Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.118.97.26 (talk) at 16:00, 19 January 2017 (→The US Section: drp-v-pmpp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Psychology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Edit request on 27 February 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PAS is a syndrome. NOT a disorder or mental illness. Furthermore PAS is mistakenly Interpreted, intentionally misstated and incorrectly defined as one parent v. another parent. In reality, PAS referrs to the child or children who are victims of high conflict parents. PAS is a syndrome relating to emotionally and psychologically damaged children. The resulting PAS is actually blaming high conflict parents for years of emotional damage that kids experience. Kids who are helpless. This is NOT about men and women. This is about children and the effect men and women have on children who put hate and aggression of an ex spouse before the emotional needs of the couple's kid (s). As usual, men and women argue about PAS as if it is a syndrome used to label themselves as victims when this is about kids being victims. PAS most certainly is misleading as children aren't writing on wikipedia or practicing psychology and law yet. If you want to prove it is or is not real. Talk to kids. Ask them. NOT a council of judges as they are not alienated children. None of us are. Some of us were. Some of us have children who are, have friends with children who are. Please be true to our kids and welcome this problem as an issue which brings men and women together. PAS is a sign of psychological and emotioal child abuse. Men are just as guilty as women and this is not about gender, race, geography, politics, or adults lawyers and judges. It is about kids. The sentence

"The United States National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges rejected PAS, recommending it not be used for the consideration of child custody issues"

should be changed into

"A publication of the United States National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges that expresses points of view of the authors and do not represent official position nor policies, rejected PAS recommending it not be used for the consideration of child custody issues"

Indeed this is the original document

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/sites/documents/0000/0081/NCFCJ_guidebook_final_2006.pdf

and the disclaimer at page 2 says

"Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

AnnSec (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: There is no disclaimer about NCFCJ. This appears to express their view. Celestra (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New source

• January, 2012

http://psychologistswithnogod.com/

PAS recognized by the Italian Society of Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry

source Please update the article accordingly, I don't consider myself capable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by It.wiki:Twilight (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, sources need to be in English, so everybody can understand what they say... Lova Falk talk 19:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true : it is preferred to have an english source if it exists, but it does not mean that non-english source are not valid. see WP:NOENG. Bzhb (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The source, which is the society formal guidelines on child abuse, states (my translation) on paragraph 3.3: "A further form of psychological abuse may consist of the alienation of a parental figure by the other until co-construction in the child of a "Parental Alienation Syndrome"(Gardner, 1984).". Furthermore, PAS is cited in quite a few other parts of the document. --Twilight 20:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I'm sorry, didn't know this. Anyway, I still can't help you perche posso solo molto poco italiano. Also, I don't quite understand your translation "the alienation of a parental figure by the other until co-construction in the child". Lova Falk talk 07:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Is it relevant that the Italian Misplaced Pages has included in the article about PAS the fact that it is recognized by the Italian Society of Child and Adolescent Neuropsychiatry as a form of psycological abuse? ( http://it.wikipedia.org/Sindrome_da_alienazione_genitoriale). Anyway, I think that the guidelines of a scientific society don’t need to describe in detail a syndrome that the professional readers are supposed to know already. I’me not a Psychiatrist, but I suppose that co-costruzione (translated “co-construction”) may mean that the development of the Parental Alienation Syndrome actively involves both the child and the alienating parent together , on the grounds of . the "independent-thinker phenomenon”. I hope that I could make myself understood in my english and that my contribution can be of some help for you. --62peppe (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, unless we find an Italian-English editor with a good understanding of psychology, it is not possible to add good text with this source. Lova Falk talk 12:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Later" work by Gardner and PAS that was releases in peer reviewed scientific journals? Where?

This line needs a source or examples of Gardner's work supporting his PAS that was published and peer reviewed "The initial work was self-published by Gardner, but later papers were released in peer reviewed scientific journals" I believe this statement to be false. If appropriate documentation is not provided, it should be deleted. Kristijrn (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement is true. While a this point there are in fact too many articles in peer-reviewed medical and legal literature to list here, I will provide a few examples and revise the article as requested as time allows. Please note that I am not maintaining any argument about the quality or validity of the research listed below. I am just saying it exists.

"Parental Alienation Syndrome". Psikiyatride Guncel Yaklasimlar - Current Approaches in Psychiatry. Year: 2011, Volume: 3, Issue: 3

"The Parental Alienation Syndrome:An Analysis of Sixteen Selected Cases". John E. Dunne MD & Marsha Hedricka. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. Volume 21, Issue 3-4, 1994.

"Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome". Glenn F. Cartwright. The American Journal of Family Therapy. Volume 21, Issue 3, 1993

"Understanding and collaboratively treating Parental Alienation Syndrome". Waldron, K. H., & Joanes, D. E. American Journal of Family Law, 10(3), 121–133. (1996).

"Assessing for alienation in child custody and access evaluations". Williams, Justice R. J. Family Court Review, 39(3), 267–281. (2001).

The self-published work by Gardner came from a company called Creative Therapeutics. Jaydubya93 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

The page should not have been closed to editing without prior (competent) proofreading. There is a missing indefinite article in the very first sentence, which is certainly not a promising sign – and indeed, the article subsequently proves to abound with errors. Here below, I list just some of these errors, along with suggested corrections. Note that I have assumed (somewhat hastily, as it turns out) that British punctuation and spelling should prevail, as it already does in parts. However, given that Gardner is American, it seems reasonable (given Misplaced Pages's thoroughly crazy policy regarding varieties of English spelling, punctuation and grammar) that American rules should apply instead – assuming one can find somebody who knows them.

Here are the errors and suggested corrections (bearing in mind the readily changeable choice between British and American spelling/punctuation/grammar):

has a missing comma after "panel" (the comma is NOT optional here);

should be either or (perhaps the second option is preferable);

should be preceded by a comma;

should be (I know this rule has fallen out of fashion, but it remains the correct form);

should be or (as the use of "their" to designate a singular subject is just plain wrong);

should be changed to He also states, in the same article, that the indoctrination may be deliberate or unconscious on the part of the alienating parent.] (with slight but important changes in punctuation if rendered in American English);

would be better rendered as (to avoid excessive repetition of the subject);

should be (the term "alienator" seems to be a neologism, and might be better replaced with "alienating parent");

would be better rendered as (while "that" is technically optional here, its absence gives rise to a fleeting ambiguity);

should be ;

should be (once again to avoid repeating the subject unnecessarily and annoyingly);

should be (to introduce a list of items separated by semi-colons);

should be or or ;

should be if British spelling is chosen;

should be (with added comma and correction of wording);

should be if British rules of punctuation are chosen;

should be (as the tense should be consistent throughout; of course, if the past tense is chosen, then that, instead, should apply throughout; the thing to avoid is the unjustified/unexplained skipping backwards and forwards that we see at various points in this article);

should be (for the same reason);

should be ;

should be ;

would be better rendered as ;

should be (note that "remediate", although found in good dictionaries as an archaic adjective, does not seem to be a widely accepted verb, at least as far as dictionary-compilers are concerned; hence my suggested alternative, "repair", which has essentially the same meaning);

should be or [Gardner's recommendation is that];

should be (this alternative to "criticised" is more international, and is a valid option also in British English);

should be ;

should be if British spelling is chosen;

and so on.

At this point, I give up. It would have taken about a tenth of the time to make the edits directly. I wish that Misplaced Pages would review its policy regarding the locking of pages that are clearly not ready to be locked. Do registered editors see an "Edit" tab that normal readers don't see? If so, I may finally have a strong incentive to sign up. If not, I see little hope of ever making Misplaced Pages a trusted and respected encyclopaedia, given that it appears to have no (or perhaps very few) competent proofreaders to clean up locked articles. Robots can do only so much, and while many senior editors may have general competence regarding the consistent structuring and logic of Wiki pages, very few (if evidence is any kind of guide) have a thorough grasp of the rules, let alone the subtleties, of English grammar and semantics.

All this notwithstanding, I have high hopes for Misplaced Pages, and I shall continue to make my own small contribution as and when I can.

Finally, the well-intentioned correction suggested on 27 February 2012 is, alas, not a good one, as it includes mid-sentence changes of mood and tense that render it very nearly incomprehensible. Worse still, the PDF document cited as the original source is no longer available via the URL provided. If I had more time, and more enthusiasm, I would offer an alternative formulation, but I have already wasted too much time commenting on corrections that certainly need to be made, yet which could so easily and quickly have been made directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.147.2.49 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME AS A FORM OF CHILD ABUSE It is the greatest child kidnapping process that ever happened in the history of mankind and it is occurring with the help of the legal system. More than 50-60% of fathers do not see their children after divorce because of the “Inquisition Court Against Men” or commonly known as the “Family Court”. Only now with more shared custody cases more and more women suffer from Parental Alienation and this group is pushing for legitimization of this troubling phenomenon. This is not a male female issue but the issue of the person who has the physical custody who is able to inflict psychological scares on their children by psychologically wiping off the other parent.

It is important for examiners to appreciate that a parent who inculcates a PAS in a child is indeed perpetrating a form of emotional abuse in that such programming may not only produce lifelong alienation from a loving parent, but lifelong psychiatric disturbance in the child. A parent who systematically programs a child into a state of ongoing denigration and rejection of a loving and devoted parent is exhibiting complete disregard of the alienated parent's role in the child's upbringing. Such an alienating parent is bringing about a disruption of a psychological bond that could, in the vast majority of cases, prove of great value to the child--the separated and divorced status of the parents notwithstanding. Such alienating parents exhibit a serious parenting deficit, a deficit that should be given serious consideration by courts when deciding primary custodial status. Physical and/or sexual abuse of a child would quickly be viewed by the court as a reason for assigning primary custody to the nonabusing parent. Emotional abuse is much more difficult to assess objectively, especially because many forms of emotional abuse are subtle and difficult to verify in a court of law. The PAS, however, is most often readily identified, and courts would do well to consider its presence a manifestation of emotional abuse by the programming parent.

One of the serious phenomenons occurring during divorce is parental alienation. The primary person responsible for the induction of a parental alienation syndrome (PAS) in a child is the litigating parent who hopes to gain leverage in a court of law by programming in the child a campaign of denigration directed against a target parent. In most cases alienated parents are relatively helpless to protect themselves from the indoctrinations and the destruction of what was once a good, loving bond. They turn to the courts for help and, in most cases in my experience, have suffered even greater frustration and despair because of the court’s failure to meaningfully provide them with assistance. Indoctrinating a parental alienation syndrome into a child is a form of emotional abuse because such programming results in the attenuation and even destruction of the child’s bond with a good, loving parent.

In PAS, the affection of the alienating parent is conditioned on the PAS child’s compliance with the programmed campaign of denigration and, in many cases, the ability to provide additional "ammunition" against the target parent. As mentioned, the PAS child’s love for the programmer has less to do with affection than fear of rejection if the child does not join in with the programmer against the alienated parent. Sources: http://psychologistswithnogod.com/fatherlessmotherless-nation-and-the-family-courts.aspx http://psychologistswithnogod.com/definition-of-the-parental-alienation-syndrome.aspx 75.97.224.86 (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Sometimes protection is necessary to prevent disruption, disregarding the quality of the article at the time. Since the article was protected four years ago I've asked the user who protected it if they have an objection to the protection being lowered, which would allow you to make the edits yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. It would help if you would express the change you want to make in a "please change X to Y" manner; it is difficult to tell where you would like this text inserted or what text in the article it is intended to replace. That is somewhat moot since much of the text is not encyclopedic and needs to be re-written in a more neutral tone to become part of the encyclopedia. Also, the two sources you mention are to a site which appears to be self-published. References on the facts there should be attributed to the author and may quicky run into a problem of undue weight. Thanks again and please let me know if I can help you shape this up and get it into the article. Regards, Celestra (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I oppose the introduction of this material. I can't imagine that any serious WP editor would consider wwww.psychologistswithnogod.com to be any sort of reliable source, and the polemic nature of the proposed material is also thoroughly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Slp1 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've struck my comment, I was referring to the section above (I thought it was the same user who had just placed the request template halfway through their reequest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem, Callanecc, that makes total sense.Slp1 (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Kay

I removed this paragraph and the accompanying sentence in the lead. The claim that PAS is covered in the DSM under "parental-child-relational problem" is sourced to an opinion piece by columnist Barbara Kaye and an activist organization. This content was removed once before but was restored without prior discussion. Kay's claim that PAS is covered in the DSM is contradicted by the American Psychitaric Association: Disorders Not Accepted for Sections 2 or 3 ... Parental alienation syndrome. In addition, the definition of PAS and parental-child-relational problem are very different. Please do not restore Kay's claims again without going through the Reliable sourced noticeboard first and ascertaining that Kay is a reliable source for this claim. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Brazil section

The section about the Brazilian law that criminalizes parental alienation should be removed because PAS and parental alienation are related but separate concepts. The law applies to parental alienation; the legal text clearly differentiates between PAS and PA ("Neste ponto, faz-se necessário a diferenciação entre Alienação Parental (AP) e Síndrome da Alienação Parental (SAP).") I removed the paragraph, but it was restored with the claim that the law refers to PAS. The law mentions the PAS but only to draw a distinction between PAS and PA. The second source states that PAS is not the object of the law: "Por ser patologia, a síndrome da alienação parental não é o objeto do presente artigo, vez que a abordagem aqui apresentada é jurídica." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The law clearly referred to and warned about the development of PAS (via Google Translate):

7 FINAL

The consequences generated by the imposition of particular interest to parents over the interests of children are deep, such as the development of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. We stress the importance of family as structuring power for good training, intellectual and psychic children and adolescents, especially in demonstrating that the fundamental rights inherent to these must be respected regardless of the form in which they present their family, taking into the large number of separations and divorces.

Why the rush to delete relevant content?

Here is a compromise if you are sensitive to the word "syndrome" -- simply move the content to the parental alienation article. Memills (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The law refers to PAS only insofar as to distinguish it from PA and clarify that PAS isn't the object of the law. There is no denying that the first source doesn't even mention PAS and the second source states that the law isn't about PAS. Thus, your reinsertion of the paragraph was unconstructive. As for the matter of a possible topic ban violation, I'll ask an uninvolved admin if your topic ban applies to this page. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The US Section

I really do not want to wade into some big back-and-forth about the men's rights movement, or whatever it calls itself.

I came across this page reviewing another subject, and noticed the discussion on whether PAS is admissible in courts in the united states. The sections reads very oddly to a lawyer -- I've practiced for 12 years, and the last time I heard of someone analyzing a dozen cases and saying "but they aren't precedential" was in law school. It's the kind of thing a law student would say; it makes no sense, really.

Looking at the journal article itself, the author is this person: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/david-p-hoult-v-jennifer-hoult Apparently Ms. Hoult was one of the original repressed memory child-molestation plaintiffs. This is a theory that is now, of course, utterly discredited in the psychological and legal communities. In any event, Ms. Hoult, who was a party to several cases in which the issue was whether her recovered memories of child molestation might be false. Ms. Hoult is one of the only lawyers who continues to advocate for the theory, and at this point may be the only one. It's also the remaining basis of her legal practice.

This is as far from a "reliable source" as its possible for something to be. I suggest either noting the controversy, or just taking out the claim in the "United States" section about legal admissibility.

Djcheburashka (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

DRP v. MPP, 484 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016), and the cases cited therein, discuss "undermining the authority" of the other parent as valid grounds for findings of contempt of lawful custody orders consistent with Missouri's stated public policy of children knowing both their parents. While this does not use the PAS terminology, it is an example of the PA gist getting recognized by a U.S. precedent. 65.118.97.26 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Start-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages