I may be incorrect but the "Split in Two" website appears to be a proponent of PAS.

There is a world of critical difference for children between PAS and true Alienation ; I believe that it is absolutely essential to recognise and understand this point.

Dr. Michael Bone appears and I strss appears to be a strong advocate of PAS.

Sunita, thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. I am sure you are right. As here in the UK women will ask me about a leading psychologist.They say he is nice , he will turn around the PAS . Then I say no do not deal with him, he told me the same thing. Women are talking now in private about their children who have been sent to private care homes to be abused/reprogrammed by him. The fathers groups are all in favour of him. Note I do not print his name.
The talkshoe.com & SPlitNTwO show I am listening to mostly what ordinary people have to say : they are the true experts. They are living this night-mare these psychs created.
What I find is a breathe of fresh air is how people are educating each other how to get back their sanity and find a way OUT of all of this madness created to fuel profit for legals & drug companies .

I am sure people will relate to something on there to gather their strength back to carry on living a normal life whilst there is a gap in being a family living apart.

Yes I heard the doctor describe the mother as PAS , this is a trap I fell into for talking about DV issues. Now it is much easier to walk mothers through the system and say ; please do not make my mistake.
The mothers who are going through the system now ,are taking on this advice as they see the alarming rate that is going on in courts of children from mothers.
Now I can reflect upon the statements my ex -partner who is thick could not read or write , however a lawyer wrote for him , who must have been well experienced in using this template to remove children from good mothers and place with abusive fathers.

MATTHEW FYNES-CLINTON wrote an article in the Queensland Courier -Mail on 14th. November 2008 titled "BLIND EYE TO ABUSE" in which he discusses the excellent and very revealing research of Dr. Cate Banks of Griffith University, Qld. with regards to the cover-up of Child Abuse and family violence in the Family Court of Australia.

In my opinion, Matt Fynes-Clinton has done an excellent job in his series of reports on the Family Court of Australia, which ran all this week ;his articles have served to expose what is known already to many and who are too scared for various reasons to speak out.
Fynes-Clinton has certainly moved the debate forward in a constructive way and the Australian AG, Robert McLelland, responded to one of his articles this week in the "Letters" section.

It will be intersting to see if the Honourable Robert McLelland AG also responds to "Blind Eye to Abuse" and if he and the CJ Diana Bryant will now act to protect Australian children in their court-rooms, or if the rhetoric and lip-service wil continue for more generations.

It may be of interest to the many followers and contributors of this Forum, including overseas ones, that Matthew Fynes-Clinton's excellent article in the Queensland Courier-Mail on 14th. November 2008, entitled "Blind Eye to Abuse" confirmed what many have been saying for a very, very long time with regards to the cover-up of Child Abuse in the Family Court.It appears that finally some lawyers at least,in this corrupt system can no longer stay silent and collude with the suffering of our Children.

In my OLO above, I refer to the disciplining of Dr. William Wrigley in a Family Court matter.

In an article also in the Courier-Mail on 8th. September 2005, by Leanne Edminstone, headlined "Court lifts lid on Custody Case to allay fears" it says "Justice Buckley relied on the evidence of clinical psychologist William Wrigley and counsellor Susan de Campo".

"Valarie" refers to the "mis-representation" of Susan de Campo above

The extent of this witch-hunt is growing and also being fuelled by certain journalists. There is a developing word association that goes:parent-neglect-abuse-sex. Single parents predominantly tend to be the mum, that's just the way it is. The neglect word is being bandied about in a variety of guises - it could be "child falling below the 85% requirement" that gives you that tag. Maybe later, non-school shoes for a term, due to finances.

Life Without Barriers childcare hostels were set up as an INVESTMENT plan by LAWYERS and business men is a fact stated by the AUSTRALIAN in the last few days. HOwever, same paper states the foster carers working in these places are the ones prescribing the drugs (atypical drugs and psychotropic ones not given to this age group unless in care it seems).
This paper is now suggesting ADOPTION would be the ideal answer to all these kids taken into care for whatever reason. Imagine going through a really bad divorce, and young kid, needing counseling, gets a little try out on character-changing drugs - well he/she will soon end up with a new family altogether. That actually is a better prospect than staying til 18 in the hostel being a guinea-pig for the CLINICAL SUPPORT TEAM which visits from nearby Mental Health Farm each week.

1984(2) or THE RETURN OF THE STOLEN GENERATION - View now in your local courts.! Don't ask why the legal eagles don't bother to read your stuff or take proper evidence.

mog: I have read a few medical articles on the effects of cortisol and sexual abuse of young children. A study I read, took cortisol levels of children who were known to have been sexually abused in the last few months and a control group of children who had not. Sexually abused children were so traumatised by the abuse that instead of the cortisol going up as it usually does for stress. In children sexually abused it was abnormally low. The children, it is postulated, 'block' the usual fear response...which I imagine leads to the long term brain development problems.

I don't know why forensic psychologists etc. do not develop this further as a means of evidence of abuse. Perhaps because outside of the court room a child's disclosures are enough? - sadly not so in court.

Also using cortisol level studies - cotton bud and saliva in mouth - for use in court as evidence of stress of children when daddy says: "they had a great time" but child showing behavioural and learning problems.

There is clear evidence of the long term outcomes of severe stress in early childhood, there is also a means of measuring this. I don't understand why this hasn't been taken up in court. The clear evidence of cortisol levels and the long term effects on the developing brain of the child could not be ignored even by conservative judges.

If anyone is interested just google: child sexual abuse and cortisol