There is a very considerable and
increasing public and political concern regarding the secrecy of the Family
Courts in child protection hearings and it is hoped that by opening up such
proceedings to public view that it will expose the injustices and unfairness
which prevails in many of such proceedings. Parents report that they are at a
serious disadvantage in such proceedings when faced with the financial and
legal might of a local authority and they often do not qualify for legal aid
or are advised by their own legal advisers merely to consent to the making of
Care Orders in the hope that the local authority will return their children in
a reasonable period of time – this does not happen of course and their
children are permanently lost to forced adoption or the vicissitudes of State
Care. Some parents claim, with reasonable evidence to support such claims,
that the evidence presented against them is often distorted, embellished, and
even fabricated by medical and social work witnesses and evidence which would
exonerate or exculpate them is withheld or disregarded. Cases which have made
headlines in the media in recent years and months appear to support their
contentions.
But will opening up the Family
Courts, per se’, lead to improved justice and fairness for parents?. It is a
step in the right direction but a great deal more needs to be done to create a
legal process which gives equality to parents facing abuse allegations to
defend themselves. Not least that an adversarial legal arena does not
necessarily examine the full range of evidence and the outcomes of such
contests often depend more on the quality of legal representation than on the
truth or otherwise of the evidence presented to the Courts. What is claimed to
be “In the best interests of the child” is often no more than the opinions of
social workers based, not on what is measurably and demonstrably to the
benefit and advantage of the child, but on little more than fanciful
speculation and misguided dogma regarding substitute care of children and an
amour propre’ for `Permanency Planning’.
One area of the Family Courts’
work which will be unlikely to be opened up to public and political scrutiny
are cases of dispute over child custody and contact after parental separation
and yet there are many similar injustices and unfairness occurring with
disturbingly regular frequency in such proceedings. Such injustices are
occurring when children disclose or report to the parent with custody that
they have suffered abuse by the other parent during contact visits and the
child(ren) refuses to attend further contact visits. The non-custodial parent
then takes the matter back to Court to obtain additional contact and even
residency of the child(ren) and claims that the custodial parent has `coached’
or `indoctrinated’ the child into making the abuse allegations. Often the
abuse allegations have been reported to the child protection agencies but in
some instances they have refused to investigate as they suggest it is a matter
for the Family Court to decide, or they carry out only a cursory investigation
and suggest that the custodial parent is suffering from `Parental Alienation
Syndrome’ or at least some of the symptoms of this mythical disorder which has
been completely discredited in professional and legal circles.
The term Parental Alienation
Syndrome [PAS] was created by Dr. Richard Gardner, an American psychologist,
in 1985 and was based on his observations of disputed child custody cases
that involved allegations of child sexual and/or physical abuse and an
inventory he had previously created and which he termed Sexual Abuse
Legitimacy Scale –SALS]
PAS, claimed Gardner, was a
mechanism used by a parent, usually the mother, in a child custody dispute
where the parent with residency alleges that the child has reported/disclosed
to the residency parent that s/he has been subjected to a form of abuse by the
non-residency parent. . In this way, it was claimed that mothers gained
advantages in custody litigation. The accused non-residency parent seeks to
rebut this allegation with a counter allegation that the child has been
indoctrinated/ coached/ brainwashed by the residency parent into making such
allegations in order to `alienate’ the child towards the non-residency
parent. The PAS theory then supports a remedy of placing the child with their
alleged abuser and curtailing or severing completely their visitation contact
with the former residency parent. In effect a Perverse Reversal of Child
Custody. [PRoCC].
The American Prosecutors
Research Institute stated in 2003 that,
‘PAS is based primarily upon two
notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical research.’’
PAS has never been put forward
for verification and validation and is not included in DSMIV, the diagnostic
and statistical manual of the American Psychiatric Association [APA] and does
not therefore qualify nor be deemed to be a mental disorder, there is no body
of knowledge to support its existence, and it is therefore outside of the
expertise of psychiatrists and psychologists.
This is further testified to by
Dr. Paul J.Fink a past President of the APA and President of the Leadership
Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media who has stated that,
“PAS as a scientific theory has
been excoriated by legitimate researchers across the nation. Judged solely on
its merits, Dr. Gardner should be a pathetic footnote of psychiatry, or an
example of poor scientific standards.” (cited in Bruch 2002).
Richard Ducote an attorney at
law in New Orleans stated in 2003 of Gardner and his PAS theory that,
“PAS is a bogus,
pro-paedophiliac fraud concocted by Richard Gardner. I was the last attorney
to cross-examine Gardner in Patterson New Jersey. …He has not been court
appointed to do anything for decades. The only two appellate courts in the
country who have considered the question of whether PAS meets the Frye test
i.e. whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community, said it
does not. Gardner and his theory have done untold damage to sexually and
physically abused children and their protective parents. PAS has been rejected
by every reputable organisation considering it. In a Florida case in which I
was recently involved, when the Judge insisted on a Frye Hearing, Gardner
simply did not show up. Perhaps because of this he finally realised that the
entire nation was on to his scam, he committed suicide on May 25. Lets pray
that his ridiculous, dangerous PAS foolishness died with him.”
Yet this discredited theory or
its thinly-disguised elements are still being used in Family Courts in the
U.K. and in Australia, and is being accepted by some members of the judiciary,
and children are being placed with parents against whom they have made
reports/disclosures of abuse without such reports having been thoroughly and
competently investigated. There are even cases where the abuse has been shown
to have occurred following a child protection investigation and yet the
child(ren) have still been placed with the abusive parent.
An example of this is the case
of a young mother who suffered extreme and frequent abuse from her husband
throughout the five years of their marriage and stayed with him in the hope he
would change and the marriage could be rescued, and despite social workers
trying on several occasions to persuade her to leave him. After she finally
decided to terminate the marriage, she suffered physical and mental ill health
and agreed for her children to be looked after by the local authority on a
voluntary basis whilst she recovered. However when she recovered from her ill
health and sought the return of her children, the local authority refused to
return them and sought Care Orders on the children, alleging she was likely to
cause them harm. Her legal advisers deserted her and her legal aid was
withdrawn and she was left to act as a litigant in person with no legal
knowledge or experience. The Official Solicitor was requested to act in the
case but merely consented to the Care Orders and so Care Orders were made to
the local authority by `default’. The children were placed in the care of the
abusive father by the local authority with the Court’s agreement and the
mother has since been denied any direct contact and has even been actively
prevented from participating in any decision-making processes regarding the
children’s care and welfare. The Official Solicitor later apologised for his
conduct in the proceedings but the children remain in the care of their father
and any form of direct contact with their mother has been refused.
In another case a young woman
gave birth to an illegitimate child after a very brief relationship with a
wealthy professional man. She cared for and looked after her child for several
years and the putative father was granted visitation contact. However as the
child grew older he began to make reports and disclosures to his mother and to
several health professionals which suggested that he was being sexually abused
on these contact visits and he became extremely distressed and refused to
attend such visits. The child protection authorities refused to investigate
the allegations but were intent upon removing the child from the mother on the
basis of alleged PAS but with no evidence to support such an opinion. The
putative father brought legal action seeking a residency order and the claims
that the mother was indoctrinating her four year old child were supported by a
CAFCASS worker and the father was awarded custody of the child. The mother now
has only sporadic contact with her child and he continues to make allegations
of abuse to the mother and to his teachers and the child protection
authorities continue to refuse to investigate because they unquestioningly
accept the views of the original social workers.
Such cases of perverse reversal
of child custody are increasing in the U.K. and Australia although they are in
rapid decline in the U.S.A. after the exposure of PAS as a fraudulent and
unsound theory.
It is difficult to comprehend
how children can be placed in the care and custody of a parent against whom
they have made an allegation of abuse without a full and thorough
investigation of those allegations and merely an assumption that the
child(ren) is lying and has been `coached’ into making such allegations,
despite research evidence that such false allegations by children are
extremely rare.
In other cases of custody and
contact where children have been suffering serious ill health or disabilities,
counter allegations have been made that the mother is suffering from
Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy and has fabricated or induced the child’s illness
or disability, which has similarly been discredited as having neither validity
nor utility in child protection matters and not to exist as a medico-legal
entity.
Ending the secrecy of the Family
Courts will undoubtedly bring some improvements but much more needs to be done
before full confidence can be brought to a system which has lost so much
public confidence and trust and is continually and repetitively making such
serious errors. Not least must be a re-examination of the presumption that
parents should have an equal right to the custody of the child(ren) or contact
even though the parent may not have taken any interest whatsoever in the child
during the marriage and may be using this `right’ simply as a weapon of
attrition against the custodial parent or wishes to continue their abusive and
persecutory behaviour towards the child and/or the other parent.
ByCharles
Pragnell
November 13, 2006
Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care
Expert Witness – Child Protection
and Social Care Consultant
and Child/Family Advocate..
Please read...
Family Law and the Dire consequences for Children
Petition answered with Spin and Sophism
The Silence of the Media Lambs!
Doctors in a Dilemma
Are you an `Appropriate’ person?
Childrens Plan
State Terrorism
The Seriously Unhealthy State of Paediatrics
RAD – the Return of a Nightmare
Persecution of Children and Families
Why I am Petitioning the Prime Minister
Vaccines and Child Abuse Accusations
Why did Sally Clark Suffer and Die?
Perverse Reversal of Child Custody
Child Protection in Kangaroo Courts
Fabricated and induced illness in Children
A History of Man’s Inhumanity
A System out of Control
Forced Adoption
