PARENTAL ALIENTATION SYNDROME the AWP denounces PAS

 

PDF

PARENTAL ALIENTATION SYNDROME (PAS)

Julie R. Ancis, Ph.D.

Parental Alienation Syndrome, which is being proposed for inclusion in the DSM-V, has been generally defined as a child’s denigration of a parent without justification. The creation of “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” otherwise known as PAS, is partly the result of two major trends: 1) a backlash against sexual abuse survivors who disclosed the abuse and 2) an increase in the divorce rate in North America when both parents and child custody assessors became more likely to notice signs of child abuse (Caplan, 2004).

Statistics indicate that 1/4 of girls and 1/6 of boys are survivors of Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ace/prevalence.htm). According to the World Health Organization (2006), worldwide prevalence of sexual violence involving forced intercourse and touch in children under 18 years of age is 150 million for girls and 73 million for boys and 150 million for girls. The majority of CSA perpetrators are men (Finkelhor, 1994; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2010), and more mothers than fathers tend to report that their ex-spouses might be abusing their children (Bala & Schuman, 1999).

Richard Gardner (1985/87) argued that the majority of children in child custody litigation suffered from the so-called disorder of Parental Alienation Syndrome. His focus was almost exclusively on mothers as turning a child against the father, allegedly in order to get or retain custody of the child. He included denigration of the father via ‘‘programming (‘brainwashing’),” as well as the child’s own contributions to vilifying the target parent. Gardner claimed that many reports of CSA in the context of divorce cases were false allegations. In this connection, it is important to note that Bala and Schuman (1999) found that only 1.3% of mothers’ allegations of abuse by their children’s fathers were deemed by civil court judges to be intentionally false, in contrast to 21% of cases in which fathers had made such allegations against mothers. And Meier (2009) reports after reviewing the research that it is a mistaken belief that mothers’ allegations in child custody proceedings that fathers have sexually abused their children are usually false.

The use of the term PAS and variants such as “parental alienation” has been extended in recent years, so that it is applied even to cases in which a child refuses to visit the noncustodial parent, whether or not the child’s objections entail abuse allegations.

According to Gardner, “evidence” of PAS includes a parent who refuses to force the children to visit their father (even when an abuse allegation is still being investigated), or a mother’s and/or child’s hesitancy to be interviewed in the presence of the father, the latter being alleged to result from manipulation by the mother. Children’s inability or unwillingness to provide details of abuse is also used as evidence of PAS, even though that inability or unwillingness could actually be related to trauma reactions or fear of retaliation by the abuser, possibilities not acknowledged by Gardner.

Gardner’s (1998) questionable ethics and clinical judgment are reflected in (but are by no means limited to) the following: (1) he recommends joint interviews with an accused father and child in which the father directly confronts the child about the allegation, and (2) he interprets a child’s overt expression of fear of possible retaliation by the father as evidence of the child’s embarrassment about lying rather than as possibly a valid fear of a truth telling child whose father is abusive

The construct of PAS is unscientific, composed of a group of general symptoms with no empirical basis. (It has been said that it is nothing more than a scientific-sounding way of saying that a mother is vengeful and mendacious [Caplan, 2004]). In spite of this, PAS is often used to discount allegations of abuse, particularly in custody disputes, so that the accuser’s sanity and parenting ability are questioned, and the rights of the “alienated” parent become the focus of the case, rather than the needs of the child.

Major professional bodies, including the American Psychological Association, have discredited PAS on the grounds that it is misused in domestic violence cases and that there is no scientific evidence of such a “syndrome.” The more recent APA Online document Issues and Dilemmas in Family Violencehttp://www.apa.org/pi/essues.html), particularly Issue 5, describes the tendency of family courts to miminize a context of violence, falsely accusing the mother of alienation and granting custody to the father in spite of his history of violence.

The National Council on Juvenile and Family Court Judge’s 2006 manual states that “parental alienation syndrome or PAS has been discredited by the scientific community” and “should therefore be ruled inadmissible” (p. 19). A number of prominent figures, including Dr. Paul J. Fink, past president of the American Psychiatric Association and president of the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, and Professor Jon R. Conte of the University of Washington Social Welfare Doctoral Faculty have also discredited PAS and its lack of scientific basis (see Bruch, 2001).

Because of the use of PAS as a tactic by many CSA perpetrators to influence decision makers and the court system, abused children have been placed in the hands of their abusers (Childress, 2006). It is estimated that “over 58,000 children a year are ordered into unsupervised contact with physically or sexually abusive parents following divorce in the United States”  (http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/1.htm) and that PAS was used in a large number of these cases.

Recent arguments to include PAS in the DSM-V as a differential diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder, or as an example of a relational disorder (e.g. Bernet, 2008), are lacking in empirical basis, provide false claims related to reliability and validity, and are potentially harmful to children and families.

References

American Psychological Association (APA). (1996). Report on Violence and the Family: Issues and Dilemmas in Family Violence. APA Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nnflp.org/apa/intro.html.

Bala, N., & Schuman, J.  (1999). Allegations of sexual abuse when parents have separated. Canadian Family Law Quarterly 17, 191–241.

Bernet, W. (2008). Parental alienation disorder and DSM-V. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 349-366. doi:10.1080/01926180802405513

Bruch, C. (2001). Parental Alienation Syndrome and Parental Alienation: Getting it wrong in child custody cases. Family Law Quarterly, 35(3), 527-552. Retreived from http://ezproxy.gsu.edu:3305/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/famlq35&id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/famlq

Caplan, P. (2004). What is it that’s being called “Parental Alienation Syndrome”? In Caplan, P. J., & Cosgrove, L. (Eds.) Bias in psychiatric diagnosis (pp. 61-67). Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield.

Childress, S. (2006, September 25). Fighting over the kids: Battered spouses take aim at a controversial custody strategy. Newsweek. http://www.newsweek.com/id/35157

Finkelhor, D. (1994). Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. The Future of Children, 4(2), 31-53. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/VS75.pdf.

Gardner, R. A. (1985). Recent trends in divorce and custody litigation.Academy Forum, 29 (2), 3–7.

Gardner, R. A. (1987). The Parental Alienation Syndrome and theDifferentiation Between False and Genuine Sex Abuse. Creskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1998). The Parental Alienation Syndrome (2nd ed.). Creskill, NewJersey: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.

Meier, J. S. (2009, January). Parental Alienation Syndrome and parentalalienation: Research reviews. National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/1.html

National Council of Family Court Judges (2006). Navigating Custody andVisitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide. Retrieved from http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/blogcategory/256/302/

United States Department of Veterans Affairs (2010). Child Sexual Abuse. National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Retrieved from http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/pages/child-sexual-abuse.asp.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J. B. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child in early latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46(1), 20-32. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gsu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=fyh&AN=MRB-FSD0228448&site=ehost-live

World Health Organization (2006). World health organization says violence against children can and must be prevented. News release WHO/57. Retrieved from www.whqlibdoc.who.int/press_release/2006/PR_57.pdf

Other Resources

Berliner, L & Conte J. R. (1993). Sex abuse evaluations: Conceptual and empirical obstacles. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 111-125.Retrieved from http://www.thelizlibrary.org

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2005). Prevalence of individual adverse childhood experiences. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/ace/prevalence.htm

Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The Alienated Child: A Reformulation ofParental Alienation Syndrome, 39, Family Court Review, 249-266. Retrieved from http://sfx.galib.uga.edu/sfx_gsu1?genre=article&issn=15312445&title=Family%20Court%20Review&volume=39&issue=3&date=20010701&atitle=The%20alienated%20child%3A%20A%20reformulation%20of%20parental%20alienation%20syndrome.&spage=249&sid=EBSCO%3Apsyh&pid=Kelly%2C%20Joan%20B.%3BJohnston%2C%20Janet%20R

 

The Leadership Council. Abuse and custody disputes: Scientific and legal issues.Retrieved from http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/1.html

Thoennes, N., &  Tjaden, P. G. (1990). The extent, nature, and validity of sexual abuse allegations in custody/visitation disputes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(2), 151-163. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(90)90026-P

Meir, J. S. (2009, January). Parental Alienation Syndrome and parentalalienation: Research reviews. National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, 1-17. Retrieved from http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/1.html

 

Wood, C. L. (1994). The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 27, 1367-1415. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.gsu.edu:2650/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T8031369353&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T8031369356&cisb=22_T8031369355&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138774&docNo=1

Technorati Tags: PARENTAL,ALIENTATION,SYNDROME,Julie,Ancis,Alienation,inclusion,denigration,parent,justification,creation,result,backlash,North,America,custody,signs,Caplan,Statistics,Child,Sexual,Abuse,prevalence,World,Health,Organization,violence,intercourse,children,Finkelhor,Department,Veterans,Affairs,Bala,Schuman,Richard,Gardner,litigation,disorder,father,contributions,reports,context,cases,connection,judges,Meier,belief,proceedings,allegation,hesitancy,manipulation,trauma,retaliation,abuser,possibilities,ethics,judgment,embarrassment,truth,basis,spite,accuser,rights,needs,Major,American,Psychological,Association,Online,Issue,tendency,courts,history,National,Council,Juvenile,Court,Judge,figures,Paul,Fink,president,Psychiatric,Leadership,Mental,Justice,Professor,Conte,Washington,Social,Welfare,Doctoral,tactic,decision,system,Recent,arguments,differential,diagnosis,example,Bernet,Report,Presidential,Task,Force,Author,Canadian,Journal,Therapy,Page,size,collection,index,Cosgrove,Bias,Lanham,Roman,Littlefield,September,kids,strategy,Newsweek,Current,scope,nature,Future,Academy,Forum,False,Genuine,Creskill,Creative,Therapeutics,NewJersey,January,Research,Resource,Center,Against,Women,Domestic,Guide,Post,Traumatic,Wallerstein,Orthopsychiatry,News,press_release,Resources,Berliner,Conceptual,Neglect,Human,Services,Disease,Control,Prevention,Johnston,Reformulation,Review,genre,article,EBSCO,Scientific,Thoennes,Tjaden,extent,Meir,Wood,Dangerous,Aura,Loyola,Angeles,results,GNBFI,RELEVANCE,trends,assessors,fathers,spouses,allegations,variants,objections,reactions,symptoms,Dilemmas,makers,References,journals,Evaluations,obstacles,survivors,parents,girls,nccdphp,million,perpetrators,html,leadershipcouncil,ezproxy,parentalalienation,login,docview

Why Parents Who Batter Win Custody – Newsweek.com

Fighting Over the KidsBattered spouses take aim at a controversial custody strategy.

By Sarah Childress | Newsweek Web Exclusive

It took six years for Genia Shockome to gather the courage to leave her husband, Tim. He pushed her, kicked her and insulted her almost from the moment they married in 1994, she says. She tried to start over with their children when the family moved from Texas to Poughkeepsie, N.Y. It didn’t last long. Tim called her constantly at work and, after they split up, pounded on her door and screamed obscenities, she alleged in a complaint filed in 2001. Tim was charged with harassment. As part of a plea deal, Tim agreed to a stay-away order—but denies ever abusing her or the children. In custody hearings over the past six years, Tim has insisted that he’s been a good father, and argued that Genia’s allegations poisoned their children against him. The judge sided with Tim. This summer he was granted full custody of the kids, now 11 and 9. Genia was barred from contacting them.

Genia is one of many parents nationwide who have lost custody due to a controversial concept known as parental alienation. Under the theory, children fear or reject one parent because they have been corrupted or coached to lie by the other. Parental alienation is now the leading defense for parents accused of abuse in custody cases, according to domestic-violence advocates. And it’s working. The few current studies done on the subject consider only small samples. But according to one 2004 survey in Massachusetts by Harvard’s Jay Silverman, 54 percent of custody cases involving documented spousal abuse were decided in favor of the alleged batterers. Parental alienation was used as an argument in nearly every case.

This year the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges denounced the theory as "junk science," and at least four states have passed legislation to curtail its use in custody cases involving allegations of domestic violence. "It’s really been a cancer in the family courts," says Richard Ducote, an attorney in Pittsburgh who has represented abuse victims in custody cases for 22 years. "It’s made it really difficult for parents to protect their kids. If you ask for protection, you’re deemed a vindictive, alienating parent."

It may seem hard to fathom how a judge could award custody to a parent accused of abuse. But battered spouses often don’t file criminal charges—so no judicial finding is made against their mates—and family-court judges typically aren’t trained to referee the complexities of abusive relationships. (Although men are sometimes battered by their wives, women are the victims in the majority of abuse cases.) Judges often throw out documented evidence of spousal abuse, arguing that it is irrelevant in a custody case. And experts say that family-court judges often look favorably on the alleged abuser because he seems more willing to share custody than the accuser—who is hellbent on keeping the father away from the child. According to a survey by Geraldine Stahly, a psychology professor at California State University at San Bernardino, attorneys will caution battered spouses against reporting abuse in court so they don’t lose their children. (Stahly and other academics say the parental-alienation argument has more legitimacy in custody disputes that don’t involve charges of abuse.)

Parental-alienation syndrome was first introduced by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in the 1980s. Fathers-rights groups picked up on the idea and began trying it out in court. These groups condemn abusers. But Dan Hogan, executive director of Fathers & Families, a nonprofit group that advocates for joint custody, argues that all too often the accusers lie in order to win custody of their kids.

There’s a small but growing movement to ban parental alienation in custody cases, sparked by embattled parents bonding online. They’ve linked with lawyers and advocates for battered spouses across the country. At least four states, including California, have laws protecting parents who make good-faith abuse allegations. Others may soon follow their lead. Greg Jacob, an attorney who takes cases for abused parents pro bono, is drafting legislation to shop to Virginia and Maryland next month. Meanwhile, parents like Genia keep fighting. "It’s so hard, having my children lost," she says, her voice breaking. "This was my life—my children."

Technorati Tags: Parents,Batter,Custody,Newsweek,Over,strategy,Sarah,Exclusive,Genia,Shockome,courage,husband,moment,children,Texas,Poughkeepsie,door,complaint,harassment,plea,father,kids,concept,alienation,Under,theory,parent,Parental,defense,cases,violence,subject,Massachusetts,Harvard,Silverman,argument,National,Council,Juvenile,Court,Judges,science,cancer,courts,Richard,Ducote,attorney,Pittsburgh,victims,protection,relationships,Although,abuser,accuser,Geraldine,professor,California,State,Bernardino,legitimacy,syndrome,psychiatrist,Gardner,rights,Hogan,director,movement,faith,Greg,Jacob,shop,Virginia,Maryland,life,spouses,allegations,Fathers,lawyers,spousal,four,legislation

Fired Pittsburgh Cop Not Guilty;Says He Hurt Woman In Defense (what a crock of SHIT)

Video: Ex-Girlfriend Talks About Domestic Injuries At Fired Pittsburgh Cop’s Trial

BE SURE TO WATCH THE  the video. 

 http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/23194564/detail.html

    Fired Pittsburgh Cop Not Guilty; Says He Hurt Woman In Defense

    Former Sgt. Eugene Hlavac Testifies At Trial on Simple Assault Charge

  Allegheny County, Pa.:    PITTSBURGH –A man who lost his job as a Pittsburgh police sergeant after being accused of domestic violence against his child’s mother was found not guilty Tuesday after he testified that self-defense was the reason for the woman’s injury.

    “The one thing I’m not sorry for at all is the defensive action I took,” Eugene Hlavac said on the witness stand. “I would have been justified in using more force.”

    Allegheny County Judge Tom Flaherty acquitted Hlavac of a charge of simple assault after hearing testimony from both sides in a nonjury trial. Now, Hlavac wants his job back.

    “I have always been an innocent man,” Hlavac told reporters outside the courtroom. “I was found guilty before I was proven innocent, is actually what happened, and I have one focus right now, and that’s to get my son back home with me.”

    Hlavac was fired in January, against the wishes of the Fraternal Order of Police union leaders who wanted to wait until his case went to court. At that time, union president Dan O’Hara warned that “taxpayers will be paying for a rash decision based on women’s groups wanting swift justice.”

    Joanna Doven, a spokeswoman for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, had no comment about Hlavac after Tuesday’s verdict.

    “My client will be reinstated on the police force, or there will be consequences,” said Hlavac’s defense attorney, Phillip DiLucente.

    Hlavac’s ex-girlfriend, Lauren Maughan, said she went to a hospital with a dislocated jaw after an argument broke out when she arrived to pick up their 3-year-old child at Hlavac’s Greenfield home in December.

    Hlavac’s side of the story was that Maughan initiated the violence, not the other way around.

   “My defensive action was to block the assault,” Hlavac testified. “I fell backwards toward my car. I raised my hand to push away in defensive mode.”

   “With so much force you dislocated her jaw?” Assistant District Attorney Rebecca Auld asked him.

    “I’m not a medical professional,” Hlavac responded.

    In Maughan’s testimony on Monday, she said that Hlavac was irate when she showed up late, slamming the car door as he put their child inside, and she said he hit her with an open hand when she got out of the vehicle.

Technorati Tags: Pittsburgh,Hurt,Woman,Defense,SHIT,Video,Girlfriend,Talks,About,Domestic,Trial,SURE,WATCH,news,Former,Eugene,Hlavac,Simple,Assault,Charge,Allegheny,violence,self,injury,action,Judge,testimony,reporters,January,wishes,Fraternal,Order,Police,leaders,president,Hara,decision,justice,Joanna,Doven,spokeswoman,Mayor,Luke,Ravenstahl,verdict,client,consequences,attorney,Phillip,DiLucente,Lauren,Maughan,hospital,argument,Greenfield,December,mode,Assistant,District,Rebecca,Auld,door,vehicle,Injuries

"Time’s Up Network" Presents A Special Hour of Radio: Hosts Susan Murphy Milano and Jillian Maas-Backman May 3rd at 8:00 PM CST/ 9:00 PM Central

 

Many of you suffer from sorrow associated with traumatic unsolved murderous crimes and are desperate for resolution. This hour is dedicated to those of you that are ready to explore alternative, non-conventional ways of solving your personal mystery. You can become your own intuitive investigator with help from the other side. There are endless reports from those close to victims left behind of un-explained visits from their deceased loved ones through dreams, holograms or even messages. Why are they appearing back in your life and what are they attempting to share?
A riveting special hour presented by The Time’s Up Networkand hosted by Time’s Up Blog contributing authors, Susan Murphy Milano, Violent Expert, Strategist-Author, Consultant and Jillian Maas Backman, Intuitive Life Coach, Consultant- Radio Host on station Lake 96.1 will team up to share personal encounters (Susan’s murdered mother), analyze the authenticity of tapping into this natural resource, “how- tos” on pushing past heart break and harness one of the most powerful tools available to everyone.
Wednesday, May 3, 2010
TIME: 9: 00 PM Eastern Time / 8:00 PM Central
Show Link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/susanmurphymilano
To be considered as a guest on a future show or if you have a subject matter or idea you would like on a topic of interest please email us at murphymilano@gmail.com
Been there, done that…” Susan Murphy- Milano has turned a tired phrase into demonstrable realism through the gift of her newly published book, "TIME’S UP: A GUIDE ON HOW TO LEAVE AND SURVIVE ABUSIVE AND STALKING RELATIONSHIPS

Technorati Tags: Time,Network,Special,Hour,Radio,Hosts,Susan,Murphy,Milano,Jillian,Maas,Backman,Central,Many,investigator,reports,victims,dreams,messages,life,Blog,Violent,Expert,Strategist,Author,Consultant,Intuitive,Coach,Host,Lake,team,resource,heart,tools,Eastern,Link,guest,subject,topic,realism,gift,GUIDE,LEAVE,SURVIVE,ABUSIVE,RELATIONSHIPS,crimes,authors

Victims of Child Abuse Rarely Lie: BELIEVE THEM.

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20100502/LIFESTYLE/100430030

Victims of child abuse rarely lie

May 2, 2010

Child abuse is a difficult topic to talk. Child sexual abuse is even harder to acknowledge.
Often, adults ask me if children lie about being sexually abused. It is not easy to believe that a person could harm a child in such a way. Children do not lie about sexual abuse.

Statistics show that children are truthful 99.5 percent of the time. Because children disclose abuse in a variety of different ways, this often can be misunderstood and interpreted that the child is being untruthful.

When a child discloses sexual abuse, it can be upsetting to the caretakers and reactions vary. Reactions can include confusion, disbelief and denial. Another coping mechanism is to try and dismiss what was said as a lie or an attention-seeking story.
There are many factors to consider when supporting sexually abused children and to understand their experiences.

> The way children report sexual abuse depends on their age and developmental level.
> Children don’t automatically report the way adults do.

> There is no way a child can explicitly depict the details of sexual acts performed on them unless the child has experienced it.

> Children who have suffered multiple abuse encounters often present conflicting data, combining information from years of abuse into one or two accounts that include inconsistent details.

Sometimes these children are found less credible due to conflicting details and cannot give clear and specific facts that will stand up in court.

> Only when a child’s statements can fit criteria of reliability and consistency can they be successful in criminal court. While a child’s inconsistencies may on the surface seem like lying, they often are normal for their age and developmental stage.

> Just because charges of alleged abuse have been dropped and/or children have recanted certain statements, it does not indicate that children lie about sexual abuse.

> While controversy rages about whether to believe certain children, the children continue to feel misunderstood and mistreated, heightening their sense of being victims.
> Sexually abused children have been known to deny, minimize, “forget’’ and confuse facts of the abuse, but rarely do they lie.

> The most important thing that you can do for a child who is surviving sexual abuse is to listen and believe the child and protect the child from further acts of abuse.

If you suspect abuse offer, your child support and contact your local child protection services or law enforcement. In Larimer County call the HUB at (970) 498-6990. If you are interested in attending a child abuse prevention class to better protect your children, contact Ana Pasini-Sluss at (970) 407-9739 or ana@larimercac.org

Technorati Tags: Victims,Child,Abuse,BELIEVE,article,LIFESTYLE,topic,Often,children,person,Statistics,disbelief,denial,Another,mechanism,attention,data,Sometimes,consistency,Just,controversy,protection,services,Larimer,prevention,Pasini,Sluss,caretakers,reactions,factors,statements,criteria,inconsistencies,sexual,adults,developmental

SUSAN MURPHY-MILANO JOINS ELITE SPEAKERS BUREAU

Posted by Administrator on 04/30/2010 · Leave a Comment 

The Elite Speaker’s Bureau, Inc. was founded by Denise Brown, sister of Nicole Brown Simpson and advocate against domestic violence. Nicole was a victim of domestic violence and was brutally murdered in 1994. Denise has traveled the world speaking out about the issue of domestic violence for over 15 years, which also exposed her to the harsh reality that many forms of violence occur in our neighborhoods, communities and society. Denise realized that more needs to be done, and more people need to know that issues of violence affect everyone.

Her vision has now become a reality, as she has brought together an elite group of speakers to spread the word and educate others.

Susan Murphy-Milano

As an expert in the area of intimate partner violence and the prevention ofhomicide, Susan Murphy-Milano has created specific tools and procedures which the abused need to safely leave a violent relationship.

In her new book “Time’s Up A Guide on How to Leave and Survive Abusive Stalking Relationship ” Susan gives abuse victims a useful set of important instructions, their personal road map to safety.

Susan uses humor, passion, and all her years of experience to motivate her audience to become more effective first responders, advocates and professionals in their work to stop family violence.

Susan is proud to be represented by such a distinguished group and in the company of her peers and professionals working to end family violence.

To say that Susan Murphy Milano has hit the nail on the head (again) is a total understatement!  Murphy Milano’s book is well crafted and timely.  She not only discusses the “problem” but takes it one step further in this soup-to-nuts handbook……..Robin Sax, Legal Analyst

Technorati Tags: SUSAN,MURPHY,MILANO,ELITE,BUREAU,Administrator,Leave,Comment,Speaker,Denise,Brown,Nicole,Simpson,violence,victim,world,needs,vision,word,area,prevention,tools,procedures,relationship,Time,Guide,Survive,Abusive,victims,road,passion,audience,understatement,soup,handbook,Robin,Legal,Analyst,SPEAKERS

(FL) Custody Feud: Fair Hearing Denied for Linda Marie Sacks

From MomLogic

Gina Kaysen Fernandes: A Daytona Beach, Florida mother who lost custody of her two girls whom she believes are being sexually abused by their father was dealt a crushing legal blow in her the latest courtroom clash. Linda Marie Sacks recently shared her heartbreaking story with momlogic, describing how a judge punished her in family court for raising concerns about her children’s documented abuse.

ncmbts.blogspot.com

After going public with her story, Linda Marie filed an appeal with Florida‘s Fifth District Court of Appeals in her third attempt to regain custody of her kids. The self-described "squeaky clean" mom has only been allowed to see her teen-aged daughters two hours a month during supervised visits. "After 3 years with only 64 hours of contact with my children… enough is enough, " said Linda Marie.

This week Volusia County Judge Shawn L. Briese canceled a scheduled hearing and refused to allow the testimony of a clinical psychologist who believes Linda Marie‘s two daughters are victims of child sexual abuse. Dr. Kathy Pearce intended to testify about case notes she recently reviewed from the children’s therapist’s file. "I had seen the summary of her [the therapist’s] files but I had never seen her actual notes," Pearce said. "There was much more there than I ever knew."

Linda Marie faced an uphill legal battle from the get-go. Her wealthy ex-husband hired aggressive attorneys to maneuver his way through the courts. He also paid out of pocket for his own psychologists who are essentially hired guns intended to repeat the father’s version of events on the stand. The evaluator claimed the father’s sexual behavior was within "normal limits". The teens’ father has admitted to inappropriate behavior such as wiping down the vaginas of his school-aged daughters.

Cashing in on child custody fights

Legal watchdog groups say the family courts are ripe for corruption. "The whole system is set up to churn fees," says Kathleen Russell of the Center for Judicial Excellence. In high conflict custody cases, a family court judge typically assigns "court appointees" to provide counseling and evaluations of the parents and their children. The cost of these sessions, which are paid by the parents, can add up quickly. "It’s a very lucrative industry," says Russell "these mental health professionals are making a handsome living."

What concerns Russell most is that there’s no regulation or oversight of this cottage industry. Many of the accused abusers will pay the evaluator directly which can lead to collusion. The court appointees also have legal immunity that prevents them from being sued for unethical behavior. "There’s no checks and balances and no questioning of authority," said Russell. The court-hired professionals have significant power when it comes to determining a child’s future. Judges generally defer to the appointee’s recommendations before making a custody ruling.

Linda Marie says the custody evaluator ordered to examine her case in 2004 never called the abuse hotline, despite having a legal obligation under the mandatory reporting laws.
The psychologist dismissed the girls’ abuse history and their father’s inappropriate behavior. However the therapist determined Linda Marie had a better psychological bond with the children and recommended the mother should be the primary parent.

Two years later, that same therapist reversed her decision and decided that Linda Marie‘s ex-husband should have sole custody of their kids. This change of heart happened coincidentally while an associate in her office was hired to evaluate the father. "Money can buy the outcome you want, with total disregard to the children’s welfare or safety," said Linda Marie.

While the family courts may initially have had good intentions by relying on mental health professionals, critics argue it’s only making the situation worse. "These are criminal matters," says Russell "They need to be investigated as crimes." She advises parents to avoid family court at all cost and try to mediate your divorce instead. If you end up in family court, Russell recommends you collect as much evidence as possible, report abusive behavior when it happens and document it with photos.

There’s no turning back for Linda Marie Sacks who intends to keep fighting as long as it takes to get her girls back. "I have my sights on the US Supreme Court if they do not give me my children back and a new judge." While Linda Marie‘s case may seem extreme, it’s not unique. "It’s happening to thousands of mothers stuck in family court trying to protect their children," says Russell. "It’s a bottomless pit."

Read more: http://www.momlogic.com/2010/04/child_custody_feud_fair_hearing_denied_linda_marie.php#ixzz0mbWsLbmI

Blogger Labels: Custody,Feud,Fair,Linda,Marie,From,MomLogic,Gina,Kaysen,Fernandes,Daytona,Beach,Florida,father,children,Fifth,District,Court,kids,self,Volusia,Judge,Shawn,Briese,testimony,victims,Kathy,Pearce,notes,therapist,files,husband,courts,version,events,evaluator,behavior,teens,Legal,watchdog,corruption,system,fees,Russell,Center,Judicial,Excellence,cases,cost,industry,health,regulation,cottage,Many,collusion,Judges,obligation,history,parent,decision,heart,office,Money,outcome,welfare,situation,Supreme,Read,evaluations,sessions,recommendations,intentions,critics,crimes,photos,girls,daughters,hours,psychologist,sexual,appointees,parents

Fathers Rights Movement Naked

 

 

Vodpod videos no longer available.

HOW DO WE KNOW CUSTODY COURTS ARE SENDING CHILDREN TO LIVE WITH ABUSERS? TEN WAYS TO KNOW THE CUSTODY COURT SYSTEM IS BROKEN

TEN WAYS TO KNOW THE CUSTODY COURT SYSTEM IS BROKEN

by Barry Goldstein

Mothers and domestic violence advocates have been complaining for many years about problems in the custody court system that have resulted in large numbers of children being sent to live with abusive fathers while safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children. Courts have tended to dismiss the complaints by referring to the mothers as “disgruntled litigants.” As more concern about the problem has been expressed and more research performed, the mothers’ complaints have been confirmed.

Early in 2010, a new book co-edited by Dr. Maureen T. Hannah and Barry Goldstein, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY will be published and end any doubts that there is a pattern of mistakes made in the custody court system.

These mistakes have caused thousands of cases to be mishandled and placed the lives and well being of battered women and their children in jeopardy. The book includes chapters by over 25 of the leading experts in the United States and Canada including
judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, journalists and domestic violence advocates. Although these experts come from different disciplines and approached the issue from different directions, there is a remarkable consensus about the problem and the solution. The up-to-date research and information now available makes it clear that the present practices can no longer be justified and the custody court system must create the necessary reforms to protect the safety of children and protective mothers in domestic violence custody cases. This article will discuss ten reasons we know the custody court system is broken and must be reformed.

1. Mothers’ Complaints: The problem this article seeks to discuss are cases in which a mother who has been the primary caregiver and makes allegations of domestic violence and/or child abuse loses custody to the alleged abuser and receives supervised visitation or no contact with her children.

These cases have increased since federal laws designed to increase enforcement of child support orders were passed. Male supremacist groups have encouraged abusive fathers to seek custody as a way to avoid paying child support, to pressure his partner to stay or punish her for leaving. The courts and the often inadequately trained professionals they rely on, glad to see the involvement of fathers in children’s lives often fail to recognize the tactic and motivation. Courts tend to look at each case separately and so fail to see the patterns of mistakes in these cases.

Demonizing their victim is a common strategy employed by abusers so a court could believe there was something profoundly wrong with an individual mother to justify the extreme outcome. When experts look at the pattern of these cases it is evident that the unusual circumstances needed to justify a particular outcome cannot be as common as the results would suggest. Women and children make deliberately false allegations of abuse between one and two percent of the time, but the court decisions support the myth that such deliberate false allegations are common. Furthermore, domestic violence allegations are painful and embarrassing to make and require the victims to speak about uncomfortable issues and questions. Research demonstrates that allegations of domestic violence and child abuse make women less likely to obtain custody. We can’t know that an individual case was improperly decided without careful review of the case, but we know the frequency of outcomes that give custody to alleged abusers cannot possibly be based on objective facts.

2. Available Research: The modern movement against domestic violence is only about thirty years old and there was little research available when it started. We now have extensive research to demonstrate common mistakes courts and the often-unqualified professionals they rely on use in domestic violence custody cases. Studies show that while evaluators believe they are considering domestic violence in their investigation of the family, in fact most fail to do so. We have many studies proving widespread gender bias against women in the approaches used by the courts. Evaluators regularly use psychological testing that has little or no relevance to the issues before the court and is gender biased. Psychologists testifying before the courts rarely inform the judges that their results are based upon probabilities so that factors in the case that would reduce those probabilities can be considered. Most important to the present topic is research that considers the accuracy of the actual court decisions. Most custody cases (over 95%) are settled more or less amicably. The problem is with the minority of terrible cases that continue to trial and beyond. Courts often think of them as “high conflict” cases, but in reality these are mostly domestic violence cases. Research studies vary somewhat on the percentage of these cases that involve abusive fathers, but  all agree the majority of such cases involve domestic violence. I believe the studies that found 90% of these contested custody cases are caused by abusive fathers because unqualified professionals frequently miss domestic violence. In any event, contested custody cases should be being decided overwhelmingly in favor of protective mothers because most of the fathers are abusive, but 70% of the cases result in custody or joint custody to the father. This does not tell us an individual case was wrongly decided, but does demonstrate that a large percentage of cases are being decided in a way that is harmful for the children.

3. Battered Mothers Testimony Project and Research: Several states including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona and New York City have done studies based on questionnaires filled out by protective mothers. These surveys have demonstrated widespread problems in the custody court system, many common mistakes and outcomes that fail to protect battered women and their children. This is admittedly not scientific research as the participants are volunteers rather than randomly selected (much of the “research” cited by male supremacist groups comes from interviews with alleged abusers, but is often treated as if it were valid research). Sociologists, Sharon Araji and Rebecca L. Bosek went several steps further for their chapter in DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY. They performed a similar study in Alaska and then compared the results from the various states that interviewed protectivemothers. The authors found the responses similar across the several state surveys. They then compared the results of the surveys filled out by protective mothers to scientific research performed by a variety of researchers using accepted scientific methods. Significantly the findings from the protective mothers are strongly supported by the scientific research. In other words, the complaints by protective mothers that have been so often dismissed as coming from “disgruntled litigants” actually have substantial validity.

4. Courageous Kids: If a court system wanted to determine the validity and value of psychological evaluations, it would look for research that examined how the recommendations and approaches used by the evaluators worked out in the lives
of the children. Without such research there is no way to determine if the time, money and results for evaluations are useful. In fact there is no such research and I would certainly recommend obtaining such research if evaluations were to continue to be used in child custody cases. The closest we have to such research is the Courageous Kids Network. The Courageous Kids are young adults who were forced to live with abusers by the decisions of the custody court. They are now old enough to have escaped their abusers and are speaking out about their experiences. The stories are painful to hear because they had to survive such awful abuse, but life affirming as they overcame the obstacles to support each other and help change the broken system. These heroes have spoken at judicial trainings, legislative hearings and domestic violence conferences. Their presentations are effective because it is all too easy to discredit protective mothers, but hard to discredit the children for whom the courts and the professionals are supposedly trying to help. Remember these children were forced to live with and be influenced by the abuser. In most cases they had to endure “therapy” designed to support the abuser and discredit the protective mother. There are many psychological, safety and other reasons to discourage such children from coming forward and speaking out. The fact so many Courageous Kids have spoken out demonstrates the courts are getting large numbers of cases tragically wrong.

5. Review of Bad Cases: The authors of the 25 chapters in the book have carefully reviewed hundreds if not thousands of these cases. In their book, FROM MADNESS TO MUTINY, Dr. Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher reviewed over 1000 cases. The Truth Commission listened to the testimony of 16 women and reviewed records from their cases. Many other experts have studied domestic violence cases where the alleged abuser received custody and the protective mother received little or no contact with her children. In these cases we have found widespread mistakes, bad practices, use of myths and stereotypes, the failure to use up-to-date research, gender bias and outcomes that place children at risk. The legal system works on the assumption that once a case is decided or facts determined that the findings are established and any further consideration should be based upon the assumption the court decided the case properly. This assumption will lead to misinformation and inaccurate research because there is strong evidence that most contested domestic violence custody cases and certainly those that result in custody to the alleged abuser are wrongly decided. We are particularly concerned with the growing court practice of retaliating against protective mothers and professionals trying to help them for exposing court mistakes in these cases. Frequently a mother’s refusal to believe an abuser is safe after the court fails to recognize his abuse is used to justify severe and extreme limitations on her access to her children without regard to the harm such rulings have on the children.

6. Parental Alienation Syndrome: PAS is a bogus theory created based on the personal biases of Dr. Richard Gardner. His books were self-published and never peer reviewed. It is used only in domestic violence custody cases to prevent or
shorten investigations of the father’s abuse. PAS assumes that if a child expresses negative feelings about the father or doesn’t want visitation, the only possible explanation is that the mother alienated the child and the solution is to force the child to live with the abuser and have at most supervised visitation with the protective mother who has been the primary attachment figure for the child. PAS is not recognized by any reputable professional organization and does not appear in DSM IV, which contains recognized diagnosis. Dr. Paul Fink, past president of the American Psychiatric Association wrote a chapter for the book in which he demonstrates the invalidity of PAS. Dr. Fink points out that Richard Gardner made numerous statements complaining that society takes child sexual abuse too seriously and that sex between adults and children can be appropriate. This explains why PAS is so often used to give custody to fathers who have sexually abused their children. Dr. Fink points out that psychologists are starting to lose their licenses for using PAS in evaluations. They are, in effect diagnosing something that does not exist. Thousands of the casesin which alleged abusers won custody was based upon the discredited PAS or PAS by a different name.
Any case in which “evidence” of PAS was allowed was likely wrongly decided.

7. Gender Bias: The Truth Commission recommended that rather than training professionals with general domestic violence information, all professionals should have training in Gender Bias, Recognizing Domestic Violence and the Effects of Domestic Violence on Children. This is because they found that many of the mistakes made in these cases were caused by a lack of understanding of these basic concepts. At least 40 states and many other districts and communities have created court-sponsored gender bias committees. They have found widespread gender bias and particularly in domestic violence custody cases. Among the
common problems were blaming victims for their abuser’s behavior, burdening women with higher standards of proof and giving fathers more credibility than mothers. Other research, including the chapter in the book by Molly Dragiewicz has made similar findings. In one New York case the court gave custody to an abuser and denied the protective mother any contact with the children after the evaluator used and the judge supported a certainty standard for the mother and probability standard for the father. Few litigants could win a case when faced with a certainty standard. At least 15-20 different judges were asked to review
this clear example of gender bias (the different standards were stated in the evaluator’s report and repeatedly challenged in the transcript), but every judge failed to correct this obvious error. Lynn Hecht Schafran wrote a brilliant article
“Evaluating the Evaluators” that illustrates the problem. The article describes a new psychologist asked to perform an evaluation on a young family. She went to the father’s apartment and found it a complete mess with no food in the refrigerator. She wrote the father lives in a typical bachelor apartment. She went to the mother’s apartment and found it to be somewhat messy, but not as bad as the father’s. She had food in the refrigerator, but not as much as preferable. The evaluator wrote the mother lives in a messy apartment with inadequate food. The evaluator had a supervisor because she was new and the supervisor asked if she  saw what she had done. The evaluator could not believe she had engaged in gender bias and quickly corrected the report. The article is valuable because it demonstrates that professionals acting in good faith (including women) can easily engage in gender bias without realizing it because of the sexism and stereotypes so prevalent in our society. How can anyone reasonably believe the courts are
reaching fair decisions in domestic violence custody cases when gender bias is so common?

8. Failure to Recognize Domestic Violence: Many of the mistakes custody courts make have to do with failing to recognize domestic violence. In fairness some of the problem is caused because victims or their attorneys fail to present the necessary evidence. Unqualified professionals often discount allegations of abuse based upon information that represents a normal and reasonable response to his abuse. In the book, Judge Mike Brigner writes about training judges in domestic violence. They often ask him how to respond to all the cases where women are lying about domestic violence. When he asks what they mean, they cite cases where women go back to their abuser, withdraw petitions for a protective order, fail to file police complaints or don’t seek medical care. In reality there are safety and other explanations for women’s response to domestic violence and none of these examples should be used to assume her complaints are false. At the same time they use information of limited value to discount domestic violence, professionals fail to use helpful and relevant information to understand the pattern of domestic violence tactics. Too often the professionals are interested only in physical abuse. They fail to consider a variety of controlling and coercive tactics.
They don’t understand the significance of a woman’s fear of her partner. Domestic violence advocates are the only professionals that work full time on domestic violence issues. The advocates receive more training and have more knowledge of domestic violence then the professionals relied on by the courts. Domestic violence agencies have very limited resources so they are forced to screen clients before providing services. Accordingly when a woman is receiving services from a domestic violence agency, it is a strong indication that she is a battered woman, but many professionals fail to consider this information. Although seeking custody to pressure a mother to return or punish her for leaving is a common abuser tactic, few courts consider why a father with limited
involvement with the children prior to separation suddenly demands full custody. Similarly unqualified professionals often fail to consider evidence that a man believes his partner has no right to leave is a strong indication of his motivation in seeking custody. How can courts be expected to decide domestic violence custody cases appropriately if they don’t know what to look for when determining the validity of domestic violence allegations?

9. Effect of Domestic Violence on Children: Every state has passed laws designed to promote greater consideration of the effects of domestic violence on children. Some states require domestic violence to be considered in making custody and visitation decisions and others create a presumption against custody for abusers (although often the laws or the courts require a level of proof or create other restrictions that limit the effectiveness of these laws). Prior to these laws, when a protective mother asked to limit the father’s contact with the children because of domestic violence, the judge would ask some version of “Does he also abuse the child?” If the answer was no, the court treated the father as if he was just as appropriate for custody and visitation as the mother. The change in laws was based on overwhelming research that children witnessing domestic violence were harmed as much as children directly abused. The research found these children to be at substantially greater risk of a wide range of dysfunctional behaviors when they were older. In other words, domestic violence is a serious form of child abuse. We have found, however that courts frequently place greater reliance on other custody factors that have far less consequences to the safety and well being
of children. In fairness, the courts are not solely to blame as legislatures have passed laws like “friendly parent” factors and failed to make domestic violence and safety the primary factors in custody determination. There is no research that “alienating” statements or attitudes by one parent to the children has the kind of serious long-term harm of domestic violence and yet many of the cases reviewed focus far more attention on alleged alienation. When mothers respond normally to their partner’s abuse with fear or attempts to protect the children, courts frequently treat this as the most important issue in deciding custody. This is a common example of what was discussed in gender bias reports in that the mother is held responsible for her reaction to the father’s abuse instead of holding the father responsible for his abuse. This type of mistake is at the heart of the common mistakes made by custody courts and does not serve the best interests of the children. If children are having problems as a result of the father’s abuse, unqualified professionals often blame the divorce and separation instead of his abuse. They often recommend cooperation and interaction between abuser and victim that is the opposite of what is healthy for children, but often benefit the fathers’ cases. When children appear to be doing well, inadequately trained professionals mistakenly assume this means the abuse allegations are false. Some children respond to abuse by trying to be perfect and take on adult responsibilities. Many years later the harm of the father’s abuse comes out in debilitating ways. Similarly children will often behave well with abusers and act out with their mothers because they know she is the safe parent. This is often misunderstood and courts reach the false conclusion that the father is the better parent. As long as the courts fail to understand the long-term harm to children of placing them with abusers, the courts will continue to make decisions that ruin children’s lives.

10. Extreme Results: If a court were to give custody to a protective mother and limit the father to supervised visitation because of his domestic violence, it would be following the recommendations of up-to-date research. In other words there is a scientific basis for such an outcome. The researchers weigh the harm of restricting the children’s contact with their father and the harm the father is likely to cause with unrestricted visitation and the message sent to the children by awarding normal visitation with someone they know abused their mother. Instead what we are seeing is alleged abusers receiving custody and protective mothers having supervised or no visitation. Obviously, in these cases the courts are assuming the mother’s allegations of abuse are false. They justify the visitation restrictions by their concern the mother will continue to believe she was abused and say negative things about the father. Where is the research that the harm to the children of hearing such statements is greater than the harm of being denied a normal relationship with their mother? Even in intact families the children often hear negative comments about the other parent. In other words, these extreme court decisions are based upon the belief systems and biases of court professionals and not up-to-date research. Many children have been denied any contact with their mothers in these cases. Ironically fathers are often granted custody based on the belief they are the friendlier parent and will promote the relationship between the mother and children, but he proceeds to terminate all contact once he has control. Many courts that jumped all over mothers for requesting the court restrict the father’s access have done nothing in the face of the father preventing visitation or other contact between mother and children.
Rapists and even murderers frequently receive some supervised visitation and yet mothers who sought to protect their children from an abuser are completely cut off from their children. The extreme outcomes faced by protective mothers are unsupported by any research, but demonstrate serious flaws in the custody system.

Now That We Know the Custody Court System Is Broken

Now is not the time for blame or attacks. As the Schafran article demonstrates, it is all too easy for good and caring people to fail to understand and recognize gender bias and domestic violence. In the book, Judge Hornsby writes that in his 19^th year on the bench he finally understood the proper way to handle requests for protective orders. The judge’s humility, integrity and openness should serve as a model to the legal community as it responds to the clear information and research that the present court practices are mistreating protective mothers and their children. I was recently at a domestic violence conference in Hawaii where a court official was asked a question implying serious problems in the court system. She responded by saying if someone didn’t like a decision they could appeal. To her credit she later acknowledged that many people don’t have the money for such an appeal. This official fell into the trap of responding defensively to criticism. The challenge for the custody court system is to be open to the up-to-date research even though it finds the courts have made widespread mistakes in its handling of domestic violence custody cases. The medical community faced a similar situation in responding to research that found avoidable mistakes were responsible for 100,000 deaths each year in our nation’s hospitals. For years, fear of lawsuits, discipline and damaged reputation caused the medical profession to ignore, deny and seek to place blame on others. Finally they realized this was a losing strategy. Doctors, nurses and hospitals have now come together to correct the problems with more openness and accountability. Lives have already been saved from implementation of this approach and the campaign to prevent such avoidable errors. Rather than harm the medical community’s reputation, this campaign has increased the respect for the medical community. I believe if the legal community makes a similar effort to apply the latest research and create a campaign to avoid the kinds of tragic mistakes that have ruined the lives of so many women and children, the campaign will improve the reputation of the legal system. The promotion of the safety of battered mothers and their children is not and should not be considered a partisan issue.

Every state and every court system has rules and laws against domestic violence.

Although some fringe male supremacist groups object to these laws, society has spoken and there is no longer any legitimate dispute about whether domestic violence should be tolerated. If a community had a rash of arson fires and the courts and legislature wanted to figure out how to respond they would seek the expertise of the experts. The experts are the fire fighting community because they know best how to recognize arson, prevent it and respond to arson. No one would ever accuse the firefighters of being partisan because they are always against arson. In responding to domestic violence the experts are the domestic violence community. They are the only profession working full time on domestic violence issues and know how to recognize domestic violence, the best ways to prevent it and the harm it causes. Too often the courts have failed to take advantage of this community resource because they viewed domestic violence advocates as partisans. The validity for this claim ended when society determined it would no longer tolerate domestic violence and passed laws to enforce this determination. The crimes of arson and domestic violence are treated differently because arson has always been a crime and domestic violence is a relatively new crime and most firefighters are men and most domestic violence advocates are women. In this still sexist society what women say is not treated with the respect and value that what men say is. The domestic violence community is an important and valuable resource that the court system can benefit from as it applies the up-to-date research to practices that are now discredited. The legal system must use this research to launch a re-evaluation of its response to domestic violence custody cases so that custody courts become a safe place for battered mothers and their children. We are ready to work with them to help accomplish society’s goal of ending domestic violence.

Barry Goldstein is the author of SCARED TO LEAVE AFRAID TO STAY. He has been an instructor and supervisor in a NY Model Batterer Program for 10 years. He was an attorney representing victims of domestic violence for 30 years. He now provides
workshops, judicial and other trainings regarding domestic violence particularly related to custody issues. He also serves as a consultant and expert witness. His new book,

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, co edited with Dr. Maureen T. Hannah will be published early in 2010. For more information, visit his web site at Barrygoldstein.net

Technorati Tags: CUSTODY,COURTS,CHILDREN,LIVE,ABUSERS,WAYS,COURT,SYSTEM,BROKEN,Barry,Goldstein,violence,problems,numbers,relationship,Hannah,DOMESTIC,ABUSE,CHILD,doubts,cases,jeopardy,Canada,judges,journalists,Although,consensus,solution,article,abuser,orders,Male,involvement,tactic,motivation,victim,strategy,outcome,results,Women,myth,victims,Research,frequency,Available,movement,investigation,fact,gender,bias,Evaluators,relevance,Psychologists,Most,topic,accuracy,percentage,event,result,father,Testimony,Project,Several,Massachusetts,Pennsylvania,California,Arizona,York,Sociologists,Sharon,Araji,Rebecca,Bosek,steps,chapter,Alaska,findings,words,Courageous,Kids,money,Network,life,Remember,therapy,Review,FROM,MUTINY,Neustein,Michael,Lesher,Truth,Commission,records,Many,myths,failure,assumption,misinformation,refusal,limitations,Parental,Alienation,Syndrome,theory,Richard,Gardner,self,feelings,explanation,attachment,organization,diagnosis,Paul,Fink,president,American,Psychiatric,Association,Thousands,Effects,Among,behavior,Dragiewicz,evaluator,example,transcript,error,Lynn,Hecht,Schafran,evaluation,apartment,food,supervisor,faith,sexism,Recognize,response,Judge,Mike,Brigner,significance,woman,knowledge,clients,services,agency,indication,separation,demands,Effect,Some,presumption,restrictions,Prior,version,reliance,consequences,parent,determination,attention,reports,reaction,heart,interests,cooperation,interaction,responsibilities,conclusion,Extreme,basis,message,Instead,Where,comments,belief,Rapists,Hornsby,bench,requests,conference,Hawaii,decision,criticism,situation,nation,reputation,profession,Doctors,implementation,Rather,effort,promotion,rules,legislature,expertise,advantage,resource,crime,sexist,goal,author,LEAVE,AFRAID,STAY,instructor,Model,Batterer,Program,attorney,consultant,Barrygoldstein,fathers,complaints,chapters,lawyers,psychiatrists,allegations,decisions,outcomes,factors,questionnaires,participants,authors,responses,methods,evaluations,recommendations,obstacles,heroes,conferences,presentations,biases,investigations,statements,concepts,committees,explanations,examples,agencies,legislatures,attitudes,systems,murderers,flaws,deaths,hospitals,lawsuits,errors,crimes,litigants,longer,visitation,supremacist,researchers,adults,trainings,refrigerator,firefighters

MICKEY SHERMAN HOSTS SUSAN MURPHY-MILANO ON “SHERMAN’S LAW”

Posted by Administrator on 04/29/2010 · Leave a Comment

Tune in live at 4pm Eastern, Thursday, April 29 for the broadcast of “Sherman’s Law” on News Talk AM1490WGCH.  Host Mickey Sherman welcomes Susan Murphy-Milano to discuss her groundbreaking book, “Time’s Up: A Guide on How to Leave an Abusive and Stalking Relationship.”

The link to listen live or to the archive is HERE

Former public defender and prosecutor, Mickey Sherman is a criminal defense lawyer who has represented clients in a very wide range of criminal cases. His innovative courtroom and trial techniques have been the subject of feature articles in the New York Times, National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Time Magazine, Vanity Fair and other publications.

His cases have been featured on Dateline, 48 Hours, Court TV, America’s Most Wanted, Law & Order and pretty much everything else except the Food Network. Mickey has been portrayed on Law & Order, two TV movies and he is a recurring character in three of James Patterson’s books, most recently “The 6th Target” a #1 on the NYT Best Seller list. He plays himself in the recent Barry Levinson film, “Man of the Year,” starring Robin Williams.

Susan Murphy-Milano is a specialist in family violence and works nationally with domestic violence programs, law enforcement and prosecutors providing technical and consulting services in “high risk” domestic violence and stalking related cases. Her principal objective is to intervene before a victim is seriously injured or killed.

Author of “Defending Our Lives” published by Doubleday, and “Moving Out Moving On: When a Relationship Goes Wrong,” Susan is the host of The Susan Murphy Milano Show and is also a contributor to “Time’s Up!” and“Women In Crime Ink” online. With co-stars, Dennis Griffin and Vito Colucci, Susan will be participating in the new television show, “Crime Wire” which will examine cases in which the investigations have left questions unanswered and possible criminal activity unexposed.

Filed under Client Events, ImaginePublicity, Susan Murphy Milano, Uncategorized · Tagged with cnn, Domestic violence, mickey sherman, oprah, sherman’ law, Susan Murphy Milano, Time’s Up

Technorati Tags: MICKEY,SHERMAN,HOSTS,SUSAN,MURPHY,MILANO,Administrator,Leave,Comment,Tune,Eastern,April,News,Talk,Host,Time,Guide,Abusive,Relationship,archive,HERE,Former,defender,defense,lawyer,clients,cases,subject,York,Times,National,Journal,American,Magazine,Fair,Dateline,Hours,Court,America,Most,Order,Food,Network,James,Patterson,Target,Best,Seller,plays,Barry,Levinson,Robin,Williams,violence,services,victim,Author,Wrong,contributor,Women,Crime,Dennis,Griffin,Vito,Colucci,television,Wire,Client,Events,Domestic,techniques,articles,publications,investigations