PAS/PA in court

[proud_parent]

Misto, there has been MAJOR research and discussion done on this forum on the subject. Every senior member involved in that major research and discussion knows the same information that I know.

You should seriously consider doing a search on this site and look for a post of CJane's that has some major info on PAS. Some of the info will really sicken you.

You can also google PAS and do some research of your own if you want more details.

Way to miss misto's point completely, LdiJ.

The truth of the matter is that there is an active and vocal lobby, spearheaded by Drs. William Bernet and Amy Baker, campaigning even now to include PAS or PAD in both the DSM-V and the ICD-11. They are holding a symposium on this topic at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York this very weekend.

Will they be successful in their efforts? I dare say that no one on this forum is qualified to answer that. (Unless your "personal knowledge" extends a great deal farther than previously suspected...) Heck, I used my copy of the DSM-III as a stand for my PC monitor when I was an undergraduate research/teaching assistant, but that doesn't give me any sort of clairvoyance as to how the voting body of the APA will rule in future. I do know that the APA is not looking to the family law community to tell them what diagnoses they should or should not recognize.


As for your assertion that you "cannot imagine" PAS ever becoming official, consider this: homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the very first edition of the DSM. That's right. It wasn't dropped as a psychiatric diagnosis by the APA until publication of the DSM-II in 1973. Even then, "ego-dystonic homosexuality" survived as a classification until the DSM-III was released in 1986. Likewise, the DSM-IV includes a number of classifications that have come under heavy fire since their inclusion; for example, Axis II personality disorders will undergo a major overhaul with the next revision.

The scientific validity of the DSM (and of psychiatry in general, when you come right down to it) is still a topic of considerable debate.


What we CAN we tell the OP:

1. Neither PAS nor PAD have been included in the current versions of the DSM or the ICD.

2. Neither of them will be placed in the DSM-IV...because the DSM-IV came out in 1994. The DSM-V is not expected to be released until May 2013.

3. If either of these diagnoses is ever included in a future revision, expect more custody litigators to attempt to use them in court. Whether the courts will allow evidence of PAS/PAD to be presented may come down to jurisdiction -- that is, whether the state follows the Frye standard or the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert evidence.

 

[SESmama]

Well, needless to say I was asked to "resign" from that forum and no longer post any advice. Sad, very very sad.

 

[mistoffolees]

Misto, there has been MAJOR research and discussion done on this forum on the subject. Every senior member involved in that major research and discussion knows the same information that I know.

You should seriously consider doing a search on this site and look for a post of CJane's that has some major info on PAS. Some of the info will really sicken you.

You can also google PAS and do some research of your own if you want more details.

Whether PAS will ever be included in DSM is an open issue. At this point, no one knows.

What we DO know is that you don't even know what DSM is, so you CLEARLY have no idea of what you're talking about.

 

[LdiJ]

Way to miss misto's point completely, LdiJ.

The truth of the matter is that there is an active and vocal lobby, spearheaded by Drs. William Bernet and Amy Baker, campaigning even now to include PAS or PAD in both the DSM-V and the ICD-11. They are holding a symposium on this topic at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York this very weekend.

Will they be successful in their efforts? I dare say that no one on this forum is qualified to answer that. (Unless your "personal knowledge" extends a great deal farther than previously suspected...) Heck, I used my copy of the DSM-III as a stand for my PC monitor when I was an undergraduate research/teaching assistant, but that doesn't give me any sort of clairvoyance as to how the voting body of the APA will rule in future. I do know that the APA is not looking to the family law community to tell them what diagnoses they should or should not recognize.


As for your assertion that you "cannot imagine" PAS ever becoming official, consider this: homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the very first edition of the DSM. That's right. It wasn't dropped as a psychiatric diagnosis by the APA until publication of the DSM-II in 1973. Even then, "ego-dystonic homosexuality" survived as a classification until the DSM-III was released in 1986. Likewise, the DSM-IV includes a number of classifications that have come under heavy fire since their inclusion; for example, Axis II personality disorders will undergo a major overhaul with the next revision.

The scientific validity of the DSM (and of psychiatry in general, when you come right down to it) is still a topic of considerable debate.


What we CAN we tell the OP:

1. Neither PAS nor PAD have been included in the current versions of the DSM or the ICD.

2. Neither of them will be placed in the DSM-IV...because the DSM-IV came out in 1994. The DSM-V is not expected to be released until May 2013.

3. If either of these diagnoses is ever included in a future revision, expect more custody litigators to attempt to use them in court. Whether the courts will allow evidence of PAS/PAD to be presented may come down to jurisdiction -- that is, whether the state follows the Frye standard or the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert evidence.

I think that both you and Misto must have misunderstood what I said based on the fact that I apparently didn't get his point.

My opinion (which I have the right to have) is that PAS is so discredited that it would be difficult for me to believe that the medical community would ever give it any kind of official recognition.

I don't have to know what the acronym DSM means, in order to have that opinion.

 

[proud_parent]

I think that both you and Misto must have misunderstood what I said based on the fact that I apparently didn't get his point.

My opinion (which I have the right to have) is that PAS is so discredited that it would be difficult for me to believe that the medical community would ever give it any kind of official recognition.

I don't have to know what the acronym DSM means, in order to have that opinion.

You do indeed have a right to your opinion, and are free to believe whatever you like. I posted in order to help others who might wish to make an informed opinion of their own.

I personally would be very disappointed to see PAS or PAD added to the DSM. Disappointed, but not surprised.

 

[mistoffolees]

I think that both you and Misto must have misunderstood what I said based on the fact that I apparently didn't get his point.

My opinion (which I have the right to have) is that PAS is so discredited that it would be difficult for me to believe that the medical community would ever give it any kind of official recognition.

I don't have to know what the acronym DSM means, in order to have that opinion.

Considering that DSM is THE official recognition for mental disorders, not knowing what DSM means completely disqualifies you from having an informed opinion.

You are, of course, free to have all the UNinformed opinions you wish.

 

[cyjeff]

The most important part of the discussion is the one part that hasn't been discussed.

Before entry into the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), research must prove the existence of the disorder.

Dr. Gardner, the father of PAS (and a completely worthless waste of flesh), didn't do ANY... and used the possibility of the disorder to not only support himself as an expert witness but to also further his personal agenda of legalizing pedophilia.

If proper research has, indeed, identified the disorder as valid, then I see no problem with it's inclusion.

The relevant point, however, is if Gardner's "research" or new research has been used as the proof point.

 

[LdiJ]

You do indeed have a right to your opinion, and are free to believe whatever you like. I posted in order to help others who might wish to make an informed opinion of their own.

I personally would be very disappointed to see PAS or PAD added to the DSM. Disappointed, but not surprised.

I would be both disappointed, and surprised.

However...I will admit, that if these other doctors you have mentioned, that are pushing PAS/PAD are taking a significantly different approach than Richard Gartner (I am not sure I spelled his last name correctly), that might effect the outcome. I would be disappointed in them for pushing the issue using the PAS acromym, but I would understand it better.

One thing I am fairly certain of however, is that if Misto really understood what Richard Gartner was all about..and therefore what PAS was all about, that he would be appalled and sickened.

 

[mistoffolees]

One thing I am fairly certain of however, is that if Misto really understood what Richard Gartner was all about..and therefore what PAS was all about, that he would be appalled and sickened.

I don't know enough about it to have formed an opinion. You see, unlike you, I don't form opinions that things I know nothing about.

But what Richard Gartner may or may not have done is irrelevant. Let's review the facts.

1. DSM is the premier tool for defining and describing mental illnesses.

2. The latest version says that PAS is being evaluated to determine if it is real.

3. A rational person would conclude from that that if it does turn out to be real, then it will be included in future versions and can therefore be used in child custody determinations.

4. Ldij, OTOH, concludes that there's no way that PAS will ever be used in child custody evaluations - yet doesn't even understand enough of psychology to know what DSM is.

Draw your own conclusions.


Oh, and btw, the heliocentric view of astronomy was once discredited.
The germ theory of disease was once discredited.
The ability of gravity to bend light was once discredited.
The effect of time slowing down when an object approaches the speed of light was once discredited.
And so on.

The fact that it was discredited simply means that AT THE PRESENT TIME, it is not a useful tool. No rational person would conclude that it will never be useful - at least without having some understanding of the subject.

 

[cyjeff]

Folks...

Again...

The reason it was discredited is because the founder of the theory did not do scientifically sound research to back up his claims.

Therefore, the syndrome was discredited. Not because there was NO merit, but because the merit had not been proven.

I can create a syndrome called WAS... Werewolf Alienation Syndrome. I can even rent myself out as a court witness to discuss WAS.

However, without research properly outlining and identifying WAS, it is a fiction and will not be included in DSM.

If the research is CURRENTLY being conducted to validate WAS, then it MAY be included.

Same with PAS... the originator formulated a theory because he wanted to justify his bizarre thoughts about sex with children.

If he happened upon the truth BUT didn't research it, it still requires the proper scientific method to prove validity.

Why don't we wait until it is accredited and then fight over it.

 

[mistoffolees]

Why don't we wait until it is accredited and then fight over it.

Or, why don't we wait until the research is done before we conclude that it's not real and will never be relevant in court?

 

[CJane]

Y'all do realize that PAS -- as described by Gartner -- is a diagnosis of the CHILD, and not one of the other parents, correct?

Often, people post on this forum, wanting to say that their ex "has PAS" or "shows signs of PAS". The adults are not the ones for whom the "syndrome" was created.

If the DSM-V includes PAS as a valid medical/mental disorder, I would be very interested to see the information presented. Like Cyjeff said, Gartner had NO scientific basis for his theories, and no empirical evidence at all. He made it up completely.

It's also worth pointing out that just because a disorder is described in the DSM doesn't mean that suddenly a court (or anyone else) is going to allow a diagnosis to sway them one way or the other. The best interests of the child are still -- and are almost undoubtedly going to remain -- the legal standard.

Even IF a child was diagnosed with the newly validated disorder of "PAS", the goal of the courts would/should be to ensure the child's best interests by taking that into account, but not resting the entire ruling on that one fact out of many other pertinent facts in a case. Just as a child being diagnosed with depression or ADD or anxiety disorder is going to decide a case.

 

[ready2start]

Gardner, NOT Gartner

I would be both disappointed, and surprised.



One thing I am fairly certain of however, is that if Misto really understood what Richard Gartner was all about..and therefore what PAS was all about, that he would be appalled and sickened.

Please note that you are talking about Richard A Gardner, MD, the psychiatrist who proposed the PAS and expressed sickening ideas about women and childhood sexual abuse throughout the latter part of his career before committing suicide. Richard B Gartner, PhD is a psychologist who has written landmark books about the sexual abuse of boys and its later effect on them as men (richardgartner.com). He should not be tarred with the same brush as Gardner.

 

[LdiJ]

Please note that you are talking about Richard A Gardner, MD, the psychiatrist who proposed the PAS and expressed sickening ideas about women and childhood sexual abuse throughout the latter part of his career before committing suicide. Richard B Gartner, PhD is a psychologist who has written landmark books about the sexual abuse of boys and its later effect on them as men (richardgartner.com). He should not be tarred with the same brush as Gardner.

Thank you for making that comment. That is quite important. I will try to remember the correct spelling so I don't tar a good man's name.