While I get the unified pain and the passion for addressing a parent poisoning their child or children against the other, I encourage anyone learning more about this to check out this post from Dr. Childress. It is very important to get the differences in this approach. We’ve had over 30 years of this “syndrome” approach and it has done little more than create a false “controversy” and trying to say something that is already identifiable and observable is something new.
See the blog post here:
The False Controversy is clearly thinking Gardner’s PAS is a model for Parental Abduction and Alienation.
Please learn some History.
In 2015 some of Einstein’s letters came up for Auction in California. From these it was learned that he offered his ex wife the money from his Nobel Prize if he could see his sons. EINSTEIN WAS A TARGETED PARENT IN 1921. What do you mean 30 years of PA?
I’ve been a Targeted Parent for 33 years last Christmas.
There was a case of Alienation picked up in a Court Case in 1949 and published.
Then we have Turkat (Malicious Mother Syndrome) and Gardner (Parental Alienation Syndrome)
Both of these got it WRONG that alienation is done by mothers. Gardner later published further research that it is done by both parents.
The one bit of good work that Gardner did was the 8 Manifestations of Parental Alienation IN THE CHILDREN.
A SYNDROME is a group of symptoms occuring together, FROM THE SAME CAUSE and in this dynamic SYMPTOMS IN THE CHILDREN.
NOT the process;
NOT the state of the Alienating Parent;
NOT a model.
Please DO NOT compare apples with oranges and decide that one is a lemon. BARMY.
Please realise that Parental Alienation is on a spectrum and is NOT all one thing as Dr Childress makes out.
Dr Childress’ AB-PA ONLY fits IF the Alienating Parent has a Personality Disorder. It is briliantly done from well established psychological principles, BUT
THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF ALL PERSONALITY DISORDERED PEOPLE IN THE WORLD to account for the fact rhat some form of Alienation taking place in 80% of divorces involving children.
If you look at Darnall’s work in 1996 ( http://www.parentalalienation.com/articles/types-alienators.html )you will soon spot that Dr Childress’s brilliant work exactly fits Type 3 Alienators ONLY.
If you use Dr Childress’s Extended Diagnostic Sheet it will establish PA 100% for all cases in which the Alienating Parent has a Personality Disorder. However the MAJORITY of cases which are bad or ignorant parenting by one or sometimes both parents will come out as No Alienation, when there clearly is..
This is known as a False Negative Result and will mean to a court using this that the majority of alienated children will be left with the abuser.
Hi Laurence
Thanks for your comments.
I think you missed a word in my sentence and you aren’t responding within the scope of my comments which has the effect of decreasing clarity. So- to stay on track and to keep things clear-I said over 30 years. I am referencing this article I am linking to in the context of PAS vs AB-PA which is what he is talking about.
I am afraid you may have missed the subsequent article I posted which addresses exactly what you’re saying and why this actually does fit for every case. The syndrome approach is complicating it, it makes it more difficult to legislate which, in my work with my state’s legislature is a sure way to get compassionate smiles but no serious consideration for change. The way it is structured right now is SO riddled with controversy it is radioactive to lawmakers. This is NOT a “new” syndrome. This is not a “new” thing. The behaviors exhibited by the child as a result of the behaviors inflicted by the parent is what matters and what is observable. I think you were pointing to that when you said symptoms. I think diagnostic indicators is more precise, though. To use an already accepted and agreeable statement—I don’t think anyone would argue that a child getting beaten by a parent isn’t abuse. And some parents will stop—but it doesn’t change harm inflicted and the child MUST be removed from the parent doing the beating until they change their behaviors. I’m not worried whether it’s a type 1 or type 2 or type 3 abuse. It must be stopped!
And by the way, a description of anything like this is a model. Words are pointers to experience—they do not contain the experience or what is being described. There is a lot of power in remembering this. Change the meaning of the word and change the experience. It’s what Dr. Childress is doing by redefining the term itself. The word “alienation” is a word to describe a set of behaviors exhibited by a parent & child & parent and the effect it has on the separated family system.
I am a little confused as to how you reference the diagnostic worksheet. The worksheet I have tests for a cluster of 3 distinct diagnostic indicators, and if ALL 3 are present, then child psychological abuse is occurring. If not, then it’s not. This can be observed and dealt with far easier than “alienation”. There isn’t the possibility for a false negative. Maybe you’re saying something different(?)
I’m not saying these past iterations haven’t been useful (of course they have) in getting us here. But the question is what will actually stop it from happening (I have more thoughts about this I will be writing about) and I don’t see evidence that continuing in these older descriptions/paradigms will do it.
I look at it like this…
PAS is Texas. It covers a lot of ground.
The three diagnostic criteria of AB-PA cover Dallas and Houston. A smaller portion of what PAS claims to cover.
However, the *psychological knowledge* required by a therapist to implement AB-PA–namely: attachment theory, personality disorders, family systems theory, early childhood development, etc–that knowledge is the entire United States.
You can’t pick up and use AB-PA without having acquired that huge body of knowledge. That is the true solution that is offered by AB-PA. People’s paradigms are so locked in on PAS with its tiny window of expertise and exclusivity, that they ascribe that tiny window and exclusivity to AB-PA. And so they say “AB-PA is not enough,” as if a set if symptoms *is* the solution–since that’s really all that PAS offers, a set of symptoms that are hopelessly disconnected from psychological cause-and-effect.
AB-PA is *not* the solution. The three diagnostic criteria are *not* the solution. Having millions of therapists who are experts in attachment theory *and* personality disorders *and* family systems theory *and* everything else that AB-PA is built on, *and* they understand how those things fit together, *that* is the solution.
In order to conflate all the models of Parental Alienation, in 2017 I wrote this Document, “Untangling the Complexity of Parental Alienation”. I published it in a British Think Tank for Parental Alienation and a few Facebook groups for criticism and comments.
http://www.consumerwatchfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Untangling-the-Complexity-of-Parental-Alienation.pdf
Late in 2017 I was approached by one of the founder members of the British Charity NAAP. (National Association of Alienated Parents) They wanted to use it in The Report on Parental Alienation which was sent to ALL UK MP’s, Scottish MSP’s and Members of the Welsh Assembly in March 2018.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17QPAmYHdhex9ik3nYlE536O8TWWvyHQ7/view