Background: In April, I called your attention to a new, damaging Parental Alienation bill in the California legislature. In my co-authored column AB 612 Will Make It Harder to Protect Children from Parental Alienation (Riverside Press-Enterprise, 4/2/07), I explained:
“A new bill authored by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin (D-Redwood City) will harm children of divorce by making it much harder for courts to protect children from alienation. Under AB 612, mental health professionals will be discouraged from issuing findings of Parental Alienation in child custody cases…
“When a parent’s children are being alienated, he or she must wage an often long and expensive fight to get family courts to recognize the alienation and take decisive action. AB 612 would discourage independent mental health professionals from issuing findings of Parental Alienation in divorce/custody cases. It would also make it more difficult for target parents to get courts to order psychological evaluations as part of child custody investigations. Under AB 612, such evaluations will be allowed only under ‘exceptional circumstances when there is strong evidence that a parent’s current mental or psychological status might seriously impair his or her parenting ability.’
“This standard is unreasonably high, and will prevent many target parents from saving their relationships with their children. The legislature should be exhorting family courts to protect children from Parental Alienation, not putting up barriers to prevent them from doing so.”
Policy Consultant Michael Robinson of the California Alliance for Families and Children helped lead successful opposition to AB 612 in Sacramento last week, and (mercifully) the bill has been defanged. Robinson worked with the Family Law Executive Committee of the California State Bar (Flexcom), the California Psychologists Association (CPA), the Association of Family Conciliation Courts (AFCC), the California Judges Association, and others. According to Robinson:
“The bill has been amended several times, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. When the bill was originally introduced, the language said that ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome,’ ‘Parental Alienation,’ or ‘Alienated Child’ could not be used. We were successful in getting that language amended out in the 3/26/07 amendments.
“The bill took a really nasty turn in the 6/14/07 amendments. A private meeting was set up with Ruskin’s Chief of Staff to provide him with information and details that they were not aware of. As a result, he took a major amendment–the ‘good cause hearing’ language has been struck out, which was the worst part of the bill from the last amendments.
“The only language left that we don’t like is the term ‘non-scientific labels’ [a code word for Parental Alienation which opponents frequently employ--GS], but all of us agree that the bill is now acceptable and non-threatening. Ruskin is also willing to listen to further comments, and we may still be able to get ‘non-scientific labels’ struck.
“As the bill stands now, an expert can say ’a parent engaged in alienating tactics and behavior’ or ‘the children have been alienated from a parent due to inappropriate conduct/behavior by the other parent.’ They just can’t use the term ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ because it is not listed in the DSM.
“If Ruskin does not take the additional amendment and tweaks, Flexcom has already committed to introduce the amendments next year in an Omnibus committee bill to assure it gets amended exactly the way we want it. Flexcom’s opposition statement in the analysis also recognized that this bill could have hurt us in move-away cases. That threat, and for the most part, all of the other problems, are now gone.
“As a side note, Karen Anderson of the California Protective Parents Association, the sponsor of the bill, has already started her push to get another author for next year to get back everything she lost in this bill, which was about 99%. So we will have to fight it again next year.
“Karen Anderson’s personal case is very well known to most Sacramento family law specialists and practitioners. She lost custody because she made false allegations and engaged in alienation tactics and behavior. During the testimony, Anderson’s group announced that they had started a study back in 2004 or 2005 about PAS, and are close to publishing a book on it. Of course we know how it will be written and what their spin will be.
“They also had one girl from Courageous Kids testify. Two of the kids from that group have had their cases very well vetted. In one, the Loeliger case that Glenn Sacks has written about, the mother was the abuser, which was verified by CPS investigations. In Karen Anderson’s case, two mediators, one Ph.D., and a minor’s counsel all came to the same conclusion–that Karen made relentless false allegations and was alienating the children.”
Robinson is one of the most effective advocates in our movement, and I urge all to support him. To donate to the California Alliance for Families and Children, click here.
To learn more about the Loeliger case, click here. To learn more about Parental Alienation, click here.
As has often happened in California in recent years, the Family Law Section of the State Bar (Flexcom) came out in defense of noncustodial parents’ rights, just as they did with AB 164 and with the events surrounding the LaMusga decision. I thank them for going to bat for us again.
|
