The Crime of Parental Alienation Part 5

THE CRIME OF PARENTAL ALIENATION

Part 5 in a Series of Articles

By Joan Kloth-Zanard, RSS, ABI and LC

Today, December 3, 2012, Jerry Mastrangelo was back in court against his ex-wife, Trudianne Mastrangelo, who is now remarried to Dr. Richard Formica.  When I last wrote about this case, Dr. Amy Baker had testified to the validity of Parental Alienation based on 8 behavior manifestations seen in children and on her 17 alienating strategies used by an aggressive, aligning parent.  Though the judge had first accepted her testimony at that time, he realized later that in the interest of fairness and to prevent an appeal, it was necessary to allow the opponent’s side to present their own expert to try to debunk Dr. Baker’s testimony.  Basically, the opponent, Trudianne Formica and her attorney’s were claiming that Dr. Baker’s testimony did not fulfill the Daubert Test for scientific evidence and therefore should not be admitted into evidence.

Today, Dr. Garber of NH testified for the opposition, Trudianne Formica.  He was supposed to state that not only was Dr. Baker’s testimony flawed but that Parental Alienation was ‘junk science’.   After Attorney Weiler for Mrs. Formica quarried Dr. Garber, it was up to Norm Pattis to cross-examine.

Six times, Norm Pattis asked Dr. Garber to provide a justifiable reason for not using the word syndrome when he accepts the 17 alienating strategies, the 8 manifestations that Dr. Baker testified to, along with the 8 symptoms identified by Dr. Richard Gardner for diagnosis of the syndrome. Six times Dr. Garber stumbled or deflected answering the question.  In the end, it seemed more like Dr. Garber was proving the case for Mr. Mastrangelo, rather than justifying the exclusion of Dr. Baker’s testimony.

Five hours later and the case boiled down to 3 or 4 simple issues.  Dr. Garber believes that Parental Alienation is real and exists as well as is deplorable.  He believes it is child abuse.  He does NOT believe it is junk science.  What he took issue with was the use of the word syndrome being applied to the children as a diagnosis.  Why?  Because like many therapists, he does NOT like to label children with diagnosis’s that follow them around for the rest of their lives.  And he felt that by labeling the child, the parents would not be included in the treatment and diagnosis.  He further felt that by labeling the child with PAS, that all the blame would be solely placed on the alienating aggressive parent and that the targeted parent would be held blameless.  There is obviously a flaw in this last comment, because reality is that if the targeted parent is not permitted in the child’s life, they really are not the problem, as they have no influence.

Yes, labeling a child can be detrimental, especially when the label is something like Asperger’s, ADD, ADHD or worse, Folie a Deux, which is a serious delusional psychotic disorder.  Unfortunately, these mentioned diagnoses are presently replacing the PAS diagnosis.  And as I have stated, each one of these above noted diagnosis’s carries with it a serious life long stigma and label..  But to label a child, as having Parental Alienation Syndrome, a curable diagnosis, would seem to be a less toxic name.  In fact, using the term PA or PAS would only be referring to the collective signs and symptoms exhibited by a child of high conflict divorce and all are correctable.  In fact, without the diagnosis of PAS, children are being misdiagnosed with life long labels that they cannot get away from and technically have no cures.  Worse, these labels are often causing the children to be put on psychotropic medications with serious side effects.  PAS not only is curable, it is not a life sentence if the right treatment and tools are used.  And does NOT require medication. In addition, it is less stigmatizing because it really is about the parents and holding them accountable for the responses we are seeing in the children.

What this trial literally boiled down to was a game of semantics.  Nouns versus verbs.  Adjectives versus adverbs.  Descriptions versus actions.  So what really was Dr. Garber’s real issue related to the scientific acceptance of a syndrome?  Nothing.