The Medea Complex and the Parental Alienation Syndrome

[redqueen]

9. Understanding and Collaboratively Treating Parental Alienation Syndrome

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/pas/waldron.htm

... Earlier researchers had rioted similar processes in families (for example, the "medea complex" described by Wallerstein and Kelly in the late 1970s), and professionals working with divorcing families easily recognized the syndrome, sometimes described as brainwashing, presented by Gardner. That his "syndrome" was so readily adopted is less a testament to Dr. Gardner's "discovery" than to his conceptualizing a familiar type of high-conflict divorcing family problem that is complex, perplexing, very resistant to change; and sometimes tragic.

Gardner's conceptualization of the problem and the dynamics underlying the problem proved at best incomplete, if not simplistic and erroneous. He portrays the alienating parent as virtually solely responsible for the dynamic, turning the vulnerable child against the innocent target parent. More extensive research on the topic(3) has more clearly established the complex involvement and motives of all of the actors in this disastrous family drama. ...

...

Think of the opportunity here. If a lawyer representing an accused child sex abuser can find a mental health professional who will testify that the children are victims of PAS, the same expert can take the next step to say that it would be rare for a child suffering from PAS to suffer genuine sexual abuse. By simply naming the child's antipathy for the parent as PAS, the lawyer has a defense.

...

The article attacks Dr. Gardner in strong terms. The commentator points out that the PAS theory is built upon criteria that Dr. Gardner invented and included in his widely discredited sex abuse legitimacy scale. It then goes on to argue that testimony regarding PAS should be excluded from the court both under the Daubert test and under the Frye analysis. Under Daubert, the trier of fact must rule on admissibility based on an expert's opinion as to whether the evidence is reliable and thus relevant. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), the trial judge must make a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid. in other words, the court may consider whether the theory has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance.(7)

...