By Julia Fletcher
November 9, 2010
About a year ago, I was following the news about the little boy living in Brazil. His father flew to Brazil with an NBC reporter on an NBC chartered flight to bring the father and son back to the United States. ABC posted the story on their website along with readers’ comments. I wanted to post my opinions about the media’s involvement in that case – comparing it with the total lack of coverage of the national family court crisis.
After sending one comment, I saw it show up in the comment section. Then – poof! – it disappeared. I posted it again. It showed up again and disappeared a few minutes later.
Seeing my valuable comments eaten by some anonymous comment monster, I knew I needed to be more careful about copying valued text first, before sending it into cyberspace. I also knew that if that ABC employee working as a moderator that day were to continue to pick and choose the comments posted on that website, ABC and its faithful viewers were in trouble.
This is from Rightsformothers.com:
Everyone knows that the concept of “parental alienation” will not be in the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), but this hasn’t thwarted those who make a handsome income off of it. Dr. Richard Warshak, who sells his testimony and services treating “parental alienation” in child custody cases, has apparently bought or scammed his way onto The Huffington Post and is not allowing comments on how others, including professional organizations, look at this excuse for protecting abusive parents. I, along with several other domestic violence advocates, posted comments on The Huffington Post in response to a new post by Warshak that touts his professional bread-and-butter, and they were apparently dropped in their bit bucket. Here is my first comment:
Many professional organizations recognize that claims of so-called “parental alienation” are used by abusive spouses to gain custody of children from their victims. Some of these organizations include the American Judges Association, the National District Attorney’s Association, the American Bar Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, with the latter warning family court judges not to accept claims of “parental alienation” or “parental alienation syndrome” because of it’s well know use by abusers. Research has shown that the number one reason children refuse to visit a parent is because of the behavior of that parent. Stop putting children in danger by placing them with the abuser. Dr. Warshak and others that push this so-called disorder make a lot of money selling their testimony in this family court scam. I would think The Huffington Post was above promoting such snake oil salesmen.
As of the morning after Warshak’s post appeared on The Huffington Post, there were twelve hand-picked comments on the post, which includes one by Warshak cheerleader “Monika” who is Monika Logan, a big “parental alienation” supporter in Texas. She is a regular commenter on stories that push this scam. Her blog supports these people who make lots of money off of promoting this “judicial tool of abuse.”Warshak was involved in a case recently in Canada, in which he testified that two boys apparently “poisoned” by “parental alienation” would benefit being treated at his “treatment center,” a center that charges $40,000 per four day session. The recommendation was so ordered, but overturned in appeal because Warshak admitted that he had only interviewed the parent claiming “parental alienation” and not the other parent. Warshak failed to even interview the boys when he recommended them for his unproven program. Seems $40,000 is quite an incentive to recommend something to someone he hasn’t even seen.Shame on The Huffington Post to allow these quacks and their supporters space to sell their wares, because that is exactly what they are doing. Then again, The Huffington Post has a history of censorship. So be careful what you read even if you think it is a respectable site. Apparently everyone has their price, and there’s a lot to be made in the “parental alienation” jackpot.
It was suggested to post comments on censorship on The Huffington Post, then share on your Facebook or Twitter account…this is an excellent idea!
When many women get together it is easy to label all men as abusers, yet the reverse is true, Fathers rights groups often try to say that women are the alienators of affection of the children. It is my practice to look at the entire picture, that is to look for the rule rather than the exception. The rule is that almost all abusers are men. No percentage here. FACT. check your workplace. Check your TV. Check your newspaper. Check your neighborhood. How many men are raped by women? How many men are brutally assaulted by women? How many children are violated by women? RARE. My contention is that only a SAP would believe in PAS. It is used by abusers (MEN) to get or keep control of money, children, the situation. The men use it because the child/Mother bond is so strong that the man is jealous of this. He never can have this closeness with the Mom or with the child. So, he will use PAS to snatch the child (like a serial killer collects personal items from his victims) since he can’t have control of the woman who wants nothing to do with him. Look up Richard Gardner of New Jersey, father of PAS, son of lies.
I read your comments on Dr. Warshak’s article and also read many others that were eventually deleted. I don’t recall that any of yours were deleted. In my opinion, the ones I saw that were removed were truly abusive, or irrelevant. Your comments appeared to be the most articulate and reasonable of those of the detractors, hence my visit to your site. I am assuming you disagree with Dr. Warshak, since you have posted this here.
I would welcome an open discussion on this topic, as I was astounded at the venomous response to the article by so many purported “victim” advocates. I see our children as being the victims here, and am confused as to why this has become such a polarized gender issue.
Men and women abuse their spouses/lovers/partners. We can quibble over the percentages and the degree but I don’t think any reasonable person can argue these days that DV is a male only pursuit. Men and women also manipulate the family court systems to gain advantages in custody disputes, using various tactics.
My “agenda” is that I would like to see a change in the law in California (where I am located) to recognize emotional abuse of children. Currently, the penal code, upon which child services and the family code depend, only recognizes physical abuse and neglect.
What my son suffered could have been labeled “parental alienation” but I did not use that term in court filings as it’s apparently such a controversial topic. Interestingly, the evaluator did not use that term in her report either. Instead, she described the inappropriate behavior of my ex-wife.
What are your thoughts on all of this?
Frog (from the boiling frog analogy – I didn’t realize how bad things were getting because it happened very gradually)