Perverse Reversal of Child Custody

By Charles Pragnell
Nov 13, 2006
There is a very considerable and increasing public and political concern
regarding the secrecy of the Family Courts in child protection hearings and it is
hoped that by opening up such proceedings to public view that it will expose the
injustices and unfairness which prevails in many of such proceedings. Parents
report that they are at a serious disadvantage in such proceedings when faced
with the financial and legal might of a local authority and they often do not
qualify for legal aid or are advised by their own legal advisers merely to consent
to the making of Care Orders in the hope that the local authority will return their
children in a reasonable period of time this does not happen of course and their
children are permanently lost to forced adoption or the vicissitudes of State Care.
Some parents claim, with reasonable evidence to support such claims, that the
evidence presented against them is often distorted, embellished, and even
fabricated by medical and social work witnesses and evidence which would
exonerate or exculpate them is withheld or disregarded. Cases which have made
headlines in the media in recent years and months appear to support their
contentions.
But will opening up the Family Courts, per se, lead to improved justice and
fairness for parents?. It is a step in the right direction but a great deal more
needs to be done to create a legal process which gives equality to parents facing
abuse allegations to defend themselves. Not least that an adversarial legal arena
does not necessarily examine the full range of evidence and the outcomes of
such contests often depend more on the quality of legal representation than on
the truth or otherwise of the evidence presented to the Courts. What is claimed
to be In the best interests of the child is often no more than the opinions of
social workers based, not on what is measurably and demonstrably to the benefit
and advantage of the child, but on little more than fanciful speculation and
misguided dogma regarding substitute care of children and an amour propre for
`Permanency Planning.
One area of the Family Courts work which will be unlikely to be opened up to
public and political scrutiny are cases of dispute over child custody and contact
after parental separation and yet there are many similar injustices and
unfairness occurring with disturbingly regular frequency in such proceedings.
Such injustices are occurring when children disclose or report to the parent with
custody that they have suffered abuse by the other parent during contact visits
and the child(ren) refuses to attend further contact visits. The non-custodial
parent then takes the matter back to Court to obtain additional contact and even
residency of the child(ren) and claims that the custodial parent has `coached or
`indoctrinated the child into making the abuse allegations. Often the abuse
allegations have been reported to the child protection agencies but in some
instances they have refused to investigate as they suggest it is a matter for the
Family Court to decide, or they carry out only a cursory investigation and suggest

that the custodial parent is suffering from `Parental Alienation Syndrome or at

least some of the symptoms of this mythical disorder which has been completely
discredited in professional and legal circles.
The term Parental Alienation Syndrome [PAS] was created by Dr. Richard
Gardner, an American psychologist, in 1985 and was based on his observations
of disputed child custody cases that involved allegations of child sexual and/or
physical abuse and an inventory he had previously created and which he termed
Sexual Abuse Legitimacy Scale SALS]
PAS, claimed Gardner, was a mechanism used by a parent, usually the mother,
in a child custody dispute where the parent with residency alleges that the child
has reported/disclosed to the residency parent that s/he has been subjected to a
form of abuse by the non-residency parent. . In this way, it was claimed that
mothers gained advantages in custody litigation. The accused non-residency
parent seeks to rebut this allegation with a counter allegation that the child has
been indoctrinated/ coached/ brainwashed by the residency parent into making
such allegations in order to `alienate the child towards the non-residency
parent. The PAS theory then supports a remedy of placing the child with their
alleged abuser and curtailing or severing completely their visitation contact with
the former residency parent. In effect a Perverse Reversal of Child Custody.
[PRoCC].
The American Prosecutors Research Institute stated in 2003 that,PAS is based
primarily upon two notions, neither of which has a foundation in empirical
research.
PAS has never been put forward for verification and validation and is not included
in DSMIV, the diagnostic and statistical manual of the American Psychiatric
Association [APA] and does not therefore qualify nor be deemed to be a mental
disorder, there is no body of knowledge to support its existence, and it is
therefore outside of the expertise of psychiatrists and psychologists.
This is further testified to by Dr. Paul J.Fink a past President of the APA and
President of the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media who
has stated that,
PAS as a scientific theory has been excoriated by legitimate researchers across
the nation. Judged solely on its merits, Dr. Gardner should be a pathetic footnote
of psychiatry, or an example of poor scientific standards. (cited in Bruch 2002).
Richard Ducote an attorney at law in New Orleans stated in 2003 of Gardner and
his PAS theory that,
PAS is a bogus, pro-paedophiliac fraud concocted by Richard Gardner. I was the
last attorney to cross-examine Gardner in Patterson New Jersey. He has not
been court appointed to do anything for decades. The only two appellate courts
in the country who have considered the question of whether PAS meets the Frye
test i.e. whether it is generally accepted in the scientific community, said it does
not. Gardner and his theory have done untold damage to sexually and physically

abused children and their protective parents. PAS has been rejected by every
reputable organisation considering it. In a Florida case in which I was recently
involved, when the Judge insisted on a Frye Hearing, Gardner simply did not
show up. Perhaps because of this he finally realised that the entire nation was on
to his scam, he committed suicide on May 25. Lets pray that his ridiculous,
dangerous PAS foolishness died with him.
Yet this discredited theory or its thinly-disguised elements are still being used in
Family Courts in the U.K. and in Australia, and is being accepted by some
members of the judiciary, and children are being placed with parents against
whom they have made reports/disclosures of abuse without such reports having
been thoroughly and competently investigated. There are even cases where the
abuse has been shown to have occurred following a child protection investigation
and yet the child(ren) have still been placed with the abusive parent.
An example of this is the case of a young mother who suffered extreme and
frequent abuse from her husband throughout the five years of their marriage and
stayed with him in the hope he would change and the marriage could be
rescued, and despite social workers trying on several occasions to persuade her
to leave him. After she finally decided to terminate the marriage, she suffered
physical and mental ill health and agreed for her children to be looked after by
the local authority on a voluntary basis whilst she recovered. However when she
recovered from her ill health and sought the return of her children, the local
authority refused to return them and sought Care Orders on the children, alleging
she was likely to cause them harm. Her legal advisers deserted her and her legal
aid was withdrawn and she was left to act as a litigant in person with no legal
knowledge or experience. The Official Solicitor was requested to act in the case
but merely consented to the Care Orders and so Care Orders were made to the
local authority by `default. The children were placed in the care of the abusive
father by the local authority with the Courts agreement and the mother has
since been denied any direct contact and has even been actively prevented from
participating in any decision-making processes regarding the childrens care and
welfare. The Official Solicitor later apologised for his conduct in the proceedings
but the children remain in the care of their father and any form of direct contact
with their mother has been refused.
In another case a young woman gave birth to an illegitimate child after a very
brief relationship with a wealthy professional man. She cared for and looked after
her child for several years and the putative father was granted visitation contact.
However as the child grew older he began to make reports and disclosures to his
mother and to several health professionals which suggested that he was being
sexually abused on these contact visits and he became extremely distressed and
refused to attend such visits. The child protection authorities refused to
investigate the allegations but were intent upon removing the child from the
mother on the basis of alleged PAS but with no evidence to support such an
opinion. The putative father brought legal action seeking a residency order and
the claims that the mother was indoctrinating her four year old child were
supported by a CAFCASS worker and the father was awarded custody of the

child. The mother now has only sporadic contact with her child and he continues
to make allegations of abuse to the mother and to his teachers and the child
protection authorities continue to refuse to investigate because they
unquestioningly accept the views of the original social workers.
Such cases of perverse reversal of child custody are increasing in the U.K. and
Australia although they are in rapid decline in the U.S.A. after the exposure of
PAS as a fraudulent and unsound theory.
It is difficult to comprehend how children can be placed in the care and custody
of a parent against whom they have made an allegation of abuse without a full
and thorough investigation of those allegations and merely an assumption that
the child(ren) is lying and has been `coached into making such allegations,
despite research evidence that such false allegations by children are extremely
rare.
In other cases of custody and contact where children have been suffering
serious ill health or disabilities, counter allegations have been made that the
mother is suffering from Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy and has fabricated or
induced the childs illness or disability, which has similarly been discredited as
having neither validity nor utility in child protection matters and not to exist as a
medico-legal entity.

Ending the secrecy of the Family Courts will undoubtedly bring some
improvements but much more needs to be done before full confidence can be
brought to a system which has lost so much public confidence and trust and is
continually and repetitively making such serious errors. Not least must be a reexamination of the presumption that parents should have an equal right to the
custody of the child(ren) or contact even though the parent may not have taken
any interest whatsoever in the child during the marriage and may be using this
`right simply as a weapon of attrition against the custodial parent or wishes to
continue their abusive and persecutory behaviour towards the child and/or the
other parent.
By Charles Pragnell
November 13, 2006
Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care [UK Home Office]
Expert Witness Child Protection and Social Care Consultant and Child/Family
Advocate.