http://thomasjnixon.blogspot.com/

http://thomasjnixon.blogspot.com/

How Sociopathic Parents Use Police Reports for Defamation

How Sociopathic Parents Use Police Reports for Defamation

Written by: Rob  


A common problem that many parents in child custody battles experience is the malicious false police reports generated by the

nasty ex exhibiting sociopathic behaviors. Such people may suffer from a personality disorder associated with pathological lying

such as BPD or NPD, but not all people with BPD or NPD will resort to filing false police reports.

You might think that when the police investigate and find that the ex lied or can’t keep her or his story straight, that will be

the end of it. But for many target parents, that is not the case at all. Instead, the nasty ex takes those reports and uses them

as the basis for spreading defamation that looks very official and credible looking to the average naive person on the street.

With a little effort, she or he can have dozens or more people believing the lies by using the police reports to deceive and

manipulate them.

Sometimes, false police reports even get people arrested wrongly. Look at what happened to the father in the article Ben

Vonderheide Exposes Pennsylvania’s Abusive Child Profiteering Racket. He was falsely arrested and his son taken from him. Later,

his falsely accusing ex and her new boyfriend were convicted of filing false police reports in a criminal court with its far

higher evidentiary standards than family court. But he is still suffering from the damage caused by the false police reports

even years later.

More often, false police reports and the resulting “official looking” papers generated are used to defame and harass the target

parent. This is a common element in the distortion campaigns practiced by Borderlines, Narcissists, and other abusively

dishonest personalities.

What Police Reports Contain

Police reports do not have a standard format. Not only do they vary from department to department, there can even be multiple

versions of a police report for a single incident.

A typical police report contains several informational sections. These include data such as the following:

Name(s) and identifying information on alleged victim
Name(s) and identifying informaton on alleged perpetrator
Incident location
Date and time of incident
Name(s) of witnesses
Alleged crime expressed as possible charges, usually expressed in terms of legal code
Alleged victim’s description of alleged crime
Initial statements of police officers
Lists of evidence collected or seized
Interviews with witnesses
Follow-up interviews with alleged victim
Interview with alleged perpetrator
Follow-up interviews with other parties
Results of field tests
Results of lab tests
Sections 1 to 8 are found in nearly every report. Depending upon what happened, the police may never get around to creating or

adding the rest. Furthermore, it is not unusual for the police to start circulating a report without the later sections even if

they have them or are working on them. “Victim’s reports” are often reports handled out to people claiming a crime was committed

prior to investigation without any verification whatsoever of accuracy. Yet because they are on “official” paper, the average

naive Jane or Joe might actually believe they are accurate and truthful when neither is even remotely certain.

For instance, see the arrest report for Henry Gates, President Barack Obama’s professor friend who works at Harvard University.

There is no indication of follow-up investigation whatsoever. You only see the first few sections reflected on that report.

Gates comes off looking like he might be a burglar resisting arrest.

But that’s not the only version of the report circulated. See a second version of the Henry Gates police report. Now he looks

like a guy who is overly accusatory about racism and mean to cops.

Notice the differences? One has a booking record reflecting an arrest, the other has a much more extensive description of the

incident. The first was circulated by FOX News. The second was circulated by a website called A View From the Right.

Police reports don’t determine guilt. But if you didn’t already know about this case from the news and a friend of your showed

you the first report and said this man is a robber who resisted arrest, would you believe it? There isn’t anything to contradict

it, in fact it looks like it might match what your friend is saying.

Now if you got the second report, that one shows that Sergeant Crowley thinks the man lives in the house but is acting very

aggressively. If your police hating friend showed it to you after expressing an opinion, you might think it appears that Crowley

intentionally lured an upset Gates outside his home so he could arrest him for being disorderly in public. If your cop friend

showed it to you, you might think Gates is a raving nut and deserved to be arrested.

What’s the truth? Whatever it is, it certainly isn’t entirely captured in the police reports.

Various news organizations published and then hid different versions of these police reports. Others have speculated they were

trying to hide the behaviors of Gates for various reasons. When the mainstream news media with experienced reporters can’t even

keep the police reports straight, do you think you will be able to understand and detect an inaccurate or false police report?

The odds are good that you will be unable to do so.

How Sociopaths Alter Police Reports for Defamation Purposes

Police reports don’t tell the whole story, but they can be incriminating and misleading. This is exactly why sociopathic parents

like to file false police reports and then use them to defame and harass their victims.

It is a common trick for a sociopathic parent to spread around incomplete versions of police reports that omit the investigative

sections that reflect what the police found when they interviewed witnesses, collected and tested evidence, and tried to piece

together what really happened.

The first sections typically identify the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator. But they don’t say “alleged” on them. All it

takes to get a police report naming somebody as a perpetrator, offender, or some other incriminating term is to lie to the cops.

They will gladly hand a copy of the false police report on request to the false accuser, thereby providing her or him with

ammunition to attack the actual victim. Now the real perp, the sociopathic parent, has a document that has the police falsely

calling the real victim out as a perpetrator. She or he may start showing this to teachers, principals, doctors, nurses,

pastors, neighbors, family members, and more to destroy the reputation of the target parent and to incite these people to help

them attack and ruin the target parent and keep the children away.

Later sections include statements by the alleged victim. Often the police will talk with this person more than once. Sociopaths

often have trouble keeping their “facts” (really lies) straight. So if there are two or three different interviews with police,

there will likely be two or three (sometimes even more) variations of the lies with significant differences. How can they fix

this? Simple, leave out all but one version. Often it simply takes not copying the entire report to turn a complete report that

clearly looks like a nutcase’s ravings into convincing looking abridged report.

If somebody shows you a police report to try to convince you that her or his ex is a psycho abuser, be very skeptical. If you

don’t see all or nearly all the sections I mentioned above in the report, particularly repeated interviews with the alleged

victim and with other witnesses, you are probably looking at an incomplete report. You should strongly consider that the person

is trying to deceive and manipulate you. This is all the more likely if you have never spent significant time with the accused

person. Pathological liars are adept at identifying gullible people who lack sufficient insight to resist their deceit and

manipulation. Having little direct knowledge of the accused means you are likely to be gullible.

If all the sections are there, read them all and see if it makes any sense. Look for inconsistencies, particularly in the

accuser’s story. Often these people are such liars that they can’t remember what they said from day to day. Every time they tell

their victimhood story, it will be different. That’s likely because it didn’t happen like they said.

Look for motivations. Why is this person showing you the report, anyway? If it seems the person is trying to get you to take

sides, play the victim, solicit you for money to help, or otherwise get something from you, the odds are high that she or he is

trying to deceive and manipulate you.

Ultimately, if somebody was never charged with a crime, you should be extremely skeptical of the police report. Except possibly

for the well-connected, that generally means the case was so weak that the prosecutor’s office thought they would lose.

Be Somewhat Skeptical Of Convictions, Too

Sadly, in this era of government tyranny and routine violations of people’s rights, a conviction doesn’t always mean actual

guilt, either, even if the accused person “confessed” to the crime.

Prosecutors like to scare people with extreme scenarios to force them to plea-bargain so they can claim another “win” when

running for re-election without having to spend much time on the case. Go after an accused shoplifter with accusations of murder

(somebody died in the store, they must have caused it even though there are no witnesses or evidence!), trumped up threats of 50

years in prison and then offer to plea down to a 1 year sentence with full probation. Many innocent people will take that “deal”

and admit guilt or plead “no contest” even if they didn’t commit a crime because they can’t accept the risk, no matter how

slight, of spending the rest of their lives in prison, especially for a crime they didn’t commit.

If they have seen public defenders in action, they know many of them are so incompetent, lazy, or unethical that they won’t even

bother to try a serious defense against a weak prosecution case. Thus the falsely accused may believe that a conviction with

probation is way better than exhausting one’s life savings on lawyers with no reimbursement possible even if they are sure they

would be able to prove their innocence. When you consider the full implications of fighting false criminal charges via an

expensive trial, it is clear why some people plead “no contest” or “confess” to a crime they didn’t do.

Parents Who Successfully Fought Parent Alienation Syndrome 
By A. Jayne Major, Ph. D.

Nothing stirs up passions more than the controversy generated when parentsare at war over the custody of a child. A controversy is an issue where evidence on both sides can make a compelling case. It is never black and white, but when people have their emotions aroused, an issue can quickly turn into two polar opposites. Fear takes over reason, incomplete facts become evidence, and court calendars become jammed with repeat visits to a judge to try to bring sanity to what is unlikely to ever be sane. On top of this, social movements promoting one side over another clamor for justice. Politicians are lobbied to pass laws to bring order to chaos. Gender wars are fueled and lives are destroyed.

My exposure to custody wars came from the mothers and fathers attending my Breakthrough Parenting classes at The Parent Connection, Inc., an agency that I founded in Los Angeles in 1983. Many of these parents were litigating over child custody. Most said that they wanted to settle the case, but none of them would settle by giving up all access to their child, which seemed to be the only other alternative open to them. It was disturbing to see that in many of these cases, the child was behaving outrageously, to the point of cursing their parent, kicking, spitting, and calling them stupid, mean, and horrible.

What can you do when one parent is intractable and vitriolic? What can you do when the child becomes caught up in the fight and takes sides? I came to realize that this level of conflict in custody disputes was a fallout from sweeping societal changes.

instant-online-refills.com

Review & Critique of Custody Evaluation Reports The purpose of a custody evaluation is to help resolve a custody dispute by providing direction to parents about how to best meet their children's needs and interests once they divorce. Custody evaluations generally offers recommendations concerning with whom children should reside and how parents should manage responsibilities for their chidlren's care. As previously suggested, the ultimate goal is for parents to use the recommendations of the evaluation report to direct further negotiations and hopefully reach an out of court settlement. Unfortunately, this is not always possible in an increasing number of highly conflicted cases. In fact, in many of these cases, the custody evaluations become another weapon to be used adding to instead of reducing the acrimony and conflict that already exists. It is in these cases that the Court is left to make decisions for you and your children. When court involvement cannot be avoided,it is important to be aware that this too presents a very difficult challenge. Too often feel that going to court is the best option without considering its downside. It is important to recognize that decisions made in court will be by a judge who knows very little about you, your children or your family circumstances. When the court becomes involved in these matters, the decision making is guided primarily by rules of evidence, precidents and legal procedure. The human elements that should be taken into consideration are often missed. If a custody evaluation is not done properly, then the court may be relying on information that is incomplete or faulty. If you and your attorney are in strong disagreement with the evaluator's findings and recommendations. you must effectively challenge the evaluator on not only on substantive issues in the report but more importantly, on methodological flaws in his or her procedures.This is where a critique of your report may be helpful. A divorce and trial consultant with expertise in conducting custody evaluations can conduct a thorough critique of a custody evaluation report and suggest to clients if there is a basis for challenging it. A divorce consultant will be able to review your file including investigations, testing and home studies that have been conducted by psychologists, social workers or other mental health professionals. A complete review would also include critiques of the evaluator's procedures, findings, and conclusions of the evaluations in question. In many cases there are significant weaknesses in each area or the individual conducting the evaluation might not have sufficient training and/or expertise to offer the opinion he or she has made. There are instances when particular issues may have been overlooked (such as the parental alienation syndrome) and this may be the result of an evaluator's lack of expertise and experience in that area. On the other hand, some evaluators will dismiss or discredit a parent's concern such as the parental alienation syndrome without having the expertise that will allow them to do so. An effective critique of a custody evaluation will provide divorce attorneys an opportunity to challenge a custody evaluation and prevent its findings from being given any weight in court. Attorneys can also be further assisted in preparing for an effective legal attack (i.e., development of affidavits/depositions or cross examinations). Consultations can be conducted by telephone or in person. Quotations for consultation contracts are gladly provided without obligtaion following an initial free 15 minute consultation. For more information about our services and fees CLICK HERE Parental Alienation Syndrome Consultations The Parental Alienation Syndrome (P.A.S.) is becoming recognized as a serious negative outcome of divorce with potentially dangerous consequences to children and the targeted parent. In its most basic form, P.A.S. involves the deliberate severing of a healthy and positive relationship between a parent and his or her children where the children become actively involved in the relationship's demise. Unfortunately, parents, attorneys and judges are grossly under or misinformed about P.A.S. Because of that, P.A.S. is not identified in a timely fashion and appropriate interventions are lacking. Parents who observe any sudden deterioration in their relationship with their children and where their children are overtly hostile without cause, should consider exploring the possibility that the P.A.S. may be developing - particularly if their separation is acrimonious. A divorce and trial consultant with expertise in the P.A.S. will be able to assist parents identify if this is a valid concern and identify ways of sparing children the emotional pain and stress that result when they are caught in their parents' crossfire. A P.A.S. expert can help parents understand the harm being done to their children through their actions, helping them find peace and reassurance in leading a life separate from each other and helping them develop effective ways of co-parenting. The challenge for lawyers is to discern whether the actions taken and allegations made by a client are based on genuine concerns for their child(ren)'s safety and well-being, or motivated by revenge, leverage for child support, fear of losing his/her children and the role of father/mother. Dr. Reena Sommer supports clients' and lawyers' efforts in addressing the enormous challenges associated with PAS cases. Here are some of the ways she can be of assistance: providing coaching and support to parents who are wrongly denied access to their children working with families to re-establish contact between children and parents conducting PAS assessments to determine or discredit PAS and to ascertain whether allegations of abuse are bona fide or bogus reviewing and critiquing assessments conducted by custody evaluators who have failed to identify PAS consulting with lawyers on how to question suspected alienating parents and/or suspected alienated children and how to develop strategies for case development providing expert testimony on PAS, parenting & domestic abuse

suemypsychologistSue My Psychologist About Archives RSS Feed CASA, court psychologist, custody evaluators, guardian ad litem, parenting coordinator Sue and/or prosecute court psychologists whose negligence/incompetence harms families In Divorce and custody, psychologist on January 14, 2010 at 11:54 am “Dr. Brown did not review…records related to the family. Dr. Brown didn’t see any of the children in either of the parties’ homes. Dr. Brown didn’t talk to any school personnel. Dr. Brown’s report didn’t mention one party’s criminal conviction. Dr. Brown didn’t initially provide all of his file to [another doctor hired by one of the parties], despite court directives to do so. Had the second party not hired another doctor and pursued review of Dr. Brown’s underlying files, the Court would have been led to believe that…his report was fairly comprehensive. That is not our conclusion.” – Kansas District Court Judge, quoted in a disciplinary document issued by the Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board in its case against psychologist J. Scott Brown, October 11, 2005 - – - – - Lying. Ignoring court orders. Rendering opinions not based on observation. Psychologists and other mental health counselors employed or assigned by our family courts have the power to affect the lives of parents and children for better or worse. As demonstrated by both the case above and in the following cases—which were uncovered by or reported to Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) in the past few years—these servants of the court frequently show themselves to be reckless and incompetent, making extremely questionable decisions, basing their decisions on second-hand observation or basing it on no observation at all. Such destructive carelessness, which imperils the already damaged integrity of a broken family, should be fully prosecuted and/or civil remedy should be sought. Individuals and families wronged in this way by a mental health practitioner should file criminal charges for “perjury,” “false swearing” or “filing a false report,” where applicable and should at the very least file a documented complaint with the practitioner’s licensing body (state medical or psychology board). EXAMPLES May 14, 2009: Colorado clinical social worker JOANNE BAUM was placed on probation for one year, having been found by the state to have acted in a manner that does not meet generally accepted professional standards of practice by writing a letter that contained judgments concerning a person she had never met and published recommendations regarding child custody issues without having full knowledge of the facts necessary to make such recommendations.1 October 16, 2008: the California Board of Psychology revoked DIANA M. ELLIOTT’s license for failure to comply with the terms of an earlier probation order against her. In March 2004, the Board charged Elliott with gross negligence, dishonesty and repeated negligent acts related to her testimony in a divorce matter in which she reported the results of psychological tests according to her memory, which was later discovered to be faulty (did not correspond to the actual answer sheets she had on file) and that in response to the trial court’s order for her to send the original answer sheets to the father’s expert, she sent copies which were altered to make the father look more disturbed and mother look healthier than the actual answer sheets did. Elliott has changed the test score answers. Lastly, Elliott failed to inform the court that the father was administered the test via an interpreter and failed to inform the court that her testimony was based on inaccurate information; her inaccurate testimony adversely affected the ability of the court to make an assessment of the child custody issues. As a result, Elliott was placed on probation for three years with terms and conditions.2 August 6, 2008: The Colorado State Board of Psychologist Examiners publicly admonished E. ROBERT LACROSSE for making custody recommendations without doing complete evaluations or interviewing all parties.3 June 21, 2008: The California Board of Psychology placed JANIS FOOTE on five years probation for negligent acts and general unprofessional conduct. Foote provided a custody recommendation to the court after having interviewed her patient’s three children without the knowledge or consent of the other parent (who shared joint custody of the children) and made evaluations against the other parent without ever having met him or observed him directly.4 In March 2008, Ohio psychologist MERYL A. ORLANDO was suspended for 30 days and placed on 24 months of restricted practice, during which the court prohibited her from providing testimony in any cases involving custody or parental rights in any Ohio court or other adjudicative body. Orlando was found to have engaged in negligent conduct by rendering a legal opinion regarding a father’s continued involvement with his children, despite having not observed the father’s interaction with the children and for recommending that the father be named legal custodian of the children, based in part on her opinion that the mother had sabotaged the childrens’ relationships with the father, among other things.5 January 31, 2008: The Oregon Board of Psychologist Examiners found that GARY L. GREGOR committed unprofessional conduct in a custody evaluation that included failing to take reasonable steps to avoid harm in regard to the child and mother; failed to recognize his own possible bias and failed to resolve the matter with due regard for the best interests of the mother and father (both clients) and the child. Gregor surrendered his license while under investigation (not a final decision) and the Board has proposed restricting him from performing child custody evaluations or parenting plans, among other conditions.6 October 25, 2007: The Virginia Board of Psychology put JOSEPH CONLEY, JR. on indefinite probation of no less than 18 months. Conley was found to have violated several state regulations while conducting evaluations in a child-custody case when he made an “inflammatory appraisal” of the mother (who he had never met) as well as a written evaluation that demonstrated “a bias against the mother, without substantiation by corroborating evidence.”7 July 20, 2007: The Ohio Counselor, Social Worker & Marriage & Family Therapist Board suspended social worker JOANN KUREK for three months. Board documents state that Kurek “failed to maintain the appropriate standards of care…by rendering a biased opinion about a minor client’s father without ever performing as assessment of him” but based on the opinions of the minor’s court-appointed guardian.8 November 27, 2006: The Pennsylvania Board of Psychology reprimanded PHILIP J. KINNEY and assessed him a $2,500 civil penalty. The Board found that Kinney’s findings in forensic child custody evaluations were not based on sufficient techniques or information. For instance, he made statements about a mother and her ability to parent without having conducted any examination of her; failed to maintain an objective and impartial stance in his evaluation of the child; failed to obtain informed consent from all adult participants prior to performing a custody evaluation on the child and over-interpreted or inappropriately interpreted clinical assessment data.9 July 20, 2006: The Idaho Board of Psychologist Examiners disciplined CHARLES W. GAMBLE for several counts of failure to provide a proper child custody evaluation in a divorce dispute. The Board put his license on 12 months probation and ordered him to cease providing such evaluations.10 June 29, 2006: New Hampshire mental health counselor BRENDA DESMARIS was disciplined by the state Board of Mental Health Practice for sending the court a report on a child’s condition without first getting a release from the child’s parents and advocated that the child’s visitation with the father be suspended. She was placed on practice monitoring for one year, as well as continuing education in divorce and custody, risk management and role confusion.11 June 20, 2006: South Carolina psychologist ANDREW B. MCGARITY voluntarily surrendered his license to the state psychology board, following an earlier disciplinary action which he failed to comply with. The earlier action was the result of 2003 board findings that McGarity had performed a custody evaluation that “failed to meet the generally accepted standard of care normally expected of clinical psychologists….” In a custody evaluation incident to a divorce proceeding, McGarity failed to evaluate the children or the individual parents’ interactions with them before recommending which parent should be awarded custody. Additionally, in December 2005, the State of California revoked his license to practice psychology.12 February 10, 2006: The Arizona Medical Board found psychiatrist HOWARD L. MITCHELL guilty of, among other things, ignoring data when evaluating a patient; making a custody recommendation without an appropriate evaluation and making false statements in a patient evaluation. Specifically, Mitchell conducted a psychiatric evaluation and made custody recommendations that neglected to consider domestic violence findings and made his recommendations after interviewing only the father—not the mother or the child. He was put on one year of probation with conditions.13 January 2, 2006: The Psychology Board of Ohio suspended JOSEPH JOHN BENDO for one year (60 days active suspension and the remainder stayed). The board found that Bendo had testified in a divorce/custody dispute involving a married couple he had counseled two years earlier. In the court setting (for which he “agreed that his conduct…reflected a lack of a fundamental…understanding of the legal and professional standards of care that govern the participation of psychological experts in legal proceedings”), Bendo released confidential information on one of the patients to the attorneys of the opposing patient, despite never having secured express written permission from the former patient to reveal such data, in an effort to “influence the legal system” in favor of the opposing party. In addition to active suspension, Bendo was permanently “prohibited from rendering in writing or by testimony any hypotheses, impressions, diagnostic suppositions, or other professional opinions to any adjudicative body, including administrative agencies and any court or agent of any court in the State of Ohio, relative to parenting, parenting time, or the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities.”14 November 2005: Psychologist MICHAEL CARLIN was suspended for two years by the British Psychological Society. Carlin, who did not have the two years’ supervised experience needed to act as a forensic psychologist, was found guilty of professional misconduct for having submitted forensic reports in two instances, including a child rape case.15 February 2003: Ohio psychologist ROGER H. FISHER surrendered his license while under investigation by the State Board of Psychology for acts of negligence and incompetence in the conduct of psychological services to children, couples and families involved in domestic relations matters. In June 2001, Fisher was placed on permanent restriction from rendering services as an expert or evaluator in domestic relations courts, regarding custody, parenting or visitation, based on a complaint filed by a mother alleging that Fisher authored a report strongly biased against her based solely on a single session evaluation of her 5-year, 9-month-old son, at the father’s behest. The report, which questioned the mother’s fitness to parent and commented on her “personality changes,” “mood swings,” and allegedly bizarre behavior, was based only on the son and father’s information. Between March and June 2002, the Board received four separate additional complaints of negligence and incompetence from parents to whom Fisher had rendered forensic psychological services in domestic matters. The surrender was deemed a permanent revocation.16 PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME (PAS) PAS is an alleged (and thoroughly discredited) “mental disorder” applied to one parent in a divorce-custody matter by the opposing party’s psychological expert in the following manner: “The child(ren) are fearful of or angry at Parent B (my client). It appears that Parent A has been telling the child(ren) negative things about my client in an effort to make the child(ren) fear my client, refuse visitation with him, etc. These efforts are proof that Parent A has PAS and so should not have custody of the child(ren).” Use of this “diagnosis” sometimes obscures the fact that there may be documented reasons or logical foundations for the child(ren)’s fears or the parent’s concern, such as actual sexual abuse, domestic violence or the opposing parent’s criminal record. PAS has never been validated by any official body and, on the contrary, has been invalidated by numerous authorities, including the American Psychological Association, which stated: “Custody and visitation disputes appear to occur more frequently when there is a history of domestic violence. Family courts often do not consider the history of violence between the parents in making custody and visitation decisions. In this context, the non-violent parent may be at a disadvantage and behavior that would seem reasonable as a protection from abuse may be misinterpreted as a sign of instability. Terms such as ‘parental alienation’ may be used to blame the women for the children’s reasonable fear or anger toward their violent father.”17 Dr. Paul Fink of Temple University’s School of Medicine, called the theory dangerous: “It was made up by one guy who spread it around. No investigation was done, there was no research, and it’s hurt a lot of women and children.”18 CASES March 3, 2008: The Psychologists Board of Queensland (Australia) disciplined WILLIAM WRIGLEY, declaring that he acted unprofessionally in giving evidence about “parental alienation syndrome” to the court. An investigation of Wrigley found that his evidence in a case three years earlier, which led to a mother losing custody of her two children, constituted “conduct that demonstrates incompetence or a lack of adequate knowledge, skill, judgment or care.” The judge in the case stated, “It has to be said that in terms of objectivity, professionalism, fairness and balance, his reports are in stark contrast to those provided by (other professionals).” The board advised Wrigley of its unanimous decision that he had “acted in a way that constituted unsatisfactory conduct” for “referring to an unrecognized syndrome in his reports. It was inappropriate for [Wrigley] to either diagnose the children or state there was a likelihood the children could develop parental alienation syndrome, as it is not a recognized syndrome. To diagnose a patient as suffering from or demonstrating a potential to develop an unrecognized syndrome is contrary to the code of ethics.”19 In December 2003, the Ohio State Board of Psychology filed 11 allegations against DOUGLAS C. DARNALL, in addition to complaints filed against him in 2002 by five former clients. Many of the complaints accused Darnall of using the diagnosis of parental alienation syndrome to classify parents’ behavior and using a non-published test—the “parental alienation scale”—to form conclusions in psychological assessment, which the state says contradicts the standards for psychological testing. One of the complaints alleged that Darnall conducted an evaluation of a client and her ex-husband to provide the court a child visitation recommendation without ever meeting the children, according to the state’s document. The state charged Darnall with requiring clients to complete his nonvalidated “parental alienation scale” as part of their evaluation; warning parents that their evaluation would not be completed if they did not fill out the scale and that the judge would be notified and making at least one custody recommendation without adequately gathering information from clients, among others. The board issued a disciplinary action against Darnall in April 2005, which was appealed. The board ultimately voided its disciplinary decision and dismissed the charges against him in an August 2005 settlement that required him obtain 15 hours of continuing education in forensic psychological practice and tutorial direction from a board-approved supervisor in identifying risk factors/avoiding loss of objectivity in litigation-related evaluations of children. 20 _ _ _ _ _ Parents who have been wronged, their children’s safety and their family’s stability further damaged by the “work” of a careless or incompetent psychologist or psychiatrist, can contact CCHR for possible assistance with their complaint. Attorneys and others are also welcome to contact CCHR for additional data on PAS, bogus psychiatric diagnoses in general and other data pertinent to civil or criminal matters involving psychiatric abuses. Please contact Steve Wagner, Director of Litigation & Prosecution, 800-869-2247 or swagner@cchr.org. Article was used with permission of Citizens Commission on Human Rights International. Advertisement Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. ? 2 Responses Janelle Burrill – “QUACK” without a license to practice psychology We spoke to the board extensively and the enforcement division recommends us to file a complaint against Janelle Burrill because practicing psychology without a licence is a crime. Please take a few minutes and file a complaint online . https://app.dca.ca.gov/psychboard/complaints.asp Janelle Burrill presented to her victims as an expert in psychology. She assessed, diagnosed and determined many of her victims as psychotic, sociapath, impulse control freaks, suffering from bi-polar disorders and doles out DSM-V diagnosis and prescribes psychiatric medicine as candies after talking to them for a few minutes. She had a registration to work under the supervision of a licensed psychologist for a couple of years which was terminated in 2006. PSB30484 (Mar 18 2004 – July 21 2006). If she engaged in the practice of psychology from 2006 onwards – which we believe, she did then she committed a crime. The practice of psychology is defined as rendering or offering to render for a fee to individuals, groups, organizations or the public any psychological service involving the application of psychological principles, methods, and procedures of understanding, predicting, and influencing behavior, such as the principles pertaining to learning, perception, motivation, emotions, and interpersonal relationships; and the methods and procedures of interviewing, counseling, psychotherapy, behavior modification, and hypnosis; and of constructing, administering, and interpreting tests of mental abilities, aptitudes, interests, attitudes, personality characteristics, emotions, and motivations California Board of Psychology Rules and Regulations #2903 Licensure Requirement; Practice of Psychology; Psychotherapy; Fee § 2903. No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. The practice of psychology is defined as rendering or offering to render for a fee to individuals, groups, organizations or the public any psychological service involving the application of psychological principles, methods, and procedures of understanding, predicting, and influencing behavior, such as the principles pertaining to learning, perception, motivation, emotions, and interpersonal relationships; and the methods and procedures of interviewing, counseling, psychotherapy, behavior modification, and hypnosis; and of constructing, administering, and interpreting tests of mental abilities, aptitudes, interests, attitudes, personality characteristics, emotions, and motivations. The application of these principles and methods includes, but is not restricted to: diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and amelioration of psychological problems and emotional and mental disorders of individuals and groups. Psychotherapy within the meaning of this chapter means the use of psychological methods in a professional relationship to assist a person or persons to acquire greater human effectiveness or to modify feelings, conditions, attitudes and behavior which are emotionally, intellectually, or socially ineffectual or maladjustive. Reply Victims of "QUACK" corrupt fraud Janelle Burrill 1 April 2010 at 2pm It should be noted that, regardless of her standing as a psychologist, Janelle Burrill holds a clear (active and without disciplinary actions) license to practice clinical social work: Board of Behavioral Sciences 1625 North Market Boulevard, Suite S 200 Sacramento, CA 95834 Main Line Phone Number: (916) 574-7830 Licensee Information Licensee Name: BURRILL JANELLE LEE License Type: LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER License Number: 16216 License Status: CLEAR Definition Expiration Date: July 31, 2011 Issue Date: July 31, 1992 Address: 915 UNIVERSITY AVE City: SACRAMENTO State: CA Zip: 95825 County: SACRAMENTO Actions: No Reply suemypsychologist 5 April 2010 at 8pm Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here... Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Email (required) (Address never made public) Name (required) Website You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change ) You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change ) You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change ) Cancel Connecting to %s Notify me of follow-up comments via email. « Before Health Care Licensing Boards Should Refer for Criminal Prosecution Any Mental Health Practitioner Found to Have Engaged in Sex with a Patient January 13, 2010 After Psychotherapist sexual exploitation: A survivor takes her case to court January 14, 2010 » About This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of ... Continue reading » Archives February 2011 December 2010 November 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 January 2010 psychologist sexual exploitation by a psychotherapist Uncategorized Divorce and custody 730 evaluation mental health crime DSM V Etc Search for: RSS Feed Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: DePo Masthead by Automattic. Follow Follow “Sue My Psychologist”Get every new post delivered to your Inbox. Powered by WordPress.com

MALICIOUS ALIENATION FREE POKER PLAY Reese Whithercup Personal Dating Sites Porn Pictures PIZZA FACE BOOK IMAGES Tesla Not Best in the Children's Intrest Homewrecker List Motel Deal Battered Men's Shelter Family Law Clown Faces THE PROse FATHER pizza facebook Order Pizza Poker Face R. Silverman and Psychotherapy Abuse Custody Mediator Report Hotel Travel Guide Date Lovers Date Singles Domain Valet Hosting

DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME

Malicious Mother Syndrome JOURNAL OF FAMILY VIOLENCE, VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3, p 253-264, 2008 DIVORCE RELATED MALICIOUS MOTHER SYNDROME Ira Daniel Turkat, Ph.D. With the increasing commonality of divorce involving children, a pattern of abnormal behaviour has emerged that has received little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Specific nosologic criteria are provided with abundant clinical examples. Given the lack of scientific data available on the disorder, issues of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear ripe for investigation. INTRODUCTION A divorced man gains custody of his children and his ex-wife burns down his home. A woman in a custody battle buys a cat for her offspring because her divorcing husband is highly allergic to cats. A mother forces her children to sleep in a car to "prove" their father has bankrupted them. These actions illustrate a pattern of abnormal behavior that has emerged as the divorce rate involving children has grown. Today, half of all marriages will end in divorce (Beal and Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in divorce has grown dramatically (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah, 1988) as well. While the majority of such cases are "settled" from a legal perspective, outside the courtroom the battle continues. The media has spent considerable effort raising public awareness about the problem posed by divorced fathers who do not provide court ordered child support payments. Hedges (1991) has noted that less than 20% of divorced fathers provide child support payments three years after their divorce. Research on the decline of women's economic status following divorce (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988) has contributed to recent legislation to address the "Deadbeat Dad" problem. While the media correctly portrays the difficulties imposed upon women and children by the "Deadbeat Dad" phenomenon, the cameras have yet to capture the warfare waged by a select group of mothers against child support paying, law abiding fathers. Every day, attorneys and therapists are exposed to horror stories in which vicious behaviors are lodged against innocent fathers and children. Unfortunately, there are no scientific data on the subject. Similarly, the clinical literature has relatively ignored the problem. A notable exception can be found in the clinical writings of Gardner (1987, 1989) who has provided excellent descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Here, a custodial parent successfully engages in a variety of maneuvers to alienate the child from the non-residential parent. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes "...preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent-denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated" (Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In the typical case of Parental Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child engage in an array of abnormal actions against the rather. Gardner views "brainwashing" as a concept "too narrow" (Gardner, 1989) to capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a child against his/her non-residential parent. While Gardner's pioneering descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome provide an important contribution to our understanding of divorce related child involved hostilities, the present paper is concerned with a more global abnormality. As noted in the examples provided in the beginning of this manuscript, serious attacks on divorcing husbands take place which are beyond merely manipulating the children. Further, these actions include a willingness by some mothers to violate societal law. Finally, there are mothers who persistently engage in malicious behaviors designed to alienate their offspring from the father, despite being unable to successfully cause alienation. In sum, these cases do not meet the criteria for Parental Alienation Syndrome. Nevertheless, they portray a serious abnormality. The purpose of the present paper is to define and illustrate this more global abnormality with the hope of generating increased scientific and clinical investigation of this problem. DEFINITION The present section provides a beginning definition of the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, which has been derived from clinical and legal cases. As in all initial proposals, it is anticipated that future research will lead to greater refinement in the taxonomic criteria. The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as follows: A mother who unjustifiably punishes her divorcing or divorced husband by: Attempting to alienate their mutual child(ren) from the father Involving others in malicious actions against the father Engaging in excessive litigation The mother specifically attempts to deny her child(ren): Regular uninterrupted visitation with the father Uninhibited telephone access to the father paternal participation in the child(ren)'s school life and extra-curricular activities Tile pattern is pervasive and includes malicious acts towards the husband including: Lying to the children Lying to others Violations of law The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder although a separate mental disorder may co-exist. CLINICAL ILLUSTRATIONS In this section, I will provide clinical illustrations for each criterion using the reference numbers provided above. As criteria 1-3 are behavior specific to the Malicious Mother Syndrome, I will provide a series of clinical examples. The fourth criterion which addresses the relationship of the proposed syndrome to other mental disorders, will be discussed more generally. Criterion 1A: Alienating the Children The range of actions taken by a mother to attempt to alienate her children from their father is impressive. For example: One mother lied to her children that she could no longer buy food because their father had spent all of their money on women at topless bars. A doctor's wife forced her 10 year old son to apply for federally funded free school lunches to delude the boy that his "daddy has made us poor." A woman who for years was very close to the children in a custody battle, was asked by their mother to give up neutrality and join her campaign against the father to "dance on his grave." When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the mother falsely informed her children that their father was having an affair with this woman. These behaviors, if successful, could lead a child to not only hate the father but perhaps go years without seeing him. As Cartwright (1993) has noted: "The goal of the alienator is crystalline: to deprive the lost parent, not only of the child's time, but of the time of childhood" (p. 210). Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Malicious Actions The second component of the first major criterion where the mother attempts to punish the husband, involves manipulating other individuals to engage in malicious acts against the father. Examples of this kind are as follows: During a custody battle, a mother lied to a therapist about the father's behaviour. The therapist, having never spoken with the father, appeared as an "expert" witness to inform the Judge that the mother should be the primary residential parent and that the father needed to be in therapy. One angry mother manipulated teenagers to leave anonymous threatening notes at the ex-husband's home. A mother who had lost legal custody of her child, manipulated a secretary at the child's school to assist in kidnapping the child. In the above examples, it is important to note that the person manipulated by the angry mother has, in a way, been "alienated" against the divorcing husband. Typically, the individual "duped" takes on a righteous indignation, contributing to a rewarding climate for the mother initiating malicious actions. Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation There is little question that either party in a divorce or custody proceeding is entitled to appropriate legal representation and action. Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, however, attempt to punish the divorcing husband by engaging in excessive litigation. A belligerent and unreasonable mother verbally attacked her ex-husband whenever she saw him. Over time, his response was to ignore her. She then took him to court, asking the judge to require the ex-husband to talk with her. One mother told a judge that her daughter was not really her divorcing husband's child. One woman refused to stop attacking her ex-husband through the courts despite numerous attorneys being fired or voluntarily leaving the case. Over a three year period, seven different attorneys were utilized. Data exist which can help in determining the range of excessive litigation. For example, Keel et al. (1988) report on the frequency of post-divorce litigation in a sample of 700 families. Their data indicate that only 12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the court, whereas less than 5% file two or more petitions (Keel at al. 1988); less than 1% file four or more petitions. Criterion 2A: Denying Regular Visitation Experts are in relative agreement that regular and uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is desirable and beneficial for children, except in extreme circumstances (Hedges, 1991). In fact, some states, such as Florida, have laws written to reflect this view (Keane, 1990). Unfortunately, even when the father and children have legal rights to visitation, individuals with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome continue to interfere with it. A mother who previously attacked her ex-husband physically during visitation transfers of the children, refused to provide the children when the ex-husband had the police attend to monitor exchanges. When one divorced father arrived to pick up his children for visitation, the mother arranged for her and the children to be elsewhere so that the father could not visit with the children. One mother had her physically intimidating boyfriend assault her ex-husband when he came to pick up his children for visitation. The President of The Council for Children's Rights (Washington, D.C.) notes that such alienation is considered a form of child abuse (Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the police typically avoid involving themselves in such situations. Furthermore, unless a victimized father is financially capable of returning to court on an ongoing basis, there is little that can be done to prevent such mothers' behavior. Finally, even when such cases are brought to trial, the courts are often inadequate in supporting fathers' visitation rights (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Criterion 2B: Denying Uninhibited Telephone Access Given the physical absence of one parent, the telephone plays an important role in maintaining the bond between child and non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome engage in an array of actions designed to circumvent telephone access. A father called to speak to his children and was told that they were not at home when in bet he could hear their voices in the background. When one father called to speak with his children, the mother put him on "hold," informed no one, and then left him there. Knowing that the children's father was away on vacation, one mother encouraged them to leave several messages on his answering machine to call back immediately only if he would like some additional visitation time with his children. Some fathers find the alienation attempts so painful and fruitless that they eventually are extinguished from calling their children; they simply "give up." Placed in a no-win scenario, the father's "abandonment" (Hedges, 1991) unfortunately achieves the precise result aimed for by the individual suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Criterion 2C: Denying Participation in Extra-Curricular Activities An integral part of the process of maintaining one's bond with one's child is to participate in activities that one did before the parents separated. School plays, team sports, and religious events are just some of the types of activities of importance. Malicious Mothers frequently engage in maneuvers designed to prevent participation in these activities. One father was deliberately given the wrong date and time for an important event for the child. The child was asked by the mother, "I wonder why your father didn't want to come to see you today"? One mother refused to provide the father with any information about any extra-curricular activities in which the children were engaged. Prior to a child's soccer game, one mother told many of the team parents disparaging falsehoods about the visiting lather. When he came to watch his son's soccer game, many of these parents looked at him with angry eyes, refused to talk with him, and walked away when he moved toward them. Malicious Mothers who engage in such behaviors rarely have to face penalties for such actions. Judges, attorneys, and policemen cannot involve themselves in every instance of blocked paternal access. Furthermore, most fathers cannot afford the financial requirements involved. As such, the cycle of access interference perpetuates itself. Criterion 3A: Malicious Lying to the Children Given their developmental status, children in a disputed divorce situation are quite vulnerable. When one parent decides to attack the other by lying to the children, examples of this type of malicious behavior may include some of the following. One divorcing mother told her very young daughter that her father was "not really" her father even though he was. An eight year old girl was forced by her mother to hand unpaid bills to her lather when he visited because the mother had falsely told the daughter that the father had not provided any economic means of support to the family. One mother falsely told her children that their father had repeatedly beat her up in the past. These examples of malicious lying can be contrasted with the more subtle maneuvers typically seen in Parental Alienation Syndrome, such as "virtual allegations" (Cartwright, 1993). Here, the mother setting up a Parental Alienation Syndrome may hint that abuse may have occurred, whereas the individual suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome falsely claims that abuse has actually occurred. Criterion 3B: Malicious Lying to Others Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome may engage a wide range of other individuals in their attacks upon the ex-husband. However, with this particular criterion, the individual with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome specifically lies to other individuals in the belligerency against the father. Some examples include the following. One furious mother called the president of the (1500 employee) workplace of her divorcing husband, claiming falsely that he was using business property for personal gain and was abusing their mutual children at his work locale. One woman falsely told slate officials that her ex-husband was sexually abusing their daughter. The child was immediately taken away from him and his access to her was denied. During the course of a custody dispute, one mother falsely informed the guardian, who was investigating the parenting skills of each parent, that the father had physically abused her. Snyder (1986) has reported on the difficulty imposed upon legal authorities when confronted with someone who is an excellent liar. Consistent with research on the inability of "specialists" to detect lying (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), a skilled fabricator can be a compelling witness in the courtroom (Snyder, 1986). While sometimes seen in borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that pathological lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) is not restricted to that particular character disorder. Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the Husband Individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome have few if any boundaries in their campaign against the divorcing husband. Violations of law are common in many cases, although the laws broken may be relatively minor. However, in some cases, the violations of law may be quite serious. One woman deliberately drove her automobile into the house of her ex-husband where their mutual children resided. In the midst of a custody battle, one woman broke into the residence of her divorcing husband and stole important business papers. An angry divorcing mother called a Christian evangelical television station and pledged $1000, giving the name, address, and phone number of her divorcing Jewish husband as the pledgee. The above descriptions may remind the reader of certain personality disorders (e.g., antisocial, borderline, sadistic) but these behaviors may be demonstrated by individuals with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome who do not appear to meet official diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder. Further, in each of the four examples provided above, none of the Malicious Mothers involved was sentenced for such behavior by a Judge. Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder In assessing the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, it is important to note that many of the above clinical examples seem to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental disorder diagnosis or treatment. In fact, one mother who engaged in extreme maliciousness toward her divorcing husband had several mental health professionals testify that she was not suffering from any type of mental disorder. Clearly, it would seem that individuals who have Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome may or may not have a concomitant mental disorder. In the author's experience, for each mental disorder that might come to mind to account for some of this behavior, an exceptional case presents. For example, in some cases an Adjustment Disorder might seem an appropriate diagnosis, yet one woman still denied her ex-husband visitation 10 years after the divorce. Other cases might suggest a possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis, yet one woman who repeatedly violated the law in attacking her ex-husband, received no personality disorder diagnosis despite being evaluated by masters level and doctoral level examiners. In some instances, Intermittent Explosive Disorder might be considered, yet the anger for many of the mothers does not appear to be intermittent. Finally, the reader should appreciate that while diagnostic accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good as one would like (e.g., the personality disorders, see Turkat, 1990), the problem is compounded in family law where incompetent mental health examiners sometimes become involved in the judicial process (Turkat, 195)3). Clearly, the relationship between Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome and other mental disorders is a complex one which requires significant investigation. DISCUSSION The above description of the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome raises a variety of important clinical, legal, and scientific issues. From a clinical perspective, families that involve a Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome are subject to serious episodes of stress and distress. Yet, there is no scientific evidence on how to treat this phenomenon. It is particularly compromised by the fact that many of these cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria deny that there is anything wrong with them. An additional difficulty is that many therapists are unaware of this pattern of malicious behavior (Heinz and Heinz, 1993). As such, there are therapists who are "fooled" by such cases and, as noted earlier, will come to court testifying that there is nothing wrong with the mother involved. From a legal perspective, there are some attorneys who may unintentionally encourage this type of behavior (Gardner, 1989). On the other hand, there are some attorneys who deliberately encourage such behavior, as the financial rewards for them are time dependent. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorney (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). However, even for the subset of attorneys for whom this may be true, there is a point of diminishing returns. Furthermore, independent of economic considerations, many who become involved with family law courtrooms find that these types of cases are not handled well (Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992). The woman who is not disturbed "enough" to lose custody of her children in the courtroom will not have money denied to her because she engages in this behavior; nor will she go to jail. Thus, many clients report significant frustration when they and their children are exposed to this type of behavior, and the courts seem to do little if anything about. In a review of pertinent law literature on bias against men in family law proceedings, Tillitski (1992) concluded that there is widespread discrimination. This is well illustrated by one family law Judge's statement that, "I ain't never seen the calves follow the bulls, they always follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the mamas" (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992 p. 742). Similarly, it is noted that visitation rights of fathers are not enforced as rigidly as are child support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Such bias against men in family law proceedings results in a unique group of fathers who unintentionally become relatively helpless victims of the system (Tillitski, 1992). This situation would seem to reinforce much of the vicious behavior displayed by women suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. The issue of sex distribution of the disorder certainly needs to be addressed. The overwhelming majority of custodial parents are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Gardner (1989) has noted that Parental Alienation Syndrome appears most commonly in females, although it is possible for a male who has custody of the children to engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. The author's experience with Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is similar to Gardner's. However, the present writer has yet to see a case of a father engaging in all of the criteria listed. This does not mean that it is not possible for there to be a "Malicious Father" Syndrome. In fact, Shepard (1992) reports that there is significant abuse of some custodial mothers by non-residential fathers. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are females who are required to pay chiltl support, but we have yet to heara about "Deadbeat Moms." Given at the present time that a case in which the father met all of the criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syntlrome has yet to be documented, it appears advisable to await scientific evidence to guide issues of nosologic labeling. How prevalent is the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome? The answer is unknown. Gardner (1989) reports that approximately 90% of all custody battles involve some aspects of parental alienation. Further, Kressel (1985) reviewed data indicating that up to 40% of maternal custodians denied visitation to the ex-husband in order to punish him. Relatedly, Arditti (1992) reported that 50% of a sample of divorced fathers (N = 125) indicated that visitation was interfered with by the mother. While aspects of parental alienation may be common, it is highly unlikely that such a percentage of maternal custodians would meet all of the criteria for Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. In regard to incidence, it would appear through the title of this syndrome that the malicious behavior is precipitated by the divorce process. However, this is clearly an empirical question. While the malicious actions may first be noted during a divorce process, it is possible that maliciousness may have been present earlier but undetected. Research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal, 1986) supports this speculation. Relatedly, it may also be that there are some cases of pre-existing mental disorder that have not been discovered until the stress of the divorce itself unfolds. Finally, it should be noted that research on the nature of post-divorce family functioning is beginning to emerge. Some data exist on the role of parental conflict in children's postdivorce functioning (e.g., Frost and Pakiz, 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley and Stewart, 1990; Kudek, 1988), but studies have yet to appear on the more extreme cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. The Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome represents an important societal phenomenon. The disorder affects children, parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health professionals, and others. Until this phenomenon is explored more thoroughly in the scientific and clinical literature, the problems imposed by individuals suffering from Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome will continue to plague us. Hopefully, the present manuscript will stimulate research so that clinical and legal management guidelines can be developed. REFERENCES Artlitli, J. A. (1992). Factors related to custody, visitation, and child support for divorced fathers: An exploratory analysis. J. Div. Remarr. 17: 23-42. Beal, E. W., and Hockman, D. (1991). Adult Children of Divorce, Delacorte Press, New York. Cartwright, D. F. (1993), Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 21: 205-215. Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report to the supreme court of Georgia. Georgia State Univ. Law Rev. 8: 539-807. Ekman, P., and O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46: 913-920. Enos, D. M., and Handal, P. J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54: 820-824. Frost, A. K., and Pakiz, U. (1990). The effects of marital disruption on adolescence: Time as a dynamic. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 544-555. Furstenberg, F. F., Morgan, S. P., and Allison, P. D. (1987). Paternal participation and children's well being after marital dissolution. Am. Sociological Rev. 52: 695-701. Gardner, R. A. (1987). The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation Between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, NJ. Gardner, R. A. (1989). Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, NJ. Greif, G. L. (1985). Single Fathers, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and Thieves. Simon & Schuster, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Healy, J. M., Malley, J. E., and Stewart, A. J. (1900). Children and their fathers after parental separation. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 531-543. Hetherington, E. N., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.). (1988). Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Heinz, H. R., and Heinz, S. A. (1993). Emotional incest: The tragedy of divorcing families. Am. J. Fam. Law 7: 169-174. Hernandez, D. J. (1988). The demographics of divorce and remarriage. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-22. Hodges, W. E (1991). Interventions for Children of Divorce, (second edition), Wiley, New York. Keane, G. (1990). Florida Divorce Handbook, Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL. Koel, A., Clark, S. C., Phear, W. P., and Hauser, B. B. (1988). A comparison of joint and sole legal custody agreements. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 73-90. Kressel, K. (1985). The Process of Divorce, Basic Books, New York. Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mothers' perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by non-custodial fathers in families with low and high levels of pre-separation interparental conflict. J. Appl. Devel. Psychol. 9: 315-328. Laosa, L. N. (1988). Ethnicity and single parenting in the United Stales. In Hetherington, E. M., and Arasteh, J. D. (eds.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 23-49. Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welfare 71: 357-367. Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient. Am. J. Psychiatry 143: 1287-1289. Tillitski C. J. (1992). Fathers and child custody: Issues, trends, and implications for counseling. J. Ment. Health Counsel. 14: 351-361. Turkat I. D. (1990). The Personality Disorders: A Psychological Approach to Clinical Management, Pergamon, New York. Turkal, I. D. (1993). Questioning the mental health expert's custody report. Am. J. Fam. Law 7: 175-179. Ira Daniel Turkat, Florida Institute of Psychology and University of Florida College of Medicine, 1225 Avenida Del Circo, Venice, Florida 34285.

Second Hand Smoke Kills

Children Serving a Life Sentence for Fraudulent Custody Recommendations by Abusive Mediators Psychologically Manipulating Fathers to Justify False Accusations and Therapy Report Evaluations

A Commissioner shall disqualify himself for Fraudulent Recommendations and not enforcing his own orders

Case# D05-00622, ORDER The court on its own motion hereby recuses herself from presiding in further proceedings in this matter pursuant to Code of Judicial Ethics 3(E)(1) and Code of Civil Procedure, Section 170.1 (a)(1)(6) (i) and (ii). The previously calendared dates for mandatory settlement conference on September 9, 2006 and trial on October 12, 2006 are hereby vacated and the case is transferred to Judge Barry Baskin, Family Law Supervising Judge, for re-assignment and immediate resumption of the proceedings. It is so ordered this 21st day of August, 2006 at Martinez, California. Signed Josanna Berkow Commissioner/Judge Pro Tempore Which means: Code of Judicial Ethics: E. Disqualification A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which disqualification is required by law.* In all trial court proceedings, a judge shall disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no actual basis for disqualification. 170.1. (a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: (1) (A) The judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. (6) (A) For any reason: (i) The judge believes his or her recusal would further the interests of justice. (ii) The judge believes there is a substantial doubt as to his or her capacity to be impartial. Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_examples_of_recusal#ixzz1nl83DzPN