![\"D\u00e5lig](\"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/19\/2021\/03\/Dalig-myndighetsutovninh.jpeg\" "\\"D\u00e5lig")
\n\t\nOM HUR M\u00d6DRAR I PA(S)-GRUNDADE DOMAR – DISKRIMINERAS TILL F\u00d6RM\u00c5N F\u00d6R V\u00c5LDSUT\u00d6VANDE F\u00c4DER<\/a>\n\t
I en mycket omfattande genomg\u00e5ng av 2000 domar i en studie ledd av juristen professor Joan S Meier, framg\u00e5r det entydigt att bed\u00f6mningar vare sig p\u00e5 PA eller PAS vilar p\u00e5 ”k\u00f6nsneutral” grund, utan tv\u00e4rtom diskriminerar m\u00f6drar till f\u00f6rm\u00e5n f\u00f6r v\u00e5ldsut\u00f6vande f\u00e4der.<\/h3>\n
En av de forskare som omn\u00e4mns i den omfattande artikeln om hur l\u00e4get i fr\u00e5ga om bed\u00f6mningarna i v\u00e5rdnadstvister ser ut i USA med rubriken: Domestic violence victims struggle in family courts to retain custody of children<\/a>, <\/strong>n\u00e4mligen prof. Joan S Meier<\/b>, har lett en studie fr\u00e5n 2019 om hur fejk-teorin om PAS = Parental Alienation Syndrome, numera p\u00e5 ytan uppsnyggad till PA = Parental Alienation p\u00e5verkar utfallen i r\u00e4tten till pappors eller mammors f\u00f6rdel och i fr\u00e5ga om vem som anklagar vem f\u00f6r vad; DV = (Domestic Violence) eller PA.<\/p>\n I den har det bl a. p\u00e5visats att n\u00e4r mammor anm\u00e4lt pappor f\u00f6r fysisk misshandel mot gemensamma barn, och pappornas f\u00f6rsvar utgjorts av att barnen ist\u00e4llet skulle varit utsatta f\u00f6r mammornas f\u00f6r\u00e4ldraalienation, \u00e4r det endast i 18 % av fallen som mammornas version blir godtagen som trov\u00e4rdig av domstolen. Det leder\u00a0i sin tur till att mammorna i 59 % av fallen f\u00f6rlorar v\u00e5rdnaden till papporna..\u00a0<\/p>\n N\u00e4r mammor anm\u00e4ler pappor f\u00f6r sexuella \u00f6vergrepp mot gemensamma barn, och papporna i sin tur returnerar med att anklaga mammorna f\u00f6r f\u00f6r\u00e4ldraalienation, \u00e4r det endast i 2% av fallen, som mammornas version tillm\u00e4ts trov\u00e4rdighet i domstolen, vilket i sin tur resulterar i att\u00a0mammorna i 64 % av fallen f\u00f6rlorar v\u00e5rdnaden till barnens f\u00f6r\u00f6vare. Och detta trots att data tyder p\u00e5 att mammor skulle vittna falskt\u00a0 om sexuella \u00f6vergrepp i f\u00e4rre \u00e4n 4% av fallen.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2019-56<\/p>\n GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2019-56<\/p>\n Joan S. Meier<\/a><\/p>\n George Washington University – Law School<\/p>\n Sean Dickson<\/a><\/p>\n George Washington University – Law School<\/p>\n Chris O’Sullivan<\/a><\/p>\n affiliation not provided to SSRN<\/p>\n Leora Rosen<\/a><\/p>\n affiliation not provided to SSRN<\/p>\n Jeffrey Hayes<\/a><\/p>\n affiliation not provided to SSRN<\/p>\n Date Written: 2019<\/p>\n Date Written: 2019<\/p>\n ”Arguably the most troubling aspect of justice system response to intimate partner violence is custody courts’ failure to protect children when mothers allege the father is abusive<\/b>. Family courts’ errors in assessing adult and child abuse, and punitive responses to abuse allegations, have been widely documented.<\/p>\n A significant contributor to these errors is the pseudo-scientific theory of parental alienation (PA)<\/b>. Originally termed parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the theory suggests that when mothers allege that a child is not safe with the father<\/b>, they are doing so illegitimately<\/b>, to alienate the child from the father<\/b>. PA labeling often results in dismissal of women’s and children’s reports of abuse, and sometimes trumps even expert child abuse evaluations. PAS was explicitly based on negative stereotypes of mothers and has been widely discredited.<\/p>\n The term parental alienation – while treated as distinct – is still widely used in ways that are virtually identical to PAS. Nonetheless, because PA is nominally gender neutral (and not called a scientific syndrome), it continues to have substantial credibility in court.<\/p>\n The first goal of this project was to ascertain whether empirical evidence indicates that parental alienation is, like PAS, gender-biased in practice and outcome.<\/b> Second, the study sought to explore outcomes in custody\/abuse litigation by gender and by differing types of abuse. Analysis of over 2000 court opinions confirms that courts are skeptical of mothers’ claims of abuse by fathers; this skepticism is greatest when mothers claim child abuse.<\/p>\n The findings also confirm that fathers’ cross-claims of parental alienation increase (virtually doubling) courts’ rejection of mothers’ abuse claims, and mothers’ losses of custody to the father accused of abuse. In comparing court responses when fathers accuse mothers of abuse, a significant gender difference is identified.<\/b><\/p>\n Finally, the findings indicate that where Guardians Ad Litem or custody evaluators are appointed, unfavorable outcomes for mothers and gender differences are increased.<\/p>\n The study relies solely on electronically available published opinions in child custody cases. It has produced an invaluable database identifying 10 years of published cases involving alienation, abuse and custody, while coding parties’ claims and defenses, outcomes, and other key factors by gender and parental status.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n ”F\u00f6rmodligen \u00e4r den mest \u00f6desdigra aspekten av r\u00e4ttsv\u00e4sendets hantering av DV= Domestic Violence dess underl\u00e5tenhet att skydda barn n\u00e4r m\u00f6drar h\u00e4vdar att fadern har ut\u00f6vat DV (Domestic Violence). Det finns riklig dokumentation av familjedomstolars felbed\u00f6mningar av \u00f6vergrepp mot vuxna och barn och deras repressiva h\u00e5llning gentemot anm\u00e4lningar om det.<\/p>\n En signifikant bidragande orsak till dessa fel \u00e4r den pseudovetenskapliga teorin om f\u00f6r\u00e4ldraralienation = PA<\/b>. Teorin, som ursprungligen kallades PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome), h\u00e4vdar att orsaken till att m\u00f6drar uppger att barn blir utsatta av deras f\u00e4der, \u00e4r att de utan godtagbara sk\u00e4l f\u00f6rs\u00f6ker alienera barnen fr\u00e5n dem.<\/p>\n Att misst\u00e4nkligg\u00f6ra anm\u00e4lare av brott mot barn f\u00f6r att \u00e4gna sig \u00e5t PA, resulterar ofta i att kvinnors och barns rapporter om \u00f6vergrepp och ibland \u00e4ven expertutl\u00e5tanden om v\u00e5ld mot barn avvisas. PAS som uttryckligen baserats p\u00e5 negativa stereotyper om m\u00f6drar, har generellt blivit diskrediterad som ovetenskaplig.<\/p>\n Men \u00e4ven om det h\u00e4vdas att PA = f\u00f6r\u00e4ldraaalienation skulle skilja sig fr\u00e5n PAS – anv\u00e4nds det fortfarande i stor utstr\u00e4ckning som om det praktiska taget vore synonymt med PAS. Eftersom PA till skillnad fr\u00e5n PAS p\u00e5st\u00e5s vara k\u00f6nsneutralt<\/b> (pga att det inte l\u00e4ngre h\u00e4vdas utg\u00f6ra ett vetenskapligt belagt syndrom), tillm\u00e4ts det fortfarande en betydande trov\u00e4rdighet i domstolarna.<\/p>\n Det prim\u00e4ra syftet med detta projekt har varit att fastst\u00e4lla om det g\u00e5r att p\u00e5finna empiriska bevis som kan s\u00e4kerst\u00e4lla att id\u00e9n om PA, liksom om PAS, i r\u00e4ttspraxis f\u00e5r ett genderbaserat utfall.<\/b><\/p>\n F\u00f6r det andra f\u00f6rs\u00f6kte studien unders\u00f6ka utfallet av v\u00e5rdnadsprocesser i f\u00f6rh\u00e5llande till k\u00f6n och olika typer av \u00f6vergrepp.<\/p>\n Efter v\u00e5r analys av \u00f6ver 2000 domstolsutl\u00e5tanden, har vi funnit bevis f\u00f6r att domstolar \u00e4r skeptiska till m\u00f6drars p\u00e5st\u00e5enden om f\u00e4ders DV och att denna skepsis \u00e4r st\u00f6rst n\u00e4r mammor anm\u00e4lt barnmisshandel.<\/b><\/p>\n Resultaten bekr\u00e4ftar ocks\u00e5 att f\u00e4ders motanklagelser om f\u00f6r\u00e4ldraalienation n\u00e4ra nog f\u00f6rdubblar antalet fall i vilka domstolarna avvisar m\u00f6drars anm\u00e4lningar om brott och i vilka v\u00e5rdnaden tilld\u00f6ms de f\u00e4der som just anklagats f\u00f6r \u00f6vergrepp. N\u00e4r man j\u00e4mf\u00f6r utfallet av de domar i vilka f\u00e4der d\u00e4remot anklagar m\u00f6drar f\u00f6r \u00f6vergrepp, identifieras en signifikant k\u00f6nsskillnad.<\/b><\/p>\n Slutligen visas att i de fall som Guardians Ad Litem eller v\u00e5rdnadsutredare anlitats, \u00e4r utfallet ogynnsamt f\u00f6r m\u00f6drar och verkar befr\u00e4mjande p\u00e5 genderbiased bed\u00f6mningar.<\/p>\n Studien bygger enbart p\u00e5 elektroniskt tillg\u00e4ngliga publicerade uppgifter fr\u00e5n v\u00e5rdnadstvister. Under de senaste 10 \u00e5ren har de utgjort en ov\u00e4rderlig databas f\u00f6r att kunna identifiera \u00e4renden och koda dem utefter olika parametrar som tex alienation, v\u00e5ld \/ \u00f6vergrepp och v\u00e5rdnad, s\u00e5v\u00e4l som parternas yttranden och f\u00f6rsvar och processens utfall, samt \u00f6vriga parametrar som tex parternas k\u00f6n och sociala status.”<\/p>\n \u00d6vers\u00e4ttningen \u00e4r nog inte helt och h\u00e5llet korrekt, men f\u00e5r duga.<\/p>\n https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3448062<\/a><\/p>\n\t <\/p>\n PA(S)-lobbyn ger sig inte i f\u00f6rsta taget. H\u00e4r f\u00f6rs\u00f6ker de ge sken av att ha p\u00e5funnit vetenskapliga brister och oegentligheter i den stort uppm\u00e4rksammade studien av professor Joan S. Meier.<\/p>\n I sj\u00e4lva verket \u00e4r det mesta som upphovsm\u00e4nnen till denna studie ger prov p\u00e5, vetenskapligt bluff och b\u00e5g av samma kaliber som en g\u00e5ng R. H. Gardner<\/a>s.<\/b><\/p>\n H\u00e4r redovisas \u00e5terigen flagranta exempel p\u00e5 hur PA(S)-lobbyn (medvetet?) underl\u00e5ter att iaktta vedertagen vetenskaplig praxis<\/a> genom att respektera kravet p\u00e5 att h\u00e5lla sig till samma begreppsapparat som anv\u00e4nds i Joan S Meiers studie, eller att ens redovisa den vetenskapliga grunden till den egna\u00a0 differentieringen av DV i de tv\u00e5 kategorierna psykiskt v\u00e5ld = PA och sk ”vanligt v\u00e5ld” (VV) vilket resulterar i en begreppsr\u00f6ra, av Meier h\u00e4r betecknad som en ”fruit sallad” som \u00e4r s\u00e5 ogenomtr\u00e4nglig att den knappt l\u00e5ter sig bem\u00f6tas.<\/p>\n ”Rather than screening out cases that confound the core questions about impact of abuse or alienation claims, such as child welfare\/state cases and neglect claims (neither reflective of private custody), they created a ”fruit salad” dataset – containing such varying types of cases and issues that it is impossible to know whether their outcomes were driven by alienation, abuse or any number of other significant factors they mixed into their dataset.”<\/i><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Citat fr\u00e5n hemsidan #thecourtsaid<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Professor Joan Meier’s groundbreaking study<\/a> was published in 2020, showing the outcomes of family court cases involving parental alienation and how it affects custody. Her study firmly shone the spotlight on the catastrophic gender-specific harm the theory of parental alienation does and, in particular, the harm it does to child victims of physical and sexual abuse.<\/p>\n Her study became influential in the UK and kickstarted a wave of global research <\/a>on parental alienation in the context of domestic abuse. Dr Adrienne Barnett who published further research<\/a> and a literature review on the harm report<\/a> for the Ministry of Justice in the UK also became a target, and a vicious backlash unleashed on those who have worked their entire professional lives advocating for the vulnerable.<\/a><\/p>\n As the research of Professor Meier and Dr Barnett hit the headlines<\/a>, and governments and judges started to take notice, the parental alienation lobby continued to launch missiles, generally in the direction of domestic abuse victims, charities, services, and academics. The fa\u0437ade started to crumble.<\/p>\n Harman & Lorandos released a spurious study <\/a>to challenge and ’replicate’ Professor Meier’s study, which many parental alienation proponents unprofessionally critiqued. In Karen Woodall’s blog<\/a> Professor Meier’s study was labelled misleading, confusing, unsupported, untrustworthy, unreliable, a woozle, intent on manipulating readers and attempting to shift the narrative away from the alienated child. Others labelled Professor Meiers study badly done, shoddy, low-rent, proceedurally flawed and full of false assumptions. The behaviour and tactics of the parental alienation ’experts’ and proponents did not fall far from that of the domestic violence perpetrator who cross-claims parental alienation in the courtroom.<\/p>\n Professor Meier has issued a rebuttal to the Harman & Lorandos challenge which can be read below. Those who benefit ideologically and financially from the status quo in the family courts were never going to self-reflect on, accept, or apologise for, the catastrophic harm they have done to women and children globally. The backlash is intense and it is vicious, but the will to end the harm to women and children in the family courts, globally, is steadfast.<\/p>\n We tested a set of findings reported by Meier (2019) related to the use of parental alienation (PA) as a legal defense in cases in which there are allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. A total of 967 appellate reports in which PA was found or alleged were sequentially selected from a legal database search. Nineteen research assistants blind to the study’s hypotheses coded the reports for the variables used to test six pre-registered hypotheses using a series of logistic and linear regression models. We failed to find any support for the conclusions made by Meier (2019). Parents found (versus alleged) to alienate their children, regardless of their gender, had greater odds of losing parenting time, losing custody of their children, and losing their case. These findings held even when the accusing parent had been found to have been abusive. Losses or decreases in custody were not found when the (alleged) alienated parent was found to have been abusive. Results indicate that the majority of courts carefully weigh allegations of all forms of family violence in their determinations about the best interests of children. These findings, along with several others, raise concerns that the methodological, analytical, and statistical problems we detail about Meier’s report (2019) make her conclusions untrustworthy. Discussion focuses on the importance of using open science practices for transparent and rigorous empirical testing of hypotheses and the dangers of misusing scientific findings to mislead influential professionals who affect the well-being of millions of families.<\/p>\n\t Genom att utforska och ben\u00e4mna typiska f\u00f6r\u00f6varstrategier synligg\u00f6rs hur f\u00f6r\u00f6vare metodiskt f\u00f6rs\u00f6ker tysta sina offer och f\u00e5 dem att k\u00e4nna skuld.<\/b><\/p>\n Varenda aspekt av Domestic Violence av typen Intimate Terrorism by Coercive Control\u00a0 tycks snart sagt vara kartlagd i den forskning som p\u00e5g\u00e5r i UK och USA:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Sarah J. Harsey<\/b><\/a> Pages 644-663 | Received 24 Sep 2016, Accepted 06 Apr 2017, Published online: 01 Jun 2017<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Perpetrators of violence often use a strategy of Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO) to confuse and silence their victims. Although some previous research has examined the individual elements of DARVO, this is the first study to directly examine DARVO as a unitary concept and to investigate how it relates to feelings of self-blame among victims. Subsequently, 138 undergraduate students were asked to report on a time they confronted an individual over a wrong-doing. DARVO was assessed with a new measure constructed for this study. Analyses revealed that: (1) DARVO was commonly used by individuals who were confronted; (2) women were more likely to be exposed to DARVO than men during confrontations; (3) the three components of DARVO were positively correlated, supporting the theoretical construction of DARVO; and (4) higher levels of exposure to DARVO during a confrontation were associated with increased perceptions of self-blame among the confronters. These results provide evidence for the existence of DARVO as a perpetrator strategy and establish a relationship between DARVO exposure and feelings of self-blame. Exploring DARVO aids in understanding how perpetrators are able to enforce victims’ silence through the mechanism of self-blame.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n F\u00f6r\u00f6vare anv\u00e4nder ofta en strategi f\u00f6r att f\u00f6rneka, attackera och l\u00e5ta offer och f\u00f6r\u00f6vare byta plats (DARVO) f\u00f6r att f\u00f6rvirra och tysta sina offer. \u00c4ven om en del tidigare unders\u00f6kningar har unders\u00f6kt de enskilda elementen i DARVO, \u00e4r detta den f\u00f6rsta studien som direkt unders\u00f6ker DARVO som ett enhetligt begrepp <\/b>och hur det kan v\u00e4cka till k\u00e4nslor av skuld hos offren. D\u00e4refter ombads 138 grundstudenter att rapportera om ett tillf\u00e4lle de konfronterat en individ med att ha handlat felaktigt. DARVO bed\u00f6mdes med en ny \u00e5tg\u00e4rd konstruerad f\u00f6r denna studie. Analyser visade att: (1) DARVO ofta anv\u00e4nds av individer som konfronteras; (2) kvinnor var mer ben\u00e4gna att uts\u00e4ttas f\u00f6r DARVO \u00e4n m\u00e4n under s\u00e5dana konfrontationer; (3) de tre komponenterna i DARVO var positivt korrelerade och st\u00f6dde den teoretiska konstruktionen av DARVO; och (4) h\u00f6gre niv\u00e5er av exponering f\u00f6r DARVO under en konfrontation f\u00f6rknippades med \u00f6kad uppfattning om sj\u00e4lvskuld bland dem som konfronterat. Resultaten ger bevis f\u00f6r f\u00f6rekomsten av DARVO som en f\u00f6r\u00f6varstrategi och etablerar ett samband mellan DARVO-exponering och k\u00e4nslor av skuld. Att utforska DARVO kan bidra till f\u00f6rst\u00e5elsen \u00a0av hur f\u00f6r\u00f6vare f\u00f6rs\u00f6ker tysta och avv\u00e4pna sina offer genom att f\u00e5 dem att uppleva skuld. <\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Konstverk av Issa Text av Gunilla Madeg\u00e5rd JOAN S MEIERS BANBRYTANDE STUDIE OM HUR M\u00d6DRAR I PA(S)-GRUNDADE DOMAR – DISKRIMINERAS TILL F\u00d6RM\u00c5N F\u00d6R V\u00c5LDSUT\u00d6VANDE F\u00c4DER I en mycket omfattande genomg\u00e5ng av 2000 domar i en studie ledd av juristen professor Joan S Meier, framg\u00e5r det entydigt att bed\u00f6mningar vare sig p\u00e5 PA eller PAS vilar…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-241","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/241","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=241"}],"version-history":[{"count":27,"href":"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/241\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1879,"href":"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/241\/revisions\/1879"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/mmstudies.com\/pas\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Child Custody Outcomes in Cases Involving Parental Alienation and Abuse Allegations \u00bb<\/a><\/h2>\n
Abstract<\/h3>\n
MIN \u00d6VERS\u00c4TTNING AV ABSTRACT I MEIERS STUDIE<\/h2>\n
PINSAMT AMAT\u00d6RM\u00c4SSIGA \u00a0SLAG GENTEMOT PROF. JOAN MEIERS OMFATTANDE STUDIE FR\u00c5N\u00a0PA(S)-LOBBYN<\/a><\/h2>\n
Professor Joan Meier Rebuts Unprofessional Attacks on her Groundbreaking\u00a0Research<\/a><\/h2>\n
Forts\u00e4tt och l\u00e4s \u00a0Meiers rebuttal h\u00e4r\u00a0\u00bb<\/a><\/h2>\n\t
Harman & Lorandos (2020). Preprint of Allegations of Family Violence in Court: How Parental Alienation Affects Judicial Outcomes Abstract<\/a><\/h2>\n
DARVO:<\/h2>\n
Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender<\/h3>\n
Characteristics of Perpetrators of Violence<\/h3>\n
Perpetrator Responses to Victim Confrontation: DARVO and Victim Self-Blame<\/a><\/h2>\n
, Eileen L. Zurbriggen<\/a> & Jennifer J. Freyd<\/a><\/p>\n
MIN \u00d6VERS\u00c4TTNING:<\/h3>\n
Min kommentar:<\/h2>\n
Det \u00e4r uppenbart att dessa strategier \u00e4ven har satts i system p\u00e5 h\u00f6gre mer \u00f6vergripande niv\u00e5 i den typ av maktut\u00f6vning som myndighetsut\u00f6vare i allians med PA(S)-lobbyister och f\u00f6r\u00f6vare tillgriper f\u00f6r att h\u00e5lla mammor p\u00e5 plats i den fadersr\u00e4ttsligt baserade samh\u00e4llshierarkin.<\/h3>\n