Campaign you may like to visit the website: http://www.xoasis.com/~sharedparents/ KATH BELL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TO DR MURIEL NEWMAN MP BOWEN HOUSE ROOM 10.07 PHONE 64 4 470 6633 FAX 64 4 473 3532 EMAIL kath.bell@parliament.govt.nz ";"Chief Youth Court Judge Andrew Beecroft yesterday identified six characteristics of serious youth offenders: 85 percent are male, the majority have no contact with their father, 80 percent do not go to school and have chronic drug or alcohol addictions, m"; "13";"sup";"The Despised Child Support Agency: A Social Disaster";"Dads On The Air";"2003-03-31";"Sydney 2GLF FM 89.3 9am-12.00";;"Child Support Agencies were first created by the Bolsheviks after the Russian revolution of 1917 as a way of funding the Bolshevik attack on the nuclear family. The Bolsheviks regarded the family as a fundamental unit of capitalism to be destroyed. The Russian child support schemes were one of the main reasons for their massive black economy.

Similar percentages that now operate in the Australian scheme still persist in the Russian family code to this day. Child support schemes never worked in a controlled economy like Russia, and they have never worked in the West either.

Introduced into this country with the help of left wing academics and feminist advocates after Bob Hawke's statement that “no child will live in poverty”, the Child Support Scheme has been a complete disaster in Australia. It was one of Bob Hawke's single worst decisions.

The Child Support Agency has driven hundreds of thousands of fathers on to the dole, destroyed the lives of tens upon tens of thousands of parents, and has ultimately failed to deliver. It is as hated by mothers as it is by fathers. The children of separated parents now get less per child than they did prior to the creation of this utterly despised bureaucracy.

This government has done nothing to reform the appallingly managed Agency. Indeed, this government passed legislation exempting the Agency from the Family Law Act. Now it doesn't even have to pretend to be acting in the best interests of children. This government also increased the Agency's contempt towards fathers by reducing them to mere numbers. Thanks to this government's disgraceful conduct the Agency, always one to treat fathers with hostility and contempt, will no longer speak to any father who doesn't provide a tax file number or similar number as an identifier.

Instead of reforming the hated “Collection and Suicide Agency”, this government has begun arresting fathers fleeing the country in search of a better life.

This is the same government that refuses to look at the death rate associated with the Agency.

Although child support schemes are associated with high death rates amongst separated men wherever they operate, the Agency has refused to release figures on how many of its clients die each day, claiming it is under no legislative obligation to do so. The Agency that is telling parents how to “manage their responsibilities” cannot even be bothered to count its own dead!!!

Fathers groups have consistently claimed for years that at least three of the Agency's clients suicide every day.

The government's reaction? The responsible Minister Larry Anthony has acknowledged that he doesn't know how many of the Agency's clients die each day. But what is worse, he has no apparent plans to find out!! Critics regard this lackadaisical approach as both morally reprehensible and nothing short of criminal negligence.

Wayne Miller says: “I had been divorced only 18 months yet I was tearing my hair out! I still have a reasonably good relationship with my ex-wife, yet I felt I was still getting on the wrong side of the CSA. For example, when we agreed that I would pay a lesser amount due to being off work from illness, she rang to advise the CSA and was stunned to hear the woman say: 'Do you want us to go after him? You don't have to agree to this you know.' ”

Worse still, I started to get paranoid about even checking the letterbox, for fear there would be another CSA letter telling me I owed someone even more money. I started feeling like a second-class citizen, always at the beck and call of some faceless bureaucrat on the end of a telephone line. Conversations with CSA staff were not entered onto their computer system; information given by one CSA staff member would be completely contradicted or dismissed by another.

And I have a number of women friends who benefit from the CSA system, with one even telling me (she has two children), “It's ridiculous really. I get more than I need. It's really very, very good for me.”

By September last year, after a week of living on home-made vegetable soup for dinner, I'd had enough. Rather than whinge about the CSA, I decided to do something about it. I built a website with a questionnaire with a view to testing the water. Was I the only one who felt like this - worthless, unimportant, living (financially) from day to day?

Six months on, there have been over 100 responses to my questionnaire - from men, their second wives, their children, their parents. And I've found I'm one of the lucky ones.

For example: One response:

“The stress my partner & I have been put under is unbelievable. Sometimes I cannot believe we have lasted. I have had threats from debt collectors and one guy even said to my wife - 'Can't YOU make any contributions to the Child Support debt, you do make more money than your husband.' He then told my wife - they don't really care where the money comes from, as long as they get it”.

Another response: “I have tried to commit suicide a few occasions because of work and CSA depressions and I felt that there is no way out and I do not like the way the way CSA is designed. I am in arrears of $15,000.00 since January 2001.”

An alarming number of men are on anti-depressants or have attempted suicide. Many say they live on or under the poverty line. And nobody has any praise whatsoever for the CSA or the system it operates under.

What stuns me is that nobody seems to take into account that the non-custodial parent, who quite often walks out of the matrimonial home with very little, suffering the strain of no longer having regular contact with his or her children, is expected to start from scratch with this heavy burden placed upon them. How do you start again when it's impossible to save? It's extremely difficult to buy goods for your new home and buying clothes for work is a luxury. And a holiday.what's that?

What I don't understand is how one formula can fit all situations. Time and time again people complain that they are going out backwards while the custodial parent remarries, works, with her new spouse has two incomes and still gets generous maintenance payments. Surely there should some type of means testing. Or even better, some fairness.

Check out the website at www.god.net.au/divorce and have your say. I'm certainly going to have mine.

Under the auspices of the Mens Rights Agency Bill Rogan, one of the country's many outraged fathers, has been documenting the activities of the Child Support Agency and has recently filed his third report. These can be found at their site www.mensrights.com.au under the child support button.

He says it is interesting to note one case of CSA's treatment of one our Service Personnel as this Government takes us down the path to War. A soldier doesn't have to go to war in order to have his life destroyed.

Bill Rogan says: “The MRA hereby advises the Minister for Family and Community Services, that they hold him responsible for the activities of the CSA. That staff acting as agents of the Government are in breach of a number of Federal Parliamentary Acts and Operational Guidelines and Procedures.”

One of the most serious acts that has come to our attention and one that deserves special consideration is a breach of the Crimes Act where CSA staff have used blackmail and threats of retaliation against a payer should he exercise his legislated right to lodge a request for reassessment. These are serious issues and evidence of a lack of accountability by the Child Support Agency in its execution of duty on behalf of the Government and hence voting Public of Australia.

Please note that we will continue to report on and raise public awareness of the activities of the CSA and hold it accountable for its actions and objectionable treatment of the Voting Public at large.

Below is an example with which the CSA treats fathers, in this case a man who served for many years protecting his country. Now, like so many other soldiers maltreated by government, he wonders exactly what he was protecting!

Bill Rogan and MRA identify the following breaches in this case: Failure to accept documentary evidence as presented.Failure to act without bias. Failure of Duty of Care. Breaches under the Public Service Act Code of Conduct by not acting in impartial and consistent manner. Failure of process to act in consistent and correct manner. Breach of C$A Charter. Incorrectly collecting monies. Misappropriating funds. Lack of competence. Lack of integrity of CSA staff.

“When he was 16 he joined the Navy and for the next 14 years of his life served the call of the Australian Government on Oberon Submarines. During his time he entered a marriage and through this he was lucky enough to become a father of two beautiful children. Little did he realise for if he ever fell out of marriage he would be segregated from the rest of society and then treated so harshly by what can only be called a dictatorship regime which seems to be fully supported by both parties of parliament. This agency he refers to and I am sure most politicians' cringe when they receive letters about it, is called the Child Support Agency (C$A). He left the Navy to spend more time with his children, then his marriage broke up and he has now had the unpleasant task of being forced to deal with the C$A, which until separated he didn't even know existed. In the next few short paragraphs (believe me these are short) we will explain his not insignificant story to you. Even as I write this he is still experiencing significant problems with this agency, which goes under the banner 'Helping parents manage their responsibilities'”.

“He separated from his partner after 13 years of marriage. The Ex partner falsified her divorce papers to the Family Court to try to have the 12-month separation date brought forward. When he told the Family Court the truth, they believed his version and cancelled her application for divorce until the 12 months had past. This period started in Feb 2002. Yet the C$A as expected are only too happy to believe the Mother and assume the date is Sept 2001 His Ex partner and two children resided in WA at the time of separation and in March 2000 his Ex partner tried to sneak out of the state and move to NSW. He prevented this through the Family Court until proper contact orders were drawn up and agreed to by both the children's mother and father. The consent Orders were properly registered in the Family Court. Prior to this agreement and still now the C$A have him paying approx $880.00 per month in Child Support.”

“When his children did leave to move to NSW in March 2002 and knowing it was only two weeks until the Easter holidays when the father could have contact with his children it was decided that he would fly to NSW for that contact to avoid excessive travel for the children on this occasion. The contact orders allow for the father to see the children each school term holiday. He filled in and sent off a request for change to Child Support as he now had contact costs associated with his children. These were and are approx. $6000.00 per year mainly comprising airfares. His claim wasn't excessive and he didn't include phone calls and hotels and car hire even though he could. He thought he was doing the right thing by his children.”

“The C$A disagreed and wouldn't lower child support even by a small amount, because they said he couldn't show a past history of visiting the children or them coming to him in WA. Because of this decision he had could not afford to see his children for the Easter holidays. When he explained to C$A about the time frames, the C$A reviewing Officer (Susan Mellor's) said it was unfortunate and she could see that he did want contact with his children but they wouldn't help. He also explained he had debts from the marriage and he was spending more each month than making in income and her answer was he should have had better financial advice prior to separation. God bless her I wish I had that wisdom and hindsight.”

“After receiving her final and official response to his request for change where every reason he had asked for had been rejected, he then submitted a report with the CSA's Objections Unit. (an internal review panel supposedly offering a cost effective way of delivering a just outcome) It would be laughable thinking that justice will be served by an internal CSA Objection Review process if the result of their deliberations were not so tragic.”

“Self regulation rarely works and in this instance it is unlikely to deliver justice for those who are forced to operate under the CSA mandate. Work colleagues would be naturally reluctant to find other colleague's decisions biased or lacking in informed judgement. The objection took over 90 days to deliver a decision that amounted to bad luck and we look forward to seeing you go bankrupt.Through his last two reviews with the C$A, they say they make their decisions based on evidence before them. Both times they send off to the Mother asking for her input and each time she fails to even bother to reply, but somehow through government supported legislation they always find some reason to not decrease the amount of money he pays each month so that he can afford the travel to see his children.He has also produced court documents showing he has his children for approximately 11 weeks of the year and even still they fail to believe he has any contact, as he hasn't shown enough past history. In the very near future he will have his children for 4 weeks of the Christmas holiday period. For this pleasure he is still required to pay the Mother the full $880.00 for this month. But yet still cover all expenses of gaining contact and supporting the children over this month.”

“As he says, it makes it so hard to have a happy Christmas but we all manage to always smile for the sake of our children.CSA make suggestions that if he works overtime and he would certainly like to so to assist with paying for his children's airfares and to be able to provide for things when he does have contact with his children and get out of debt. Yet, if he does, the tax man takes his cut, C4A takes theirs and not much left in the wallet after all of that. So he keeps going further and further into debt and is now on the verge on Bankruptcy and quitting his job and then looking towards Social Security payments. All this with the blessing of the C$A. There have been many studies conducted into the cost of raising children and these come up with figures like $384.00 per month for one child and a certain amount for two and yet in some miraculous way the amount that is required to support and raise children rises to unsustainable levels under the child support formula.”

“After 13 years on Oberon Submarines he has seen and experienced many things, but nothing compares to the hardship that is placed upon people like himself and thousands of others all around Australia and what appears to have the full support of most of our elected Members of Parliament. He has never seen a more protected and uncaring group of people until he came in contact with the Child Support Agency. When looking back now on his past and holding the Australian Service Medal he was awarded, he wonders just what he was protecting while on a Submarine. He truly hopes it was not these laws and this legislation that C$A uses to control and exchange maximum payments from one party to the other as if money was their only interest.”

And for another example of how the government treats its soldiers, take a look at a recent judgement in the Federal Magistrates Service:

E&R(2003)FMCAfam55 which can be found under New Judgements at their website www.fms.gov.au

This soldier lost his bid to stop his ex-wife moving with the children to Darwin. The FMS saw fit to deny him what many would regard as any significant relationship with his children, and to create a situation where any contact would be enormously expensive, all because the mother declared she wouldn't be happy in Sydney. The Federal Magistrates Service has totally failed to differentiate itself from the Family Court. The poor quality of its judgements are now up on line for all to see. It goes without saying that the last thing the beleagured taxpayers of Australia needed was a replica of the Family Court, but that's what they've got, at the cost of many tens of millions of dollars. The FMS is a failed experiment and is already in urgent need of reform or abolition.

";"Child Support Agencies were first created by the Bolsheviks after the Russian revolution of 1917 as a way of funding the Bolshevik attack on the nuclear family. The Bolsheviks regarded the family as a fundamental unit of capitalism to be destroyed. The Ru"; "14";"pas";"The Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Analysis of Sixteen Selected Cases";"JOURNAL OF DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE, Vol. 21, p 21-38";"1994-01-01";"John Dunne & Marsha Hedrick";;"ABSTRACT.

This study analyzed sixteen cases which appeared to meet Dr. Richard Gardner's criteria for parental alienation syndrome as set forth in his 1987 book. These cases showed a wide diversity of characteristics but Gardner's criteria were useful in differentiating these cases from other post-divorce difficulties. Traditional interventions were ineffective in altering the alienation.

Gardner (1985) has described cases of intense rejection of a parent by children after divorce which he referred to as “parental alienation syndrome” (PAS). He defined this syndrome as a disturbance occurring in children who are preoccupied with depreciation and criticism of a parent and denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated (Gardner, 1987). He describes these children as “obsessed with hatred of a parent.”

The “parental alienation syndrome” has rapidly become a focus of controversy within the mental health and the legal profession. It has been raised, as well as attacked, in cases involving allegations of domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and child sexual abuse, often strongly polarizing various mental health professionals involved in the cases. Advocacy groups for mothers, fathers, and sexual abuse victims have often been recruited into the conflict.

Very little is described in the literature about children who reject parents following marital separation. Jacobs (1988)describes a case in which five children rejected their father, apparently in response to their mother's extreme narcissistic rage. Wallerstein (1984) noted one child at the ten year follow-up, who rejected her mother, with whom she was living, after her father's attempt to change custody failed. Fidler (1988) also noted one case of a child who refused to see the noncustodial parent among the sample of 76 children referred to a family court clinic.

More common in the literature is the failure to mention a child's rejection of a parent as one of the outcomes of divorce. Pearson and Thoennes (1990) noted a relatively high frequency of no or sporadic overnight visits with a non-residential parent. In 40% of the maternal sole custody and 30% of the paternal sole custody, the children had no overnight visits with a non-residential parent. In joint legal custody, 7% of the children living with their mothers and 20% of the children living with their fathers reported no overnights with the other parent. Although this is a relatively high frequency, the authors made no mention of the children's attitudes about their parents or the reason for no visits. Kalter et al. (1989) did not report any cases of the child rejecting a parent in their sample of 56 recruited pairs of children and mothers. Similarly, Oppenheimer et al. (1990) noted no cases in their sample of 46 elementary aged children, all living with their mothers, who rejected either parent. Review articles by Zaslow (1988) and by Heatherington et at. (1989) make no reference to parent alienation or to children rejecting a parent as an outcome following divorce.

Rather than specifically identifying children's rejection of a parent, several authors made reference to difficulties arising when a child aligns with a parent or attempts to step into the role of protecting a vulnerable parent. For example, Johnston et at. (1989) noted that large numbers of children attempt to align with one or both angry parents which simultaneously helps the child feel more important and more vulnerable. They indicated that the “typical” response of an older child was to be negative toward the other parent to some degree and to perhaps reject that parent or refuse to visit. In another paper, Johnston and her colleagues (Johnston et al. 1987) noted a tendency of children to become protective toward a fragile parent, the frequency of role reversals, and a tendency to take responsibility in the parental disputes. Jacobs (1988) and Wallerstein (1985) refer to the intense rage of the narcissistically injured parent as being critical in the child's attitudes about the other parent. Wallerstein also refers to the pathological dependence of a parent on a child to protect against feelings of loss as being important in the child's emerging need to protect that parent from intolerable feelings. Oppenheimer and colleagues (1990) concluded that the child's perceptions of parental attitudes and their own beliefs about the divorce have a significant influence on their post-separation adjustment, presumably also including the degree of hostility they felt toward one or both parents.

The authors have been unable to locate any studies systematically analyzing the children and their families when one or more of the children in the family have rejected a parent after divorce. Such an analysis would be a necessary first step in attempting to validate Gardner's “parental alienation syndrome” and his hypothesis about etiology. This study was undertaken to explore characteristics of cases which appeared to meet Gardner's criteria, to search for commonalities among the cases, and to alert mental health professional to this infrequent but serious outcome in children after divorce.

All cases presented here were referred to one or both of the authors for forensic evaluation or treatment of a seemingly intractable situation, Cases were selected for the study on the basis of at least one child in the family having intensely rejected one of the parents on the basis of trivial or unsubstantiated accusations, apparently meeting Gardner's criteria for “parental alienation syndrome,” There was no attempt to match these cases with a control group of children whose parents had also separated and/or divorced.

METHOD

The sixteen cases in this study were taken from the caseloads of basis that they met the majority of the criteria set forth by Gardner, (1985, 1987), in his description of the parental alienation syndrome. Those criteria are as follows.

Child is preoccupied with depreciation and criticism of the parent that is unjustified and/or exaggerated.

Conscious, subconscious, and unconscious factors within the alienating parent contribute to the child's alienation from the other.

Denigration of the parent has the quality of a litany, a rehearsed quality. There is phraseology not usually used by the child.

Child justifies the alienation with memories of minor altercations experienced in die relationship with the parent which are trivial and which most children would have forgotten. When asked, the children are unable to give more compelling reasons.

The alienating parent will concur with the children and support their belief that these reasons justify the alienation.

Hatred of the parent is most incense when the alienating parent and the child are in the presence of the alienated parent. However, when the child is alone with the alienated parent, the child may exhibit hatred, neutrality, or expressions of affection.

If the child begins to enjoy him/herself with the alienated parent, there may be episodes of “stiffening up” and resuming withdrawal and animosity, as though they have done something wrong. Alternatively, the child may ask the alienated parent not to reveal his/her affection to the other parent.

The degree of animosity in the child's behavior and verbalizations may vary with the degree of proximity to the alienating parent.

Hatred of the parent often extends to include die alienated parent's extended family, with even less justification by the child.

The alienating parent is generally unconcerned with the psychological effects on the child of the rejection of parent and extended family.

The child's hatred of the alienated parent is often impervious to evidence which contradicts his/her position.

The child's position seemingly lacks ambivalence. The alienated parent is “all bad,” the alienating parent is “all good.”

The child is apt to exhibit a guiltless disregard for the feelings of the alienated parent.

The child fears the loss of the love of the alienating parent.

By choosing cases which met the majority of these criteria, the authors were selecting for situations which embodied severe parental alienation, rather than the more common and more moderate instances of loyalty conflicts which are widely evident in the children of conflictual divorcing parents.

In an effort to better understand the sub-population of divorcing families who manifest an alienation of one parent, these cases were analyzed and data obtained regarding the following variables:

length of the relationship or marriage prior to separation.

the age of the children at separation.

the length of time' between separation and the onset of the alienation.

the number of children in each family constellation who exhibited the dynamic.

the sex of the alienating parent.

the sex of the children.

the effectiveness of various interventions in remedying the alienation.

Case #1

A had just turned six years old when she was referred for treatment by her Guardian Ad Litem. She was an only child from the father's second marriage and the mother's first marriage. She attended the first grade at a private school for gifted children and seemed to get along well with peers.

The parents had separated one and a half years prior to the referral for treatment, initially the parents agreed that A would live with her mother and be with her father on alternate weekends from Saturday morning until Sunday evening, as well as holiday and vacation time. However, A almost immediately became resistant to leaving her mother and going with her father. At times the father had to pick her up and carry her to the car kicking and screaming. These difficulties paralleled an increase in the mother's accusations about the father's harassment and alcohol abuse. There were several court attempts to increasingly supervise the contacts between the parents and the visitation time with the father. Eventually, each of the parents was ordered into individual therapy, as was A. In addition, a GAL was appointed and a supervisor for the visitations was assigned.

None of these efforts seemed to alter the progressive rejection of the father by A in clinical sessions. She was initially guarded and resistant, her affect flat and joyless. It was reported by the supervisor that during her visits with her father she was relaxed and playful, although she seemed to most enjoy spending time with her father's live-in girlfriend. However, when it came time to return to her mother, she became quite panicked aid insisted on taking off any makeup or clothes that might indicate that she had had fun at her father's. When she returned to her mother, she consistently complained about each visit. Her play themes in therapy excluded any reference to men or fathers.

A's mother was a forty-two year old medical professional who had not worked since A's birth. She was supported by a large stipend from her ex-husband and devoted all her energies to A. She claimed that A became very upset whenever she talked about the possibility of going back to work and used this as a rationalization for not returning to work. Despite her intense hostility and her many accusations toward the father, the mother confided that she continued to love him and was quite jealous of the father's new relationship. She insisted that A have nothing to do with the father's girlfriend and forbade the therapist to talk with the girlfriend. This mother viewed her daughter as unique and special, frequently insisting on special treatment or considerations. She had no insight into her role in alienating her daughter from her father and blamed everything on the father's aberrant behavior.

The father was a well-paid physician and accomplished outdoorsman who was highly thought of in both his profession and avocation. Although very angered by his ex-wife's accusations, he tended to respond passively and did not want to challenge her directly At times, however, his anger would erupt during confrontations by her. He saw his ex-wife as obsessed with their daughter and deluded by her own fantasies. He described his daughter as having two personalities, one when she was under the influence of her mother, when she acted like an extension of her mother's ego, and another when she was with him, a happy and playful child. At one point the father was allowed to take his daughter on an extended vacation where they reportedly had a very good time together. However, difficulties re-emerged immediately upon the daughter returning to her mother's home.

Two years after the separation and with no progress evident despite treatment for all three individuals, the father agreed to have no further contact with his daughter. This was viewed as preferable to continuing the conflict which appeared to have no resolution for her. He continued to make voluntary contributions to a trust fund for her and sent her letters occasionally, which he hoped she would mad after she became an adult.

Case #2

F was a twelve year old girl and G a ten year old boy at the time of this evaluation. They had been placed together in foster care following their detailed descriptions of sexual and physical abuse by their father and physical abuse by their step-mother, with whom they primarily resided. Despite the children's statements and wishes, the court did not place them with the mother because of allegations that she had instigated their statements against the father. The children had only supervised contact with both parents during this evaluation.

The mother had initiated the marital separation six years prior and the father had resisted the divorce. Following the separation, the mother made accusations of physical abuse of herself by the father and on the day prior to the commencement of the divorce trial, the mother made allegations of sexual abuse of the children by the father. The trial was postponed and several professionals evaluated the children. Those evaluations substantiated that the daughter had been sexually abused by the mother's boyfriend's (now husband's) son but did not substantiate sexual abuse by the father. The custody of the children was subsequently awarded to the father. A year following the divorce, the mother made another report to CPS alleging physical abuse and possible sexual abuse of the children by the father. After investigation the allegations were dismissed as unsubstantiated. One year later the mother attempted to modify custody but this request was denied. in the same year, approximately three years after the separation, both parents remarried and all four parties were ordered to participate together in an attempt at counseling.

Approximately one year after the counseling, the daughter was interviewed by a CPS worker after she reported to her school that she was afraid to return to her father's home following a weekend visitation with the mother. After investigation, the case was again closed. Two months later, during a visit with their mother, the children made die statements to neighbors and later to the CPS caseworker which prompted this evaluation with one of the authors.

Psychological testing of the mother produced clinical scares elevated beyond the normal range. The clinical pattern suggested that she was immature, narcissistic, self-indulgent as well as passive-dependent. The testing also suggested that she was likely to be suspicious of the motivations of others, avoidant of deep emotional involvement, angry, argumentative, stubborn, and prone to externalization. Psychological testing of the father was not elevated beyond die normal range. His normal range profile suggested that he was apt to be naive, hopeful, optimistic, and suggestible with a persistent need to be liked by others and a tendency to avoid confrontation and negativity. There was also some evidence of insecurity, feelings of inadequacy, and a tendency to anticipate rejection. Because the allegations involved the father's current wife, she was also evaluated. She was found to be an exceptionally well-functioning individual.

The father's childhood history was benign and he enjoyed a good relationship with his parents as an adult. However, the mother's history included a very disturbed relationship with her own parents and considerable parental dysfunction during her childhood.

At the time of the evaluation, the mother was a fulltime homemaker, with one child front her second marriage at home. She volunteered at an abused women's shelter and through this activity had a wide circle of friends who offered her considerable support. The father and step-mother were both postal workers who were pursuing educational goals on a part time basis, were active in the schools, and well-regarded by neighbors. They had voluntarily sought counseling for the family several months prior to the allegations because of the degree of conflict between the two households and the effect of that on the children.

Although the children initially made detailed statements about physical and sexual abuse to professionals, during this evaluation their statements were very general and contradictory of earlier statements. Both children exhibited much more affect and energy around statements having to do with the divorce conflict than with abuse, i.e., child support issues and values about living in urban rather than rural areas. Their “memories” of various events appeared to be highly contaminated by their mother's issues and perceptions.

This evaluation failed to substantiate abuse of the children by the father or the step-mother and implicated the mother in excessively influencing the children's statements against the father. Following a trial, the judge returned the children to their father's home. The mother's contact with the children was temporarily suspended while the children were reinvolved with the therapist with whom they had previously been in counseling. The mother was then asked to initiate gradual contact with the children through the therapist via letters and phone calls. However, after a brief time, the mother moved out of the state and did not follow through with supervised contact. The children have had no contact with their mother for more than one year. Their therapist reports that their overall functioning is much better than prior to the allegations, although both children have difficulty understanding their mother's failure to maintain contact with them. Their therapist has described the children's fabrications of abuse as an attempt on their part to consolidate a very tenuous relationship with their mother. She felt it was made clear to the children that acceptance by their mother was contingent upon rejection of the father and they appeared willing to sacrifice a very secure relationship with the father and step-mother in order to resolve the issue of their mother's commitment to them.

Case #3

This case involved a girl, M. who was two years, six months at the time of the evaluation. There had been a long series of allegations by the mother toward the father beginning in the early months of the pregnancy. The most recent of these allegations was that the father was sexually abusing the child during the limited visits that the child had with the father at the paternal grandparents' home. CPS had been involved twice and made a preliminary conclusion that sexual abuse was probable based on the child's statement that “daddy hurt my butt.”

The father was a 24 year old blue-collar worker whose work often necessitated that lie be out of town for three to four months at a time. Both clinical evaluation and psychological testing suggested a somewhat immature, narcissistic, and impulsive young man. He viewed Iris ex-wife as deceitful, unpredictable, and emotionally volatile. Although he had had two DWI's, he tended to minimize his drinking pattern and deny that Ire had a problem. A detailed psychosexual history was essentially unremarkable. He had dated relatively infrequently and tended to be attracted to women for superficial attributes. His involvement with M's mother was his first serious relationship. There was no history of sexually inappropriate behavior.

The mother was a 24 year old woman who had worked occasionally as a clerical worker. At the time of the evaluation she lived with her parents, who supplemented the child support payments and funded her protracted legal battle with her ex-husband. The mother's family was dominated by the maternal grandmother from whom the mother had never emancipated. Psychological testing and clinical interview suggested a person with strong narcissistic, histrionic, and dependent traits. She appeared willing to exploit others without regard to their feelings. She had a long history of avoiding disapproval by deflecting blame to others. The extensive legal file seemed to document her willingness to fabricate data to prevent her daughter from visiting her father.

Many of her allegations had some element of truth but always represented the worst possible interpretation of her ex-husband's behavior or character. A few months before the allegations about sexual abuse, the mother had called the local police department, and discovered there was an outstanding warrant for the father because he had failed to show for a summons on a DWI. She waited until the father had made arrangements to pick up their daughter for a visit, notified the local police, and arranged to have him arrested as he appeared for the visit.

M had a history of constipation following her visits with her father. Several hours after her return from one visit, and after having played in a wading pool with several other children, M was noticed to have several abrasions on her back. Later that same day, she was described as having a purplish protrusion of her anus at which time M stated that her father “hurt my butt.” Subsequent evaluation by a pediatrician trained in sexual abuse issues was ambiguous. However, a later colposcopic exam of the anus showed multiple angulations, suggestive of repealed anal penetration, but also occurring frequently in children without a history of anal penetration. A thorough psychiatric evaluation of this family concluded that there was evidence of parental alienation syndrome and did not substantiate the likelihood of sexual abuse.

M was referred to an experienced female child therapist. M subsequently revealed in more detail that the father had poked her in the anus with his finger an several occasions when he was in his bedroom at the grandparents' home. However, M gave a different description on re-evaluation with the original evaluator. She had no signs of sexualized behavior and in all other ways her development was progressing normally. She seemed acutely aware of her mother's dislike of her father. It was concluded that this case represented parental alienation syndrome.

Case #4

C was a sixteen year old girl, D a twelve year old boy, and E a nine year old girl at the time of the evaluation which occurred a year and a half after the marital separation. All three children were refusing to have any contact with their father and had not seen him for over a year at the time of the evaluation.

Prior to the separation. the children spent extensive time with other caretakers because of their parents' strenuous work schedules. There was evidence of poor supervision and lack of involvement by both parents during that time. However, all three children had been very attached to their father by all reports. The father initiated the separation after sixteen years of marriage because he had become involved with a woman with whom he worked. The mother was distraught over the separation and experienced a brief episode of psychotic depression characterized by delusions, memory loss, and disorientation. She then precipitously moved the children to another town several hours from the father. The children saw their father for several months after the separation on brief visits. However, when it became apparent that he would not return to the household and was seeing the woman with whom he had become involved, all three children eventually refused to have contact with him.

The mother seemed unable to differentiate the father's unwillingness to continue their relationship from his desire to continue to parent the children. She repeatedly referred to her husband's “abandonment of the family” and had conducted a “burial ceremony” during which she and the children symbolically buried the father so that the “new family,” which did not include the father, could move forward.

After repeatedly being frustrated in his attempt to make contact with the children, the father initiated an evaluation through Family Court. At the time of the evaluation, D had gained 80 pounds since the separation and was now 100% over his optimal weight. The mother explained the children's decision to have no contact with their father as resulting from their being in Catholic schools and therefore intolerant of the idea of divorce. She contended that she had encouraged the children to see their father but to no avail. However, information from neighbors and letters written by her to the father strongly suggested that she was motivated to sever the children's contact with the father and quite vociferous regarding her animosity towards him in their presence.

Psychological testing suggested that the father relied on denial for dealing with conflict, was somewhat oversensitive in interpersonal relationships, but otherwise outgoing and sociable. There was also the suggestion of some narcissism in his dealings with others. The mother's psychological testing was invalidated by considerable defensiveness characteristic of individuals who deny psychological problems, are unsophisticated psychologically, and who claim excessive virtue. The testing also suggested that she was apt to be inflexible, unrealistic. and very needful of being seen by others in a positive light.

The evaluation concluded that it was the mother's inability to differentiate her own needs from those of the children that had led to the children's alienation from their father. The evaluator recommended that the custody of D and E be immediately and temporarily changed to the father for two months while the mother sought therapy for herself and C. However, the court denied that recommendation but did order visitations to begin immediately for all three children. Only after several months delay did the children begin therapy and brief visits with their father. Following several more months of therapy and contact with the father only during the therapy sessions, D asked to stay over night with his father. The mother reacted with rage, as though D had betrayed her. However, with the support of his counselor and father, 13 was able to follow through on his wish to spend alternate weekends with his father. C, however, continued to refuse to have any contact with her father and E continued to have only brief daytime visits on alternate weekends. The mother found her son's proactive relationship with his father intolerable and within nine months sent him to live with the father claiming D had become abusive and unmanageable.

RESULTS

In fourteen of the sixteen cases in this study, the mother had primary custody and was the alienating parent. In one case, the non-custodial mother was the alienating parent and in one case, the non-custodial father was the alienating parent.

There were a total of 26 children (14 girls and 12 boys) in these 16 families and 21 of the 26 children appeared to be involved in the alienation dynamic with a parent. Twelve of the alienated children were female and nine were male.

The length of the marriage prior to final separation was tabulated. In two of the cases, there was no marriage and in three more cases the marriages lasted less than six months. One marriage ended after four years, six had survived between five and ten years, and four had lasted between eleven and fifteen years.

The ages of the alienated children at the time of parental separation ranged from in utero (four cases) to fourteen years of age and appeared evenly distributed across age brackets.

The cases were analyzed to determine the approximate amount of time between the separation and the onset of alienation, as determined by the clinician retrospectively. In five of the cases, onset appeared to be coincident with the separation. In two of the cases, alienation appeared within six months after separation. In four more cases, the alienation became apparent from one to two years after separation. In the final four cases, the alienation occurred between three and six years after separation.

In looking at interventions to deal with the alienation from a parent, a wide range of both legal and clinical processes were identified. In three of the cases, a change of custody away from the alienating parent or a strict limitation of that parent's contact with the child(ren) was implemented by the court system. In all three cases, this was successful in eradicating the alienation. There were no cases in which a change of custody occurred but the alienation continued. In the other thirteen cases, various interventions were tried, ranging from therapy for each of the parents individually, therapy for the parents together, therapy for the children with the alienated parent, therapy fur the children with the alienating parent, and the assignment of a Guardian Ad Litem to the case. In two of these cases, the children were evaluated as having experienced “some” or “minimal” improvement in their relationship with the alienated parent. In the other eleven cases, there was no improvement and in two of these cases, the alienation was evaluated as “worse” after these interventions.

DISCUSSION

These cases exemplify the wide diversity and complex nature of the “parental alienation syndrome” as it is played out in parental access disputes. In contrast to Gardner's (1985, 1987, 1992) anecdotal description of cases, this study attempted to analyze the salient characteristics of selected cases meeting Gardner's criteria for parental alienation. These cases suggest that the syndrome can occur without reference to the length of the relationship prior to separation, can occur immediately following separation, or not until many years after the divorce. It can occur in very young children as well as with teens who have previously enjoyed a lengthy and positive post-divorce relationship with the alienated parent. It can involve all children in the family constellation or only one of the children. The alienating parent is most often the custodial mother but alienation by non-custodial fathers or mothers was also observed.

Then was a wide range in the severity of symptoms of PAS. It may be true that some elements of PAS are present to some degree in a majority of divorcing families. Our findings are consistent with those of Johnston et al. (1989) in that all of our cases were entrenched in intense post-divorce conflicts. As such they may represent a severe form of a psychological response common in the children of divorcing parents and may not deserve to be classified as a distinct syndrome,

Jacobs (1988) and Wallerstein (1985) refer to narcissistic injury as the motivating force for the alienating parent. Jacobs (1988) also suggests a form of “sibling rivalry” between the divorcing parents for the control and love of the child and Wallerstein (1985) suggests a pathological dependence of a parent on the child to protect against feelings of loss as another underlying dynamic. This is supported by the observations in this study that all of the alienating parents experience intense dysphoric feelings which they blamed on their former spouses. Predominantly the alienating parents experienced intense narcissistic injuries. However, issues of “sibling rivalry” and pathological defense against feelings of loss were also present in at least some of the alienating parents. In some cases, more than one motivating factor appeared to be involved. It should be underscored, however, that these motivations are often strikingly out of the consciousness of the alienating parent, many of whom were adept at coloring their motivations and behaviors in socially acceptable ways to themselves as well as to professionals.

Contrary to what might easily be assumed by professionals, this study suggests that PAS does not necessarily signify dysfunction in either the alienated parent or in the relationship between that parent and child. PAS appears to be primarily a Function of the pathology of the alienating parent and that parent's relationship with the children. Children are apt to be susceptible to alienation when they perceive that the alienating parent's emotional survival or the survival of their relationship with the alienating parent is dependent upon the child's rejection of the other parent. This is consistent with the finding of Johnston et al. (1987) in which they noted a tendency for children to be protective toward a fragile parent when the parents were entrenched in disputes over custody and access.

Efforts to evaluate these issues based on complaints by the child or one parent are generally fruitless. Assessment of the entire family dynamics, with an awareness of Gardner's descriptions of parental alienation, appears useful in understanding these complaints and differentiating them from alienation resulting from cases of abuse or other deficits in the alienated parent and his/her relationship with the children.

This study also suggests that traditional therapies and interventions are not successful in rehabilitating children affected by this syndrome. Although the courts have been reluctant to take drastic action, especially when this is contrary to a child's explicit wishes, in this study only a change in custody to tile alienated parent was successful in remedying tile alienation. It should be noted, however, that in two of the cases in this study in which the court was willing to take this step, and one case hi which a change of custody occurred voluntarily, the children eventually had little contact with the alienating parent. This suggests that the PAS dynamic may be so toxic that a relationship with both parents may not be possible, or in the child's best interests, in cases of severe alienation. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits and the identification of a parental alienation syndrome is not sufficient, in and of itself, to justify changes in custody. Full evaluation of a child's situation and relative parental strengths and weaknesses may identify instances when it is in the best interest of tile child to remain with the alienating parent and to have little or no contact with the alienated parent in order to reduce the effects of continued conflict on the child.

Although the “parental alienation syndrome” was only first described in 1985 (Gardner, 1985), the question arises as to whether PAS has always been evident in the divorcing population, but unrecognized, or whether it is a recent phenomenon, perhaps increasing in prevalence. Although this study did not address this question, it is possible that both may be true. With social changes creating parity between parents in the eyes of the court, a mother's traditional role with her children may be undermined. This may be perceived by the mother as a considerable psychological threat which can only be dealt with by developing a pathological alliance with the child.

Professionals who work with the divorcing population, either as therapists, or evaluators, need to be aware of the symptoms of PAS and the difficulties that these cases present for the families and for the court system. A failure to appropriately identify and intervene in the early stages of these cases may result in the alienating parent being given professional support for his/her position, reinforcing the child's need to maintain or expand complaints about the alienated parent. This has the capacity to more firmly entrench the syndrome and to enhance the severity of the dynamics.

Further study is necessary to assess the prevalence, the range of severity, the effect on development, and the longterm outcome for children who remain alienated from one of their parents. As this study suggests, very little is known about what interventions would allow a child to have functional relationships with both parents in such highly polarized cases. It is the obvious hope that this study would prompt others to systematically evaluate series of cases, perhaps clarifying the etiology and evolution of the syndrome. Moreover, larger populations of divorcing families need to be examined for the prevalence of partial or complete alienation of a child from a parent. Retrospective studies of adults who have remained alienated throughout their childhood development may also be useful in understanding this syndrome and its consequences.

REFERENCES

1. Fidler, B.J., Ph.D., & E.B. Saunders, Ed D. (1988). Children's adjustment during custody/access disputes: Relation to custody arrangements, gender and age of child. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 33(6), 517-523.

2. Gardner, R.A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation. Academy Forum, 29 (2), 3-7.

3. Gardner, R.A. (1987). The parental alienation syndrome and the differentiation between fabricated and genuine sexual abuse. Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J.

4. Heatherington, M., M. Stanley-Hagan. & E.R. Anderson (1989). Marital transitions: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 44(2), 303-312

5. Jacobs, J.E., M.D. (1988). Euripides medea: A psychodynamic model of severe divorce pathology. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 42(2), 308-319.

6. Johnston, J.R., R. Gonzales, & L.G. Campbell. (1987). Ongoing post divorce conflict and child disturbance. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15(4), 493-509.

7. Johnston, J.R., M. Kline, & J.M. Tschann. (1989). Ongoing divorce conflict: : Effects on children of joint custody and frequent access. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59 (4), 576-592.

8. Kalter, N., Ph.D. (1989). Long-term effects of divorce on children: A developmental vulnerability model. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57 (4), 587-600.

9. Oppenheimer, K., Ph.D., R.J. Primz, Ph.D., & B.S. Bella. (1990). Determinant of adjustment for children of divorcing parents. Family Medicine, 22(2), 107-111.

10. Pearson, J. & N. Thoennes. (1990). Custody after divorce: Demographic and attitudinal patterns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60 (2), 233-249.

11. Wallerstein, J.S., Ph.D. (1984). Children of divorce: Preliminary report of a ten year follow-up of young children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(3), 444-458.

12. Wallerstein, J.S., Ph.D. (1985). Children of divorce: Emerging trends. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 8 (4), 837-873.

13. Zaslow. M.J., Ph.D. (1988). Sex differences in children's response to parental divorce: Research methodology and post-divorce family forums. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58 (3), 355-378.

AUTHORS

John Dunne, MD, is a psychiatrist in private practice in the Seattle area specializing in the evaluation and treatment of parents and children. Marsha Hedrick is a clinical psychologist in private practice in Seattle specializing in forensic evaluations of adults and children.

The authors wish to thank Janis P. Mayberry, PhD, for her assistance in analyzing cases contributed by her for this study. The editor wishes to acknowledge Dr. Richard Gardner's review of this manuscript.

Address correspondence to: 216 1st Avenue South #333, Seattle, WA 98104.

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol. 2(3/4) 1994 by the Haworth Press Inc. All rights reserved.

";"ABSTRACT.

This study analyzed sixteen cases which appeared to meet Dr. Richard Gardner's criteria for parental alienation syndrome as set forth in his 1987 book. These cases showed a wide diversity of characteristics but Gardner's criteria"; "15";"pas";"Alienation Revisited - “Difficult Clients: Profiles and Programs“";"Third National Family Court Conference, Melbourne";"1998-10-21";"Paul Lodge";;"SYNOPSIS.

A child’s attachment to a parent is a naturally occurring process that has evolved to meet the basic human needs of the child including survival and developmental needs. Unsurprisingly it is remarkably resistant to parental inadequacies and intrusions. Despite the robust nature of the attachment process, a mounting body of evidence suggests that when one parent enlists a child in battle against the other parent the attachment process can be reversed - at considerable cost to the child. This process, first identified by Gardner in 1985, is commonly described as “parental alienation” or in severe cases “Parental Alienation Syndrome”.(1)

Unlike attachment theory, which is underpinned by a forty year history of systematic research, (Ainsworth et al) the organised study of parental alienation is comparatively new and controversial.

Nevertheless the notion of alienation is a pervasive presence in counselling rooms and court rooms and, in it’s severest manifestations, often defies the best efforts and intentions of both.

It is therefore relevant and arguably imperative that the phenomena receives our concentrated attention as a field of study. Consideration might also be given to the development of programmes and interventions that specifically address it’s many and various manifestations in the Family Court.

THEORY AND DEFINITION.