Newsweek Bashes Dads; CBS Covers
Shared Parenting, PAS

September 20, 2006

Carl LaBove

I had exchanged emails with comedian Carl LaBove but never met him. LaBove contacted me last year before going on the Howard Stern Show to discuss his remarkable paternity fraud case. He had a girl with his bi-polar ex-wife, who promptly drove him out of the child's life. He later discovered that the girl is not biologically his--she was fathered by the famous late comedian Sam Kinison. LaBove has spent the last 16 years being hounded and hammered by Los Angeles Child Support Enforcement, and is now taking his fight public.

Warren Farrell

Warren Farrell gave an excellent presentation on the importance of preserving the relationship between children and both parents after a divorce. He has a new DVD on this out--I'll post more information about the DVD soon.

At the conference I also stumbled upon an excellent candidate for future leader of the shared parenting movement--Stephen Baskerville's 13 year-old daughter. After the conference Saturday evening she somehow browbeat and manipulated two dozen yakking, scattered people into getting organized and going out for Thai food. At dinner she ate only half of her plate, then masterfully conned her father into allowing her to order dessert, explaining to her father that she didn't finish her dinner because she was "full," but "desert doesn't fill you up."

She's also has some interesting observations of people. I tried to explain to her that her father is a greatly admired individual, a hero to thousands. Her jaw dropped, she gave me an amazed look, took a long look at Baskerville, then slowly turned her head back to me, leaned forward, and said:

"How is that possible? He's such a nerd!"

Last October PBS aired the film Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories on many of its affiliates. The film portrayed fathers as batterers and child molesters who use family court machinations to wrest children away from their mothers. The film was extremely one-sided, and presented a harmful and inaccurate view of divorce and child custody cases. Moreover, the film portrayed one mother as a heroic, victimized mom, when records which we made public show that she had abused children under her care, and had lost custody for that reason.

I joined with Fathers and Families, the American Coalition for Fathers & Children, and others in a campaign to force PBS to "provide fatherhood and shared parenting advocates a meaningful opportunity to present our side of the issues." Over 10,000 of you wrote or called PBS, and both PBS's ombudsman and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's ombudsman echoed our central criticisms about the film.

In December, PBS notified us that they would "commission an hour-long documentary" for the purpose of further examining the "complex and important issues" raised in the film and by our campaign. They promised the "hour-long treatment of the subject will allow ample opportunity" for those of differing views to "have their perspectives shared, challenged and debated."

Kids & Divorce: For Better or Worse, the film they commissioned in response to our campaign, aired in Boston last night, and will be airing in several dozen markets over the coming weeks. To PBS's credit, they followed through on the commitment they made last December to produce a balanced film. Moreover, PBS partially adopted the approach we suggested for the film. Earlier this year Fathers & Families wrote to Dave Iverson, the film's producer and host, and suggested that he make shared parenting the central theme of the new PBS film. We are pleased to see that Iverson took the suggestion seriously--much of Kids & Divorce concerns shared parenting.

The film made two overriding points. Much of the mainstream media (particularly left-leaning institutions, of which PBS is one) engages in divorce happy talk. However, from Kids & Divorce's opening moments the film powerfully depicts the way children suffer in divorce. Also, throughout the film it was clear that children want and need both parents, that they are very aggrieved when their parents don't get along, and that two-parent involvement is important after divorce.

The film also had its weaknesses. The film devoted much time to the ways in which conflict between parents is bad for children, but did not devote enough to why such conflicts exist. My belief is that much post-divorce conflict is because the playing field is not level, and mothers believe, often correctly, that if they push hard they can drive fathers out of their children's lives. The film focused too much on "can't we all just get along" generalities instead of on the need to protect both parents' right to have a relationship with their children.

Judicial discretion in divorce cases was defended in the film without pointing out the harm that excessive discretion can create. Shared Parenting was criticized as a "cookie cutter" or "one size fits all solution." However, Ned Holstein, president of Fathers & Families, refuted this in the film, pointing out that we already have a cookie cutter--sole custody to mom, dad gets every other weekend visitation.

Women's advocate Dr. Peter Jaffe said that Shared Parenting "coerces" women into co-parenting arrangements with their abusers. Psychologist Dr. Richard Warshak, who made several excellent points in the film, pointed out that Shared Parenting presumptions do not apply when there is domestic violence. However, nobody pointed out that the presumption of sole custody to mom coerces fathers to relinquish much of their fatherhood after a divorce.

The film also devoted much time to divorce education and collaborative law, particularly in the first half. Both of these can be good things, but their utility is limited without a level playing field.

However, I do not want to belabor the film's negatives. PBS spent a considerable amount of money on the film, and made an honest and effective effort to be balanced. The film had many positives, particularly in the second half. Some of them include:

1) The film provided a detailed and very positive depiction of a divorced couple practicing Shared Parenting, including an interview with the divorced couple's 16 year-old son and 12 year-old daughter. The boy emphasized the importance of having the love of both his parents.

2) The film made it clear that kids do not like seeing their other parent badmouthed or belittled. Three times the film quoted a young boy who thanked his mom for ceasing her badmouthing of the boy's father.

3) The film pointed out that it's important that each parent accommodate their children's desire for contact with the other parent. For example, we were told that when a child tells his or her mother that he or she misses dad, the mother's best response is a cheerful "OK, let's call him."

4) Los Angeles County Family Mediator Ernest Sanchez applauded a father who came into his court and stood up and repeatedly asserted that he was a father, "not a visitor" in his child's life. Sanchez also brought up the need to "equalize the playing field."

5) I expected a large focus on domestic violence and monster dads, and was pleasantly surprised to see that while this side was represented fairly, it was not given undue weight. In fact, Iverson said "domestic violence is a factor in only a small number of divorce cases," and this assertion was repeated later in the film.

6) In the final segments Dr. Richard Warshak was excellent, bringing home many of our movement's key points. He discussed the way custodial parents "use their extra time with their children" to turn them against or alienate them from the other parent. Warshak agreed with Jaffe that we must protect kids from domestic violence but also said we must protect them from the "emotional violence" of parental alienation. Surprisingly, Jaffe did (briefly) concede that there is too much alienating behavior by parents in divorces.

7) Underscoring the film's central message that kids need two parents, not two warring parties, one child caught in the middle of a divorce said "I don't want to vote."

8) The film showed a meeting of Fathers & Families where two dads briefly described how painful their separations from their children are.

9) The film showed Ned Holstein lobbying at the Massachusetts capital and quoted him as saying that before you even get into the courtroom, you can tell which parent is going to win custody--"it's the parent wearing the skirt."

10) In the film Iowa state legislator Danny Carroll said something we hear all too rarely. Carroll never knew his father. However, he did not make the standard assumption that because dad wasn't there he must be at fault or have "abandoned" the family. Instead he explained that he didn't really know why his dad wasn't there, and speculated that if there had been a presumption for Shared Parenting when he was a child, perhaps he would have had his father in his life. He is one of the main legislative supporters of the Iowa shared parenting law, which the film discussed.

11) Our opponents often say that divorced couples can't co-parent, so it's best to give sole custody to mothers. In the film Dr. Isolina Ricci asserted that "most parents can co-parent" and emphasized the importance of co-parenting after a divorce.

12) In closing, Hofstra Law Professor Andrew Schepard accurately described the problems in divorce and family law as a "public health problem," and Warshak emphasized the need for post-divorce parenting plans which do not have a "secondary parent."

In summation, we've come a long way in a year. We never asked PBS to pull or cease airing Breaking the Silence. Instead we asserted that there is another side to these issues which merits an airing. We succeeded. Last fall on PBS dads were portrayed as evil, scheming abusers. This week dads were portrayed as an important and valued part of their children's lives. Thanks again to all who participated.

Some of you have written to me concerned that Kids & Divorce: For Better or Worse is not being aired enough. I appreciate your concerns, but they don't seem warranted to me. Kids & Divorce is airing in many major and middle markets (see the list below). Neither Breaking the Silence nor this new film will be shown on all PBS stations, and that's fine. For example, Breaking the Silence didn't show at all in Los Angeles, but this new film got a prime time slot here. Some of you have written with outrage that it's playing in the middle of the night in your area, forgetting that in most cases it's also playing in a good time slot, and that PBS always repeats their shows at odd hours.

Still, I encourage anyone who wants to see the film in their market to call or write their local PBS station to suggest this. In contacting PBS I also urge you to not be adversarial--PBS did what they were supposed to do, and should not be considered our enemy.

Ned Holstein's View of Kids & Divorce

Ned Holstein of Fathers and Families, one of our allies in the campaign, has also released his analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the film. That analysis can be found here. Holstein notes "I found this documentary to be deeply sensitive to the plight of children, fastidiously balanced, and most of all, safe. In fact, it is so safe that it lacks a certain intellectual courage to dig deeper."

Where to See the New PBS Film

KCET in Los Angeles, California (9/14)
KERA in Dallas, Texas (9/17/06)
Twin Cities Public Television (TPT) (9/14)
KQED in the Bay Area/San Francisco (9/15/06, 9/16/06, 9/17/06)
KAET in Phoenix (9/16, 9/18)
KTSC in Denver/Rocky Mountains (9/28/06)
KLRN in San Antonio, Texas (9/14/06, 9/17/06, 9/19/06)
WGBH in Boston (9/12/06, 9/15/06, 9/17/06)
KUHT in Houston, Texas (9/16, 9/17)
KNME in Albuquerque, New Mexico (9/17/06)
WNET in New York City (10/25/06, 10/26/06)
WXXI in Rochester, New York (9/15)
CET in Cincinnati (9/16, 9/17, 9/18)
KAKM in Anchorage, Alaska (9/23)
KLVX in Las Vegas, Nevada (9/15)
GTE in Toledo, Ohio (9/14/06, 9/18/06)
WTIU in Bloomington, Indiana (9/14)
New Hampshire Public Television (9/21/2006)
Alabama Public Television, (9/15/06, 9/19/06, 9/21/06)
KLRU in Austin, Texas (9/15/06, 9/16/06)
WGVU in Grand Rapids, Michigan (9/22)
WITF in Harrisburg, PA
Montana PBS (KUSM) (9/16)
WFWA in Fort Wayne, Indiana (9/14)
Louisiana Public Broadcasting (9/14/06, 9/15/06)
Wisconsin Public Television (9/14/06)
KUED in Salt Lake City (9/14/06, 9/16/06, 9/18/06)
WPSU in Central Pennsylvania (9/16/06, 9/18/06)
KTWU in Topeka, Kansas (9/15/06, 9/17/06)
MPTV in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (9/16/06, 9/17/06)
Iowa Public Television (9/14/06)
KTNW in Washington state (9/15/06, 9/17/06)
Kentucky Educational Television (9/14/06, 9/16/06, 9/17/06, 9/18/06)
KACV in Amarillo, Texas (9/14/06, 9/15/06, 9/18/06, 9/20/06)
NMU in Michigan (9/14/06, 9/18/06)
WTVP in central Illinois (9/17/06, 9/18/06)
KEDT in Corpus Christi, Texas (9/14/06)
WNED in Buffalo, New York (9/24/06)
Vermont Public Television (9/15)
WQLN in Erie, Pennsylvania
Arkansas Education Television Network (9/17)
Oklahoma Educational Television Authority (9/15)
WMHT in Schenectady, New York (9/14)
WNIN Evansville, Indiana (9/14, 9/15, 9/17)
KNPB in Reno, Nevada (9/14)

The California Assembly just passed a domestic violence bill which deliberately perpetuates the state's harmful policy of excluding men and their children from receiving state-funded domestic violence services. Under AB 2051, only "battered women" are eligible for the shelters, hotel vouchers, counseling and legal services the state provides victims of domestic violence. We're calling on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto this misguided legislation.

Governor Schwarzenegger's office has been flooded with letters opposing AB 2051 since our campaign began last week. To write to the Governor to tell him to veto AB 2051, click here. By filling out the form you will be sending a fax to the Governor.

Remember, what happens in California has a major impact on the laws and policies of other states and also at the federal level.

Sacramento lobbyist Michael Robinson and the California Alliance for Families and Children have been working to make the bill gender neutral for several months. AB 2051 is based on the discredited premise that men are rarely the victims of intimate partner abuse. However, more than 50 domestic violence researchers and treatment providers have signed an opposition letter to the Legislature in which they state:

"The data is without question--domestic violence affects both men and women. The politicization of this issue must stop and services must be provided to all children and their parent victims."

Court-certified batterer intervention provider John Hamel, LCSW, author of Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse: A Comprehensive Approach, asserts that research shows that a third of domestic violence-related injuries are incurred by heterosexual males.

According to domestic violence researcher Richard Gelles, co-author of the groundbreaking 1980 book Behind Closed Doors: Violence in American Families, it is very difficult for fathers who are being abused by their wives or significant others to protect themselves and their children. They can't leave because this would leave their children unprotected in the hands of an abuser. If they take their children they can be arrested for kidnapping. If they divorce or separate, they'd probably lose custody of their children in the divorce, again leaving their children in harm's way.

Tens of thousands of California children are being denied needed domestic violence services solely because their victimized parent is male. By ignoring the needs of these children, we are increasing the risk that they will continue the cycle of violence when they become adults.

AB 2051 was originally introduced for the purpose of addressing domestic violence within the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender communities. Neither Robinson, the CAFC, nor I have any problem with this. However, while the bill's original language was gender-neutral, the author later amended the bill back to gender-specific, discriminatory language, and therein lies the problem.

By vetoing AB 2051, Governor Schwarzenegger can make it clear that it's time to end the state's discriminatory policies. His veto will return the issue to the Legislature next year, so that a solution can be crafted to serve the needs of all victims of domestic violence--including men and their children.

Again, I want all of you to write to the Governor to tell him to veto AB 2051 by clicking here.

To learn more about AB 2051, see my co-authored column AB 2051 Moves California in Wrong Direction on Domestic Violence (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 6/1/06). To read the bill, click here. The bill references "battered women" 31 times, yet never once mentions "male victims" or "men."

An Intelligent Look at Parental Alienation Syndrome

Dr. Robert A. Evans of Tree House Solutions takes an intelligent look at Parental Alienation Syndrome in his recent article Treatment Considerations with Children Diagnosed with PAS from the Florida Bar Journal. His list of the specific symptoms of severe PAS is illuminating:

"Campaign of denigration: denigration of the targeted parent completely, especially in the presence of the alienating parent. The children express profound hatred for the targeted parent.

"Weak rationalizations for the denigration: The children base their justification for their alienation on rationalizations that are completely irrational, and ludicrous (for example, "he takes me to Disney World too much"). These children are unable to provide more compelling reasons for their rejection.

"Lack of ambivalence: Denigrating statements are often made with a complete lack of ambivalence by the child. That is, there are no mixed feelings with these children; the targeted parent is all 'bad' and the alienating parent is all 'good.'

"The 'Independent Thinker' phenomenon: The child proudly professes that his or her rejection of the targeted parent is their own doing. They will deny any contributions from the alienating parent, who supports the child in their proclamations. The alienating parent reinforces this contention by making statements such as, 'I can't force her to see her dad, if she does not want to.'

"Reflexive support of the alienating parent: The child automatically takes the position of the alienating parent; even the alienating parent may not present the argument as forcefully as the supporting child.

"Absence of guilt: A PAS child typically has no guilt or remorse over the exploitation of the targeted parent. There is frequently a complete absence of gratitude for gifts, support of any kind, or any involvement by the targeted parent in their lives. This lack of guilt cannot be attributed solely to the child's cognitive immaturity, but is related to the brainwashing and programming by the alienating parent.

"Presence of borrowed scenarios: The child's presentation carries a rehearsed quality. They use language and expressions that are clearly not their own. Their verbalizations appear to be coached and rehearsed, and the only source of the borrowed scenarios appears to be the alienating parent.

"Animosity toward the extended family of the alienated parent: The targeted parent's extended family (e.g., aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents) is included in the animosity. These individuals are also perceived as having negative qualities or using inappropriate actions since they are associated with the targeted parent. Any attempt by the extended family to counter the denigration of the targeted parent is viewed by the child as an attack on his or her beliefs.

The Fatima Loeliger Alienation Case

Many of these elements are present in the Fatima Loeliger alienation case. The Loeliger case became publicized after PBS aired Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories last fall. Her father, Dr. Scott Loeliger, is one of the most well-known and long suffering target parents of PAS.

During our campaign against PBS's film, we made the bombshell announcement that Fatima's mother Sadia Loeliger, who was portrayed as a heroic mom in the film, had been found culpable of multiple acts of child abuse by a California Juvenile court. While Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories claims that the mother lost custody of the daughter because of the father's legal machinations, in reality the Juvenile court transferred custody to the father to protect the girl.

Evans' description of the alienated child's "Animosity toward the extended family of the alienated parent" is practically a word for word description of the Loeliger case. Perhaps the saddest part of the case is the way alienated Fatima has rejected and poured derision upon her little brother--an 8 year old who loved and looked up to his older sister, and has no clue or way to understand why she has cruelly turned against him.

To learn more about the Loeliger case, see The Alienation of Fatima Loeliger.

Evans describes one of the hallmarks of alienation as "Lack of ambivalence...there are no mixed feelings with these children; the targeted parent is all "bad" and the alienating parent is all "good."

Last year I had a long, interesting conversation with a prominent leader of the National Organization for Women--sorry, I must respect her privacy and not name her--about her childhood. We'll call this leader "Jane." Jane's father suffered from a mental disorder and was violent and abusive. Jane described numerous terrible things he did, including violence against both Jane and her mother. In between, Jane shared many warm memories of him, and spoke glowingly of him, often at some length.  

The point? The child who really is abused is usually ambivalent about his abuser. He or she is afraid and/or angry at the parent, but also has loving feelings towards the parent. By contrast, as Evans notes, for the alienated child, the target parent is the enemy and all normal human feelings have been expunged.

The National Organization for Women passed a resolution against PAS at its national conference in July, labeling PAS a "defense strategy for batterers and sexual predators that purports to explain a child's estrangement from one parent, or explains away allegations against the estranged parent of abuse/sex abuse of child, by blaming the protective parent." Jane is an intelligent woman, but somehow I doubt she noticed the contradiction.

I've written about PAS on various occasions--probably the most detailed one is my co-authored PBS Declares War on Dads (World Net Daily, 10/20/05).
 

Psychology professor Gordon E. Finley recently wrote an interesting review of Elizabeth Marquardt's  Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce for PsycCRITIQUES, a publication of the American Psychological Association. Marquardt's book powerfully depicts the way even civil divorces can shatter a child's world and force a boy or a girl to grow up long before their time.

Unfortunately, due to copyright restrictions, the piece is not available on the Internet. However, I've quoted a few sections of it below. Finley writes:

"Marquardt's uniquely outstanding contribution is her new look at the inherent structure of the post-divorce family--from the point of view of the child of divorce--wherefrom she argues that it is structurally impossible to have a 'good' divorce. Central to her argument is the thesis that although marriage structurally constitutes one world and it is the parents' job to reconcile differences and make one unified sense of their joint world, divorce inherently creates two worlds and, most critically, makes it the child's inherently impossible job to unify, reconcile, and make sense of the increasingly divergent worlds of the child's father and mother. To borrow the vocabulary of the STEP Parent Training Program, in marriage, it is the parents who 'own' the problem of creating a unified whole, whereas in divorce, it is the child who 'owns' the problem of reconciling the increasingly diverging worlds of his or her mother and father. As Marquardt writes,

"'Our [divorced] parents were related to one another not through a structure that emphasized their unity--marriage--but rather through one that emphasized their difference and opposition: divorce. Unlike the banner of marriage announcing their unity to the world, the banner of divorce announced to everyone, including us, that the differences between them were larger than anything they might share in common. Even if they did not feel starkly opposed to one another the structure of divorce nevertheless made them seem that way to us.'"

Finley continues:

"...the obsession with parental 'conflict' in the divorce literature really is a red herring designed to deflect attention from the true problems of divorce. In Marquardt's view, divorce does little or nothing to dispel conflict between parents (in fact, she argues that two thirds of divorces come from low-conflict families), but what divorce does for children is to create a very high level of conflict within the child. Marquardt's insight can be described as 'conflict shifting.' In marriage, the conflict is between parents. By contrast, in divorce the conflict is shifted to within the child. The parents have relinquished the job of reconciling their conflicting and increasingly divergent worlds and foisted that job on their children."

While rightly commending Marquardt for most of her book, Finley also calls her on her misguided rejection of shared physical custody. Finley writes:

"[Marquardt] does not believe that post-divorce cookie-cutter formulas--such as equal shared physical custody--can address the needs of children. Her position here, however, is odd in that she ignores the fact that a worse post-divorce cookie-cutter formula already exists. This is where one parent, usually the mother, is given almost all physical custody. Sole mother physical custody has been documented to have worse outcomes, in general, for children than shared physical custody. She also fails to recognize that shared physical custody is an anti-divorce tool and--above all--what of the children's right not to be disenfranchised from either parent?"

Finley can be reached at adoptaowl@aol.com. 

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

Subscribe to this E-Newsletter

Email this E-Newsletter to a Friend

Missed an E-Newsletter? Find all of Glenn's E-Newsletters here

GlennSacks.com

To be removed immediately from our list, send an email to remove@glennsacks.com with the subject line Remove.