Thirty years behind the times. The pseudo science of parental alienation syndrome has been sanctioned at the highest level in New Zealand,
By Dr. Lisa Shamseldin of Children’s Rights New Zealand:
The New Zealand Health and Disability Commissioner has publicly supported the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome, “PAS” or Any Other Name by Which it is Known as a Framework for Determining the Best Interests of Children Involved in Custody Disputes in the New Zealand Family Court.
Children’s Rights New Zealand is concerned at the support of the Commissioner of court-appointed New Zealand psychologists diagnosing and labelling children and protective parents [99% mothers] with an unrecognised condition
“PAS” is not in the DSM V, rejected by the House of Lords, UK, the Australian Psychological Board, the Presidential Task Force of the American Psychological Association on Violence in the Family, the American Psychological Association, the American Bar and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Australian Psychological Board.
Children’s Rights New Zealand is concerned at the support by the Health and Disability Commissioner of this pro-paedophila oriented “pseudo-science” and the safeguarding risks to children disclosing abuse who are also involved in custody disputes in the New Zealand Family Court.
Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner’s Opinions on Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse with this work continued on by Warshak after Gardner committed suicide: http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html
Claims of Gardner “PAS”
- Older children may be helped to appreciate that sexual encounters between an adult and a child are not universally considered to be reprehensible acts.
- If the sexual relationship is discovered, ” the child is likely to fabricate so that the adult will be blamed for the initiation”; Gardner, R.A. (1992).
Claims of PAS are typically used to counter claims of domestic violence or child abuse and to reframe a child’s reaction to a parent who is alleged to have committed this abuse. PAS was claimed by Gardner in the 1990s. His “diagnostic criteria” focuses on the personalities of the parties rather than expert assessment of abuse or other reasons offered for child hostility to a parent. Therefore, only one conclusion is implied: that the protective parent [usually the mother] is manufacturing false allegations of abuse along with colluding with the child to destroy the parent-child relationship. Taken together the assertions of Gardner have the practical effect of subjugating abuse and putting children at risk of being re-abused through court-ordered contact.
Parental Alienation Syndrome: 30 Years On and Still Junk Science: The Judges Journal, The American Bar Association
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases: The NCJFCJ finds PAS lacking in scientific merit, advising judges that based on evidentiary standards, “the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or ‘PAS.’
http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/judicial%20guide_0_0.pdf
Parental Alienation and the Daubert Standard: on Syndromes and Behaviors
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/judges.html
http://www.tsimhonirevisited.com/#!A-Theory-Without-Science-Is-Wishful-Thinking
Experts Warn About Dangers of Deprogramming Treatment
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/%20pr2_09.html
Children’s Rights New Zealand is calling for an enquiry into the state-sanctioned abuse of children by the New Zealand Family Court through its continued support of court-appointed psychologists using “Parental Alienation Syndrome” as a framework with which to determine the best interests of children.
E2NZ.org 
To whom it may concern,
I read your article on PAS with much appreciation, i have been a victim of such behaviour in which i question whether this has been sanctioned by New Zealand Government. I now reside in Australia due to abuse that has occurred directly under the courts watchful eye.
It all started with the creation of a document that was concealed for the duration of my marriage and only became evident 7 years later when a planned seperation occurred which dispelled all rights i should have had.
This breached section 258 and 259 of the crimes act and ever since i have had to fight to survive as i am hit with wave upon wave of abuse by lawyers connected with the original offending which incurs up to a 14 year term.
The Nz police have stated this crimes have occurred but are unsure who the perpetrators were.
I am currently planning on revisiting these events with the UN, however If you would be interested in such a story, i would be happy to expose it to prevent other similar attrocities.
Now i have to struggle to see my kids in what i can see will be a case of remove and replace abuse. I conveyed these concerns to the courts but this was dismissed.
Itwould be greatly appreciated if receipt of email could be provided.
This is total and utter nonsense. Firstly the article is trying to claim that PAS is directly connected with pedophilia and child abuse, then it tries to ignore the very real epidemic of false accusations and deliberate actions of women to systematically remove men from their own children’s lives. The reality is that until very recently, 85% of the time the courts would give sole custody to the mother, and 40% of fathers in New Zealand lost ALL meaningful contact with their children during relationship breakup. This is the simple reality of parental alienation, a factor that is very REAL, and is a direct violation of a man’s basic human rights. The consequences of this are directly reflected in the suicide rates of men, which spike dramatically after this contact is lost.
False accusations from women do NOT come with any consequences to them. Women can lie under oath without any action being taken against them if they are discovered (this is actually a crime). Many will do so WITHOUT HESITATION. Men, by comparison, are automatically assumed to be guilty (of almost any crime), until they prove their innocence. Even if they do so, the damage to their lives is often so complete that they never recover (especially if the accusation is sex or abuse related). Many women will make an accusation not really caring if the man is found guilty, because they will destroy his life either way.
In addition, despite stereotypes promoted by the media, 75% of child abuse is conducted by WOMEN, not men. Only 10% is conducted by the biological father of a child, with the remaining 15% conducted by step fathers. By far the biggest way to safeguard against abuse is to keep the father in the child’s life.
Trying to say that all men are violent thugs, rapists, pedophiles and abusers seems to be a standard approach in today’s society. No one seems to want to call this what it is – sexist stereotyping promoted by toxic, anti-male, hate-filled bigots. These are the kinds of people who run sites like Children’s Rights New Zealand, a non-official site which appears to be run by a woman with a grudge against men (making it a VERY bad source of information).
A great example of how inaccurate the information is can be clearly seen with the claim on the site that PAS is not recognised. It actually is. The information on the site is woefully out of date, making claims that were accurate in 1996, when the condition was not recognised at all. However, in 2008 the American Psychological Association (APA) stated they had no official position; they did NOT claim that the condition does not exist. In 2013 the condition was rejected when lobbying took place to have it added, but in 2010 when questions were asked about its existence, 98% of the members of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts agreed that it does. This indicates a progressive recognition of the problem and it seems likely that full recognition will soon follow. Parental alienation is also progressively being taken more and more seriously by courts worldwide, and has been made a criminal action in several states including Brazil and Mexico. This is NOT an indiction of a non-existent condition.
As it turns out, PAS isn’t junk science at all, it’s very real.
You can find evidence of the level of child abuse conducted by women on ANY site that is giving genuine statistics. The numbers I used were from a few years ago, and from a compilation study where the results of around 1300 individual studies were combined, with a total sample size of just over 346,000 people. I know of this from my time being active in the Men’s Rights movement. This study, like many that gives a negative view of women, was removed by feminists. However, the information cannot be totally hidden and is reflected in many places. The numbers do vary a bit, depending on the source, which is to be expected, but the vast majority of child abuse is ALWAYS conducted by women, who have far more access to children, and are well enabled to keep their abuse hidden due to the stereotypes that are promoted.
Here are the statistics for child abuse perpetrators in Western Australia from 2007 to 2008 (a bit out of date, but it shows the very clear trend.
Mother only = 28.3%
Father only = 10.2%
Defacto parent male = 2.6%
Defacto parent female = 0.2%
Step parent male = 2.6%
Step parent female = 0.1%
Other male = 7.8%
Other female = 2.0%
Not recorded = 46%
Even here, the reality is kind of hidden with the “not recorded” area, which lowers the percentages in the known areas significantly (nearly halving them). Adjust the numbers for this, and the numbers become closer to what I quoted with nearly 60% of abuse conducted by women. These numbers will be very similar in New Zealand. Remember, this is the country where 86% of the adult population voted for it to remain legal to use violence against children with the referendum on smacking. There is a very clear message here that those who look after children felt they had the right to beat them up without risking being arrested. The majority of those caregivers are women.
And here is a three part mini documentary on female child sex abusers and the typical attitude that society has. This is an English documentary, but the same attitude will be present in NZ.
I agree. I last accessed this study more than 5 years ago. It was on an academic database and was found though Google Scholar. It was the largest and most credible study I ever encountered, purely because of the combined sample size and the number of separate studies it combined. Looking back I wish I had made a copy, because like many of the most well put together studies that come to unpopular conclusions, it was taken down. The title I don’t remember (it was more than 5 years ago after all), but the numbers I remember only too well.
To further back your view of a conspiracy going on, around the time I made my last comment, my Facebook account was deactivated.
It seems (valid, and any) criticism of feminism and New Zealand are things that cannot be allowed.
And I’m not alone in making that observation:
http://i.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/assignments/share-your-news-and-views/15444159/Banned-from-Facebook-again
Banned from Facebook, again
Save |
Last updated 09:21 29/07/2016
ANDREW STEVENSON
…
Why was my Facebook account deactivated? I’m not sure. They don’t give a reason. They simply point you towards their community standards and tell you that you broke one of them.
I am opinionated, but I am no troll. I have had over 5,000 comments published on the website of a certain mainstream newspaper since 2008. I have also had over 80 letters to the editor published in the print edition of the same newspaper, and have had hundreds of comments posted on this very website. All of these forums are heavily moderated and my views wouldn’t be published if they were overly outrageous, offensive or controversial.
I also comment regularly on Facebook. Whenever I use social media, I use the exact same language, tone and vocabulary as I do when writing to the editor of a newspaper. So why does a newspaper repeatedly publish my comments on their website, but repeatedly block me from their Facebook page?
I suspect it is because certain people who disagree with me keep reporting me. The modus operandi of these people is to bully and to insult; but then they call you the bully and report your comments as being offensive. When Anna Lambie asks why people are so aggressive and angry online, it’s because many people are adopting this a deliberate tactic.
If they don’t like what you say, they will try to have you silenced or even try to have you sacked.
If you dare to disagree with their views, they will launch personal attacks in order to try and discredit dissenters, whilst also attempting to disguise their lack of a sound, logical argument, or any sort of evidence to support their views.
For example, we constantly hear from feminist authors, women’s groups and the media that the gender wage gap is around 11.8 per cent, but sometimes up to 39 per cent. Numerous authors, economists and academics refute these figures and claim that these statistics are bogus. Some say the wage gap is closer to 5 percent once it has been adjusted for age, seniority and experience; others say that it narrows to the point of vanishing once we really get down to the nitty-gritty of comparing apples with apples. Even some female authors call the gender wage gap a myth. Clearly, there are two sides to the argument.
However, if anyone has ever tried to have a conversation about the gender wage gap with a feminist, chances are that, regardless of how polite you are or what evidence you provide, you will be called a misogynist and a troll, your views will be dismissed as mansplaining, they will refuse to debate you, and it also seems that some will report you and try to have you banned. Unless you agree with them, of course.
This tactic is mimicked in real life. Whenever certain conservative speakers attend university campuses, they often incur the wrath of indoctrinated radicals who block doorways, scream abuse, set off fire alarms, and demand safe spaces.
Ironically, Milo Yiannopoulos and Guardian columnist and co-founder of the law-reform group Justice for Women, Julie Bindel were both banned from partaking in a debate on censorship and free speech. Because they dared to challenge feminist statistics concerning sexual assaults, the pair were banned and labelled rape apologists, even though these statistics have been repeatedly debunked and refuted. Yiannopoulos and Bindel weren’t promoting hate or violence; they were calmly and rationally sharing their evidence-based views.
Well, here is a little something for those people to think about (and I’m sure they are monitoring E2NZ:
– I’m independently engaged in work;
– Have permanent residency somewhere else other than my own country in Asia;
– Already own landed property.
Enjoy your little victory, agents of facism and feminism … your time is coming to a quick end with the changes in the political landscape that the elite cannot anticipate, since their ability to silence dissent … makes problems fester and go past the point of resolution that respects the status quo.
To complete the trifecta of changes so far this year (Brexit in the UK, Duterte in the Philippines) … well, I hope Trump gets elected in the US.
The gender wage gap in particular is a good one to look at, when it comes to feminist myths and misinformation. Feminists will continually claim that men are paid more for the same work, yet in countries throughout the West this kind of discrimination is actually ILLEGAL. If it was actually taking place, there would be legitimate cause for court cases, but we don’t see these. In addition, there are the simple logistics of it; if businesses actually were paying less to hire a woman to do the same job, they would hire more women. We don’t see this happening. Now it is true that on average men make more money than women, but this has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with jobs chosen, and how many hours they work. If one person works in retail part time, they will make less money than the doctor working 60 hours a week; it doesn’t matter what gender they are. Women tend to place less emphasis on their career, and more emphasis on their families; they chose low paying jobs and work less hours by choice, that’s why they make less money.
Interestingly, women in the 22 to 29 age bracket actually make more money on average than men because they tend to be more educated (60% of college graduates are women), but this is totally forgotten as well.
Trifecta complete. Good to know my prediction panned out. Citizens choosing change create change (alliteration) 🙂 …