No Way Out But One

This is an inmportant documentary in the works about Holly Collins, an abused mother who rescued her children from their abuser. She was the first refugee in the Netherlands to be allowed to seek refuge because of being a domestic violence victim. No family court or no family court judge in Minnesota would protect her children, even though courts acknowledged severe abuse had happened. Their response was to give the abuser sole custody and the abused mother supervised visitation.

Please consider helping the producers finish this important work by pledging to Kickstart for the film. The time is short to make a pledge so hurry! Thank you.

The Parental Alienation Scam

Mommy Hates Daddy, and You Should Too

The extraordinary fight over "parental alienation syndrome" and what it means for divorce cases.

By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at 7:09 PM ET

The competition to get your favorite disease recognized in the bible of mental health, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, can be as fierce as the talent contest in the Little Miss St. Paul Contest. The American Psychiatric Association is contemplating adding something called "parental alienation syndrome" (PAS) to the new edition of the DSM, scheduled to be published in May 2013, and the question has launched a national lobbying and letter-writing campaign on both sides. That angry letters and editorials might play any part in a debate about mental health and custody disputes probably tells you most of what you need to know about the validity of PAS.

What is parental alienation syndrome? William Bernet, a professor of psychiatry at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and an advocate for its inclusion in the DSM-5, describes it as "a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents are engaged in a high conflict divorce, allies himself or herself strongly with one parent, and rejects a relationship with the other parent, without legitimate justification."* There is no doubt that an ugly divorce can affect kids' relationship with their parents or cause children to choose sides, often in anger. In fact, that probably happens more often than not. But Bernet and others who argue for adding PAS to the Sears, Roebuck catalogue of mental health want to see it recognized as a legitimate mental health disorder in order to "spur insurance coverage, stimulate more systematic research, lend credence to [the] charge of parental alienation in court, and raise the odds that children would get timely treatment."

They want, in other words, to affix a name, some blame, and also a price tag on a broad range of child responses to a custody fight—some perfectly justified and some not—in the hopes of expanding its use in court.

And what's the downside to including PAS in the DSM? Well, for one thing, with a minimum of three participants needed to diagnose it, PAS starts to look less like a mental health disorder than an epidemic. It assumes that one crazy person (the mother) brainwashes a second crazy person (the child) into telling lies about a third person (the father). Just because a lot of parents have experienced blocked visitation and unreturned phone calls doesn't make every instance of that conduct the result of a medical "syndrome."

Joan S. Meier, a professor of clinical law at George Washington University School of Law, has explained it this way: "PAS is a label that offers a particular explanation for a breach in relationship between a child and parent, but insofar as that breach could be explained in other ways, it is not in itself a medical or psychological diagnosis so much as a particular legal hypothesis."

The most worrisome aspect of the legal fight over parental alienation syndrome may be that it divides supporters and opponents along strict gender lines: As a rule, this is classed as a women's sickness alleged by men. Fathers' rights groups are not solely to blame for the fact that an entire "disease" is predicated on the notion that women are lying liars; the inventor of the syndrome can take responsibility for that. But no hypothesis so rooted in gender bias should be credited by medical science. And because evidence of PAS is so frequently offered to counter maternal allegations of abuse, the experts testifying about PAS can be aiding and abetting a system that takes children from abused mothers and hands them right back to abusive fathers. Once again, this doesn't mean that some parents don't alienate their children in a divorce. It means that PAS is now used to discredit women whenever they claim abuse.

Much of the blame for the biased history of PAS can be laid at the feet of its originator, Dr. Richard Gardner, who developed the theory—from his own practice and without clinical studies—of mothers who foster hatred for their children's father as a ''powerful weapon'' to grab custody for themselves. This wasn't a theory born of objective empirical observation. It was a campaign against mothers rooted in the idea that they regularly lie and then "brainwash" their children into lying about paternal abuse. Because of Gardner's gender-freighted conclusions, it was probably inevitable that men, in the form of fathers' rights groups, would seize upon the battle to legitimize PAS. One of its most famous spokesmen became Alec Baldwin, who wrote practically a whole book on the subject in 2008, arguing paradoxically that corrupt judges and the courts have too much power over custody disputes and that by recognizing PAS, the courts could make the whole child-custody process more fair. (Here is Baldwin describing PAS as something women mainly do to men.)

Supporters of PAS argue largely from personal experience, and their stories are often compelling. But the theory of PAS is not recognized as valid by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association. And the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has published guidelines for custody courts clarifying that "the theory positing the existence of 'PAS' has been discredited by the scientific community. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or 'parental alienation' should therefore be ruled inadmissible and/or stricken from the evaluation report."

Gardner's long-term scientific credibility was not helped by some of his kookier pronouncements about incest ("intrafamilial pedophilia … is widespread and ... is probably an ancient tradition"), or pedophilia ("It is of interest that of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive toward pedophiles."). But he still managed to become the David Barton of child-custody law, having written more than 250 books and articles, cassettes, and videotapes (often self-published) and testified as an expert in approximately 400 cases in more than 25 states.

There are a lot of websites, experts, and emotion invested in this debate. But there aren't two empirical sides. There is science, and then there is passionate non-science. As Paul Fink, a professor of psychiatry at Temple University School of Medicine and a past president of the American Psychiatric Association in Arlington, Va., once said of Gardner, "He invented a concept and talked as if it were proven science. It's not."

That's what makes the current debate over inserting PAS into the DSM-5, which has been going on for years, something of a red herring. It almost doesn't matter. Nobody really believes it's a scientific theory anymore, and Gardner has been all but discredited where it counts. That's what worries Meier most of all: "Courts and experts have stopped talking about parental alienation syndrome and started talking about parental alienation," she says. "By dropping the word 'syndrome' they purport to just be describing a behavior; and that's harder to challenge as inadmissible, even though Parental Alienation is used virtually identically to PAS, with virtually identical quasi-scientific claims and prescriptions." Back when it was a matter of science, opponents of PAS could advance arguments about admissibility and scientific legitimacy. Now it's a conclusory legal term that can barely be refuted.

Even without a scientific basis, parental alienation, like climate denialism, has its own language, passions, and saliency. Right or wrong, recognized or not, most family courts now take PAS extremely seriously. Experts testify, court-appointed advocates offer diagnoses, and family-court judges regularly adopt alienation explanations as a way of rejecting abuse allegations. As Meier wrote in a 2009 article: "Despite the palpably extreme and unbalanced quality of both the PAS theory and the thinking of its author, as well as the lack of scientific basis, the theory has for over a decade become virtually ubiquitous in family courts."

The science just doesn't matter now. Even though no appellate court has found evidence of PAS to meet the scientific standards for legal admissibility, courts admit evidence of precisely the same phenomenon all the time, and by calling it "parental alienation," they achieve the same effect: overlooking allegations of abuse by one parent in order to blame the other for "alienating" the child. In other words, whether science supports them or the DSM-5 ultimately validates them, the supporters of Richard Gardner and parental alienation may have already won. While nobody was looking, a mythical legal argument known as parental alienation may have already taken over family courts.

The Huffington Post and Dr. Richard Warshak: Supporting Child Abusers Through Censorship

From Rights for Mothers:

Everyone knows that the concept of “parental alienation” will not be in the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), but this hasn’t thwarted those who make a handsome income off of it. Dr. Richard Warshak, who sells his testimony and services treating “parental alienation” in child custody cases, has apparently bought or scammed his way onto The Huffington Post and is not allowing comments on how others, including professional organizations, look at this excuse for protecting abusive parents. I, along with several other domestic violence advocates, posted comments on The Huffington Post in response to a new post by Warshak that touts his professional bread-and-butter, and they were apparently dropped in their bit bucket. Here is my first comment:

Many professional organizations recognize that claims of so-called “parental alienation” are used by abusive spouses to gain custody of children from their victims. Some of these organizations include the American Judges Association, the National District Attorney’s Association, the American Bar Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, with the latter warning family court judges not to accept claims of “parental alienation” or “parental alienation syndrome” because of it’s well know use by abusers. Research has shown that the number one reason children refuse to visit a parent is because of the behavior of that parent. Stop putting children in danger by placing them with the abuser. Dr. Warshak and others that push this so-called disorder make a lot of money selling their testimony in this family court scam. I would think The Huffington Post was above promoting such snake oil salesmen.

As of the morning after Warshak’s post appeared on The Huffington Post, there were twelve hand-picked comments on the post, which includes one by Warshak cheerleader “Monika” who is Monika Logan, a big “parental alienation” supporter in Texas. She is a regular commenter on stories that push this scam. Her blog supports these people who make lots of money off of promoting this “judicial tool of abuse.”

Warshak was involved in a case recently in Canada, in which he testified that two boys apparently “poisoned” by “parental alienation” would benefit being treated at his “treatment center,” a center that charges $40,000 per four day session. The recommendation was so ordered, but overturned in appeal because Warshak admitted that he had only interviewed the parent claiming “parental alienation” and not the other parent. Warshak failed to even interview the boys when he recommended them for his unproven program. Seems $40,000 is quite an incentive to recommend something to someone he hasn’t even seen.

Shame on The Huffington Post to allow these quacks and their supporters space to sell their wares, because that is exactly what they are doing. Then again, The Huffington Post has a history of censorship. So be careful what you read even if you think it is a respectable site. Apparently everyone has their price, and there’s a lot to be made in the “parental alienation” jackpot.

It was suggested to post comments on censorship on The Huffington Post, then share on your Facebook or Twitter account…this is an excellent idea!

Dr. Richard Lawlor Worshipped at the Altar of Pedophile-lover Dr. Richard Gardner

The more I have dug into this father-loving Whore of the Court, the more I am sickened. During a case Dr. Richard Lawlor was involved in, which a child was taken from the mother and given to the father, he didn't even interview the primary people in the case. His bought-and-paid-for testimony was formed over looking at another therapist's notes. How nice!

Even though the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have warned judges against accepting claims of "parental alienation syndrome" or "parental alienation" (pg.12 of 2009 guide), the appeals court upheld the trial court's finding. (This includes attempts at calling it something else too). Here is a section of the dissenting opinion, which in the view of the scientific community and professional organizations should have been the concurring opinion:


I respectfully decline to join in the opinion of the majority, however, to the extent that it validates the trial court's reliance on “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) evidence.   Admittedly, the trial judge never specifically used the term PAS.   It is clear from the language in his findings, however, that the trial court relied heavily on the testimony offered by Dr. Lawlor regarding this “syndrome” and all but used the exact term “PAS” when stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law.   I recognize the concept of “parental alienation” and understand that it is not uncommon for parents, during a dissolution proceeding, to make disparaging comments about their respective spouses in the presence of their children.   However, I am troubled by, and seriously question the existence of a parental alienation “syndrome”.

PAS is a relatively new theory created by Dr. Richard A. Gardner, M.D., and is explained in his self-published book, The Parental Alienation Syndrome (1992).   This theory, developed solely through Gardner's personal observations of his own patients in private practice, is defined by Gardner as a situation where children are not merely systematically and consciously “brainwashed”, but are also subconsciously and unsubconsciously “programmed” by one parent against the other parent.   Gardner, The Parental Alienation Syndrome p. 59-60.   Gardner further asserts, “PAS is a disorder of children, arising almost exclusively in child-custody disputes, in which one parent (usually the mother) programs the child to hate the other parent (usually the father).”   Richard A. Gardner, Dr. Gardner Defends Work on Sex Abuse, Nat'l L.J., Sept. 6, 1993, at 16.   Moreover, Dr. Gardner professes that in 90% of the cases it is only the mother who attempts to alienate the children from the father.   Gardner, The Parental Alienation Syndrome at 62, 106.   When questioned as to why women are programming their children against their fathers in nine out of ten cases where PAS is present, Dr. Gardner explains by quoting William Congreve:  “Heaven has no rage, like love turned to hatred.   Nor hell a fury, like a woman scorn'd.”  Id. at 62, 122.   This gender-biased generalization is ludicrous and an affront to all reasonable women and men.   This is unacceptable.

The record indicates that Dr. Lawlor, a clinical psychologist and attorney, testified as an expert witness in this case.   His testimony, elicited primarily through a series of one-sided hypotheticals, was replete with PAS language suggesting that Marianne was causing PAS to occur in M.S., but was not yet a “full blown syndrome.”  (R. 1917).   For example, Dr. Lawlor's responses on direct examination included language such as, “[Marianne is] systematically trying to convey through a denigration of father that he's evil, that uh he's dangerous, and that the child uh shouldn't be involved with [Edward].”  (R. 1887).   Dr. Lawlor also stated during his direct examination that he thought it was, “․ extremely detrimental to be in custody of a parent who's engaging in a pattern of alienation against the other parent” and that the research on parental alienation shows that the “․ prognosis [for the child] is poor once uh an alienation situation uh has developed.   Uh the success rate is almost zero and the failure rate is almost a hundred percent in cases like that once they get going.”  (R. 1880).   Furthermore, Dr. Lawlor admitted under oath that he is familiar with Dr. Gardner's syndrome called “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and described it as “․ a situation where you have a systematic uh attempt at denigration of the parent with with attempts at isolation of the child from the parent.”  (R. 1910)

Dr. Lawlor's “PAS language” is rephrased and woven throughout the trial court's findings, as can be seen in his specific finding number eight which includes statements such as:

8.  The Court Specifically finds that since the joint custody agreement in this case, Marianne, beyond a reasonable doubt, has engaged in a concerted bad faith effort to destroy any relationship the minor child, [M.S.], has with Edward.   It is not necessary to include the litany of vicious and false allegations made by Marianne against Edward ․ Marianne ․ made numerous trips to social workers and counselors alleging unsubstantiated allegations of Edward's conduct, his psychiatric condition, and a general vicious broadside on Edward's character.   Marianne met willing accomplices with her visits to social workers and counselors and continued to allege to the counselors false and vicious rumors.   Marianne established no basis in fact or believable testimony that would support her baseless claims ․ Marianne's false and disgusting behavior based on false allegations were beyond a doubt designed to destroy any relationship Edward has with Margaret.  (R. 1344-45).

There are also several other significant problems with PAS including “causation”, “scientific reliability” and “admissibility” as scientific evidence ¹⁰ .  Dr. Garner's PAS syndrome has no apparent objective criteria to determine its validity or its reliability.   Moreover, PAS has not been subjected to peer review and has not gained general acceptance by scientists in the relevant scientific communities.   Thus, it is my opinion that Dr. Garner's PAS “disorder” is a disturbing, inflammatory, unscientific and unsubstantiated theory which has no place in our courtrooms.   As the court in United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541 (6th Cir.1977) so eloquently stated, “A courtroom is not a research laboratory.   The fate of [a party] should not hang on his ability to successfully rebut scientific evidence which bears an ‘aura of special reliability and trustworthiness,’ although, in reality the witness is testifying on the basis of an unproved hypothesis in an isolated experiment which has yet to gain general acceptance in its field.”   Id. at 556.   The PAS syndrome described by Dr. Garner is analogous to “cult” theories like the “Peter Pan Syndrome” or the “Cinderella Complex”, and is more suitable in a pop psychology venue rather than in a court of law.

Finally, the record reveals that Edward has emotional problems so severe that he is totally disabled and unable to work.   Moreover, Dr. Lawlor, who never interviewed Marianne, Edward, or M.S., apparently formed his opinions based on notes from Dr. Crane, a therapist who also had never met Edward.   Thus, Dr. Lawlor and the therapist would be unable to determine the extent to which Marianne's allegations regarding Edward's conduct might be true.   Further, the lack of clinical research to substantiate the theory of PAS, along with the lack of evidence as to Edward's emotional health and the slender threads of evidence which supported the hypotheticals posed to Dr. Lawlor, make the apparent recognition of PAS very troubling.   This case poses a threat not only to the well-being of this small child, but also to any child with less than perfect parents who are divorcing.

CHEZEM, J., dissents in result, with opinion


Also see:

Battered Women Now Safe from Retiring Father-loving Whore of the Court Richard Lawlor?

Battered Women Now Safe from Retiring Father-loving Whore of the Court Richard Lawlor?

Let's hope so. He's put children into the hands of alleged abusers. (He well known for loving fathers after all). He does this by twisting anything to fit his own personal bias.

From Lawlor, in "The National Psychologist":

Similarly, if psychologists become involved in child custody areas, they need to understand the law relating to child custody. The dangers of psychologists getting inadvertently involved in this type of situation have recently been discussed. (See Younggren, The National Psychologist, September/October 2009; and Williams, The National Psychologist, November/December, 2009).

This article is not oriented toward an in-depth discussion of any of these issues. However, it does seem that we as a profession need to systematically train practitioners in this area where, in a variety of ways, the law significantly impacts our practices. Current training is hit or miss.

Psychologists who become sub-specialized in the area of forensic psychology typically have a subset of psychology where they have developed expertise, for example, custody evaluations. In order to do those competently, the psychologist needs to understand the research that underlies that particular area of practice. Similarly, psychologists need to understand the legal statutes, case law and administrative laws of their jurisdictions that impact all of the areas in which they practice.

When Lawlor was quoted in a 2005 Indianapolis Star article about the McGuffey murder-suicide, he said what Edward McGuffey did "was so over the top," rejecting that a father could actually do that to a child. Well it happens almost every day in the United States. Lawlor has NO understanding of domestic violence and violent acts upon children. Fathers are abusing their children, yet they are handed custody of them (if they haven't killed them already), thanks to people like Lawlor. (See more about this on Dastardly Dads).

Hyper-focused Lawlor never practiced his own spiel here and never apparently read Indiana State Code. He never understood that domestic violence and fathers that sexually abuse their children SHOULD be taken into account when considering custody. He apparently does not know anything of the American Bar Association, the American Psychological Association, the National District Attorney's Association, the American Judge's Association, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judge's (pg. 12) studies, discussions and warnings about this. No, he's just your run-of-the-mill hired gun. He did make plenty of money as a Court Whore, testifying mostly on behalf of fathers.

Richard Lawlor, Ph.D., J.D., retired after 35 years as a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine. He was the director of the psychology internship program for 10 years and chief of the outpatient forensic child psychiatry service for 10 years.

Adios Muchacho...

Also see: Dr. Richard Lawlor Worshipped at the Altar of Pedophile-lover Dr. Richard Gardner

Parental Alienation Syndrome: Just How Gullible Do They Think We Are?

From RightsForMothers.com:

August 22, 2009
Parental Alienation Syndrome: How Gullible Are We?

Up for inclusion in the new DMS (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the most widely used psychiatric reference in the world) is the so-called “Parental Alienation Syndrome,” a syndrome invented by the pedophile-loving psychologist Dr. Richard Gardner, who committed suicide eventually. Also up for inclusion again is making women’s menstral cycles a pyschiatric syndrome.

Money-grubbing nutcase lawyers and/or psychologists (in some cases they have both degrees!) work to get these so-called syndromes included so they can use them as a basis for taking children from protective parents (and make more money). They use this twisted science as a basis for their claims…just how gullible do they think we all are? Apparently many judges are, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges are trying to correct this: see Family Courts are Warned They Should Not Accept So-called “Parental Alienation Syndrome”.


Here is a good example of how gullible people can be when you start throwing out so-called “scientific claims”:

A student at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair, April 26. He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical “dihydrogen monoxide.”

And for plenty of good reasons, since:

1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting 2. it is a major component in acid rain 3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state 4. accidental inhalation can kill you 5. it contributes to erosion 6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes 7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical.

Forty-three (43) said yes, six (6) were undecided, and only one (1) knew that the chemical was actually just plain old water.

The title of his prize winning project was, “How Gullible Are We?”

He feels the conclusion is obvious. http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp

Family Courts are Warned Against Use of So-called "Parental Alienation Syndrome"

From Rights For Mothers:

Here is the new Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department. Again the fake, so-called "Parental Alienation Syndrome" and the use of "parental alienation" is warned against and the Council tells the courts they should not accept this BS.

The only entities that do believe in this fairy tale syndrome is father's rights groups who are fronted by abusive violent men and the Whores of the Court that sustain themselves by use of these false syndromes.

2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department

Page 12:

C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34

Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38

The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent. The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.

To read the entire report, "A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (2009)" by National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department, please click here. This report should be very useful to both moms and dads who are under attack by claims of PAS against them.

Do Children Need This Type Of Father?

Read about Holly Collins and her daughter Jennifer, who made this video, here.

Dr. Richard Gardner: "Sex with Children is Not a Bad Thing"

In 1985, "Paretnal Alienation Syndrome," or PAS for short, was first described by Richard Gardner, a psychiatrist who wrote that adults having sex with children is not a bad thing. Gardner described PAS as a “syndrome” whereby vengeful mothers employed child abuse allegations as a powerful weapon to punish ex-husbands and ensure custody to themselves. He further theorized that such protective parents enlisted the children in their “campaign of denigration” and “vilification” of the abuser, that they often “brainwashed” or “programmed” the children into believing untrue claims of abuse by the father, and that the children then fabricated and contributed their own stories.

Since 1985, abusers have come to convince family courts to ignore children’s allegations of abuse by invoking parental alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome. They wrongly claim that mothers are to blame because they are brainwashing their children.

2006 – The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges also discredited the theory. It stated:

The discredited “diagnosis” of “PAS” (or allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the children’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the children’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating and/or discrediting ways toward the children themselves, or the children’s other parent.


One of the most troubling consequences of Gardner’s theory is that, “PAS shifts attention away from the perhaps dangerous behaviour of the parent seeking custody to that of the custodial parent. This person, who may be attempting to protect the child, is instead presumed to be lying and poisoning the child.”


As a result, some children placed in the custody of their abusers have committed suicide; others have run away, and countless others have endured the abuse and are permanently traumatized. In recent years, children placed in custody of their abusers have been coming forward to tell their stories and to warn of the danger surrounding the fictitious syndrome.

Margaret Torre Wouldn't Have Stood a Chance in Indiana's Family Courts

She would have had her son, Joe Torre, taken away and given to her abuser because he was afraid of his dad. Afraid of him because of the abuse his mother suffered. Not because of so-called "parental alienation."



Visit Joe Torre's "Safe at Home" Foundation website.