Pynchme, re: PAS

According to Chaz, PAS is "dead and buried". I think you can fairly concede that that is not the case. I made no claims about its relative success rate in any court of law, I was merely refuting this point.

"PAS does NOT explain away allegations - the allegations still require independent consideration and where possible, investigation." AGREED.

" the remedy proposed by Gardner remains an outrageous cruelty." WHAT WOULD YOUR REMEDY BE (assuming one parent has not seen their child for years as a result of the alienating tactics of the other parent)?

" Statistics gleaned from personal safety surveys; where adults report on abuses perpetrated against them have 4% males and about 8% females stating that they were sexually abused as children, with the perpetrator in more than 3/4 of cases being a close male relative or parent."

Actually, the 2005 survey has 12% of females claiming sexual abuse under the age of 15. According to the report, 16.5% of the perpetrators were fathers OR step fathers = 2% of the female population claiming they were sexually abused by a father or step father. From the NIS4 survey, we know that step fathers are more likely to abuse, placing the rate somewhere below 2% for biological fathers - pretty much in line with the NIS4 data - is this an epidemic as claimed by Chaz that requires all biological fathers to be placed under suspicion?

Re: Mechanisms. I think the mechanisms is place right now are just fine, recognizing that Type I and Type II errors will occur in any system. Stigmatizing fathers is not a productive solution.

You still haven't given your solution.

Mine is supervised day contact. Children very often continue to love the abuser (at least until they're older and realize with grief and dismay how their trust has been misused); as children they just want the abuse to stop. They want to feel safe.

Children should also be interviewed by one non-threatening, trained counselor and those interviews should be recorded so that there can be little chance of charges of improper questioning.

You think 1 in 100 children is an irrelevant figure? It's the same rate per 100 population for schizophrenia and nobody would call the prevalence rate of schizophrenia irrelevant. Just how many cases would you need before you would think that child safety is the priority in these sorts of cases?

I also believe that there are factors pertinent to the types of conflictual relationships that end up in this type of court that would tend to pool abusers into this category. It is well established in the literature that child abuse of all types, including sexual abuse, is more prevalent where DV figures in the parental relationship.

Supervised day contact would also help reestablish relationships where there have been long absences; without upsetting the child's routine too much. In fact, any parent who has been absent for a long time would be considerate of the need to earn the child's trust gradually.

Stev: <"all biological fathers to be placed under suspicion?">

All biological fathers in these contested cases, yes.

<"Re: Mechanisms. I think the mechanisms is place right now are just fine...">

Since there are no mechanisms to guarantee the safety of any children against their abusers - irrespective of the child's wishes or allegations of child sexual abuse; I suppose you would be satisfied.

<"recognizing that Type I and Type II errors will occur in any system. Stigmatizing fathers is not a productive solution.">

Whatever Type 1 and 11 errors are; I don't know what you're talking about there.

Do you know who is responsible for stigmatizing fathers? Fathers and MRAs.

If MRAs were really into parenting, they would put the children first - including ensuring that babies could be breastfed and able to live to a reasonable routine. As groups they would be interested in things such as how to demonstrate care for their kids; child development; safety and risk; relationship issues; how to maintain a welcoming atmosphere for children; parenting skills; how to manage a blended family situation; homemaking skills; craft; ideas for day activities; the economics of different types of activities that they can do with their kids... and so on.

The good fathers would also be distancing themselves from abusive males and having some sort of screening for detecting unwholesome characters and directing them to some sort of counseling help or educational support group.

However, look at any of their sites and what do you see?

Hate; revenge; how to force their will on others; how to manipulate. Moan, moan, moan.

Supervised day contact.
According to a report in The Age today, in some cases separated parents ordered by a court to have visits to their children supervised are waiting months to see them through lack of contact centres.

There is a lack of contact centres in country areas.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/parents-denied-child-visits-20100404-rlnr.html

Protecting children through the family court or DoCS is a complete waste of time and money. The courts routinely hand children over to their abusers.The article depicts just one case. Until children are actually treated as humans with respect and the right to be safe and not placed in a position where they are clearly at risk- not just physical but psychological risk. This has sent these children a clear message- one that will impact on them for the rest of their lives.
The Family Court has never been about the best interests of children and until it actually is children will continue to be put at risk.I am surprised that there are so many that think the court is biased against fathers?it is actually biased against children..

Stew ~ `Father’s Rights groups hysteria' – I suggest reading some of the garbage on Family Law Web Guide and some previous postings on this thread and their outbursts in the media.
DSMIV – a list of alleged mental disorders whose primary purpose is to serve the financial vested interests of psychiatrists as they can only get U.S. government funding for disorders so listed. A kind of build your own gravy train.
“Men bad, women good” – I am simply responding to the “Men all good, women all evil” arguments of the rabid misogynists. But then, who am I to question the veracity and innate wisdom of Almighty Man.!

Frye Test has been superceded by the more stringent Daubert Merrill test and even then it is not stringent enough of expert testimony. Psychological/psychiatric theories are rarely independently tested under scientific conditions and cannot produce statistical evidence of false positives and true negatives or those who they have successfully `cured’ of the conditions (labels) applied to them. Ipso facto ~ there is no science to any psychological/psychiatric theory therefore `mumbo jumbo junk science’ is a fairly accurate description. The process of creating a new `psychological theory' is – create a new condition/syndrome/disorder with no scientifically conducted research merely conjectures, write a reasonably academic paper, get a few others in the profession to agree it (for their own financial good of course), float it in a Court of Law for gullible lawyers and judges to give it a bit of authenticity, then put it up for DSMIV approval. QED.