Divorce related malicious mother syndrome

With the increasing commonality of divorce involving children, a pattern of abnormal behavior has emerged that has received little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Specific nosologic criteria are provided with abundant clinical examples. Given the lack of scientific data available on the disorder, issues of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear ripe for investigation.     

VIEW FROM THE BENCH

Although some believe that the family courts are gender biased against fathers, Judge Menno disagrees. From his experience as a family court judge and his view from the bench, fathers are treated fairly in court determinations pertaining to access to their children. In making these determinations, courts must take into consideration the reality of divorce and out-of-wedlock arrangements. This article describes how Judge Menno's county family court operates, and he further subgroups various types of fathers, describing how each fares in the family court when trying to gain access to their children.     

FATHER INVOLVEMENT AND LONG‐TERM YOUNG ADULT OUTCOMES: THE DIFFERENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF DIVORCE AND GENDER

The present study investigated the relationship between retrospectively reported father involvement and current reports of psychosocial outcomes in an ethnically diverse sample of 1,989 young adults. Outcomes included subjective well‐being, which has been traditionally used as an outcome of divorce, and desires for more or less father involvement, which have only recently been conceptualized as an outcome of divorce. The present results indicate that reported father involvement was related to subjective well‐being primarily in children from intact families, whereas it was related to desired father involvement primarily in children from divorced families. Among participants from divorced families, young women were more likely than young men to desire more expressive father involvement than they received. Implications for family court practices are discussed.     

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION

Tippins and Wittmann provide a cogent argument for custody evaluators not to make recommendations to the court. From their forensic and scientific perspectives, they have identified some important issues, which will certainly stimulate interesting discussion among custody evaluators. In response to their article, it is my view that public sector custody evaluations offer a philosophical and procedural alternative to forensic evaluations. This article proposes that recommendations should be viewed as part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome. Based on a qualitative and interpretive model, recommendations are judged based on their applicability, transferability, and transparency. Recommendations viewed in qualitative terms provide parents with opportunities to step out of litigation and provide guidance for parents' ongoing roles postseparation.     

Fairness in Child Support Assessments: The Views of Non-resident Fathers in Norway

This article investigates the attitudes of non-resident fatherstowards principles for child support payments in Norway. Twoquestions are asked: first, how well do the attitudes of thefathers correspond to those promoted by the political elite?and second, what characteristics of the fathers’ situationinfluence their attitudes? Data are found in a quantitativesurvey carried out in 2001–02. The analysis show thatfathers overwhelmingly support the principle that levels ofcontact should influence the level of child support, and thatneither parent must gain financially from the settlement. Thisis in tune with the intentions of the 2001 Norwegian child supportreform. The factors that most strongly influence attitudes arethe relationship with the mother (friendly or not), and, insome aspects, the time since the break-up. There is a slighttendency towards fathers embracing the arguments that can beused in their specific situation, but this appears to be mediatedby other factors.     

COMMENTARY ON TIPPINS AND WITTMANN'S "EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:

Although in substantial agreement with Tippins and Wittmann's analysis, their call for a moratorium on the practice of custody evaluators making recommendations to the court does not solve the many problems that they have raised, and may have unintended consequences which place families at even greater risk. This commentary reflects our agreement with some of the authors' major points of contention, focuses on several points of disagreement, and suggests alternative remedies for the shortcomings and ethical problems described in child custody evaluations.     

PUNCHING THE PARENTING TIME CLOCK: THE APPROXIMATION RULE,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND THE BASEBALL BAT KIDS*

The American Law Institute proposes that in contested physical custody cases the court should allocate to each parent a proportion of the child's time that approximates the proportion of time each has spent performing caretaking functions in the past. Examined through the lens of child development research, the approximation rule is unlikely to improve on the best interests standard. It is difficult to apply; is perceived as gender‐biased; creates a new focus for disputing parents; renders a poor estimate of parents’ contributions to their child's best interests; overlooks parents’ intangible, yet significant, contributions to their child's well‐being; and miscalculates the essence of how a child experiences the family. A preferable alternative is a better defined, contemporary best interests standard that accommodates new knowledge and reforms that encourage nonadversarial, individualized resolutions of custody disputes.     

REJOINDER TO GARDNER'S "COMMENTARY ON KELLY AND JOHNSTON'S 'THE ALIENATED CHILD: A REFORMULATION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME'"

In this reply to Richard Gardner, we outline our points of disagreement with his formulation of parental alienation syndrome (PAS), showing that his focus on the alienating parent as the primary cause of children's negative attitudes and rejecting behavior toward the other parent is overly simplistic and not supported by findings from recent empirical research. It follows that we strongly object to Gardner's recommendations for legal and mental health interventions with alienated children as well as the use of the term PAS when referring to this problem.     

RAISING THE BAR: WHY SUPERVISED VISITATION PROVIDERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET STANDARDS FOR SERVICE PROVISION

The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC) has provided a supervised visitation program (SVP) for high‐risk families for almost two decades. Parents needing supervised visitation often have histories of domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, mental illness or substance abuse, therefore providers delivering services must be adequately trained and supervised in order to protect the child from further harm during the visitation process. This article describes the need for SVP's, parental issues warranting consideration, the special needs of children in these circumstances, policy recommendations for provider standards, and a certification process to be developed and adopted in New York State.     

IS THE APPROXIMATION RULE IN THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS?

In an effort to develop clear and uniform standards for the allocation of custodial responsibility, the American Law Institute has proposed a number of reforms. For example, under the approximation rule, the proportion of time parents spent with their children performing direct caregiving functions prior to the divorce would be reflected in the proportion of custodial time allotted to each parent after divorce. Much of the rationale used to justify the approximation rule is explicitly or implicitly based on attachment theory ( Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980 ). This article discusses the assumptions and implications of the approximation rule from the standpoint of attachment theory.     

Proponents Bear the Burden of Proof

Richard Gardner claimed to be able to diagnose parental alienation among contentious parents disputing custody, and asserted that his "syndrome" is supported by scientific and legal authority. Despite influencing many custody proceedings, Gardner's ideas fail to meet even minimal scientific standards. The burden of proving any new hypothesis falls on its proponents, and given the complete absence of objective replication, parental alienation syndrome (PAS) must be viewed as nothing more than a hypothesis. The lack of clear guidance in the law allows concepts like PAS to gain temporary credibility, as judges look to mental health professionals for help in making decisions under the vague best interests standard.     

PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATIONS OF ASPECTS OF THE LEGAL CHILD CUSTODY PROCESS AND PREFERENCES FOR COURT SERVICES

Domestic relations courts continue to experience large caseloads. As the volume of cases in which families are in crisis continues to grow, policy makers, practitioners, judges, and attorneys struggle to meet the growing demand and seek more effective ways to address the needs and issues of those who are engaged in child custody processes. The present study provides an examination of parent attitudes concerning various aspects of the legal process and preferences concerning a variety of court‐based family services and interventions.     

COMMENTARY ON KELLY AND JOHNSTON'S "THE ALIENATED CHILD: A REFORMULATION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME"

In a previous issue of this journal, Joan B. Kelly and Janet R. Johnston describe their reformulation of the parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Here, I present areas in which I agree with the authors and areas in which I disagree. Particular focus is placed on these PAS-related issues: the syndrome question, PAS versus parental alienation, the medical model, custodial transfer, gender bias, DSM-IV . empirical studies, and the misapplication of PAS.