Attempt to Ban Citing Parental Alienation in Custody Cases Beaten Back in CA. Legislature
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.
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
July 18th, 2007 at 8:51 am
That is really good news.
July 18th, 2007 at 9:36 am
this is really good news….some of the fruits of tenacious mens activism…
July 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Well folks the tide is beginning to turn. When those that fight for righteousness and justice ( the fathers rights groups) win out over those dedicated to tyranny and injustice( the feminist and their state lackeys). Then that is cause to celebrate. but be cautioned, the forces of darkness are not just going to lay down and die. As the tide turns even further, the foes of justice, will become more desperate and dangerous.. They will resort to extreme tactics ,we must be on our guard. They are going to lose, but that fight will not be without sacrifices and losses. Many good men will go down before we triumph, just remember them and smile every time some young boy does not have to go through what we all did..
July 18th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Parental Alienation.
MUCH better than PAS.
NOw, as for the textbook referance, how about
Negative reinforcement transferal? Perhaps
Delusional aversion recession impression?
July 18th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
scottkirk said,
this is really good news….some of the fruits of tenacious mens activism…
This had nothing to do with mens activism… It was done with straight up professional lobbyist pounding the halls of the capitol…. so were the rest of our accomplishments over the last 3 years. Here are just a few: http://www.cafcusa.org/accomplishments.aspx
If professional lobbying power wasn’t needed then why does literally everyone for just about every imaginable issue under the sun have them constantly in the hallways of state buildings-except men and fathers issues? Perhaps because it actually works! If it didn’t work then why would anyone spend the money on it? Do you think corporations, the AARP and everyone else who uses them (which is everyone except men and fathers) would continue to spend the money on it if it didn’t work? It’s a no brainer!
Oh yeah, it can’t be done for free and it takes funding to keep them in the hallways to fight for fair and balanced policy.
This win just saved Alex Baldwins ass and do you think he will give one dime? Hell no! Over a year ago he promised us in a personal phone call to make a donation and flaked out.
Then he goes on the View and talks about legislation that was introduced in Sacramento by us and wished he would have gotten more involved.
I guess stakeholders would rather spend their money in the court room rather than in the hallways of a legislature where it would be much cheaper a year in total cost than the legal fees of some of the CA court cases. Alec’s is well over 1 million now.
CA NOW, here in Sacramento has a 4 million dollar a year operating budget to work with. We have less than 30K a year coming in to operate with. There are also at least 12 other lobby groups that have at least 250 million dollar a year budgets we have got to fight here in Sac.
And before you go there – it is not taxpayer money. They actually do fundraising, effectively I might add, for professional lobbying because state and federal grant funds cannot be used for lobbying. Yes they do enforce it! Just ask the Sierra Club, they got nailed real bad by the IRS not to long ago.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
michael..I’ve been known to donate to worthy causes if I see action not words!!
Clearly michael, youre work is worthy of notice; and you deserve some resources for youre supply lines!!
July 19th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Parental Alienation Syndrome? What the heck is that, another way somebody is so self-centered that he has cut off him or herself from a loving, normal relationship with a child. I hear this stuff and I think of Cleon Skousen’s 1958 list of current communist goals, one of them being to describe what has long been basic violations of moral principles as a mental disorder that only psychologists know how to solve. Not that there aren’t legitimate cases of mental illness out there; but you know, when I read not to long ago that people who sleep with fans on or other white noise devices suffer from some newly discovered disorder that Prozac, or something like it can fix, I knew things had gone too far.