National Parents Organization's Weekly E-Newsletters

Every week get the latest news about changes in family law, challenges and victories, and opportunities for you to take a stand. Sign up for our weekly e-newsletter. .

Leading Opponent of Recognizing Parental Alienation Apologizes to F & F for Defamatory Remarks

Action Alert on Parental Alienation

 
If you can't see the images in this email, click here.
Be sure to add [email protected] to your address book or safe sender list so our emails get to your inbox.

F&F Logo

Leading Opponent of Recognizing Parental Alienation Apologizes to F & F for Defamatory Remarks; Action Alert on Parental Alienation
May 25, 2010
Top Story
Leading Opponent of Recognizing Parental Alienation Apologizes to Fathers & Families for Defamatory Remarks

CPNClinical Psychiatry News board member Dr. Paul J. Fink makes a shockingly irresponsible assertion in his recent column. He writes that family court reform groups seeking to have parental alienation disorder seriously considered for inclusion in the DSM-5 are doing so because they "don't like to be interfered with when they are sexually abusing their children"…


A group of 50 mental health experts from 10 countries are part of an effort to add Parental Alienation Disorder to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association's "bible" of diagnoses. This scientific coalition is led by psychiatrist William Bernet, who explains that adding PAD to DSM "would spur insurance coverage, stimulate more systematic research, lend credence to a charge of parental alienation in court, and raise the odds that children would get timely treatment."

Fathers & Families wants to ensure that the DSM-5 Task Force is aware of the scope and severity of Parental Alienation. To this end, in December we asked our supporters to write the Task Force to urge them to consider including Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM-5. As usual, the response was overwhelming. It also helped lead to progress--while as expected the newly-released draft version does not specifically include Parental Alienation Disorder, the DSM-5 Task Force has now listed Parental Alienation Disorder among the "Conditions Proposed by Outside Sources...that are still under consideration by the work groups." Gaining inclusion isn't easy--David J. Kupfer, M.D., the chair of the DSM-V Task Force, recently told the media that with any disorder proposed for inclusion, "The door to get in [the manual] is pretty hard."

Over the past couple months Fathers & Families has been embroiled in a public controversy with Paul J. Fink, M.D., an Editorial Board member of the Clinical Psychiatry News, a prominent mental health publication. Dr. Fink, who is also a professor of psychiatry at Temple University, has long been one of the leading opponents of recognizing Parental Alienation. Our recently published letter "Inexcusable Remarks" (5/10) in the Clinical Psychiatry News explains the controversy. We wrote:
Clinical Psychiatry News board member Dr. Paul J. Fink makes a shockingly irresponsible assertion in his recent column. He writes that family court reform groups seeking to have parental alienation disorder seriously considered for inclusion in the DSM-5 are doing so because they "don't like to be interfered with when they are sexually abusing their children." No, that is not a misprint.

Dr. Fink directs the comment at "This group [that] has petitioned the DSM task force to include PAS in the publication," meaning Fathers & Families. As is well known, since December, thousands of letters have been sent from Fathers & Families members to the three leaders of the DSM task force as part of our public campaign on the issue. The purpose of the letters has been to be sure that members of the task force understand how prevalent and devastating the effects of PAD are. But we have respectfully left the determination of whether PAD belongs in the DSM-5 to those in the mental health professions. All information concerning our campaign can be seen on our website at fathersandfamilies.org.

Fathers & Families has conducted itself responsibly and professionally throughout the campaign, and Dr. Fink has absolutely no basis for his assertions. We demand that Dr. Fink either publicly provide a documented basis for defaming us as individuals and as an organization or that Clinical Psychiatry News publish a full retraction, publicly positioned, of Dr. Fink's outrageous comments.

We also can't help but wonder whether a person so ready to make unsubstantiated accusations of criminal behavior properly belongs on the editorial board of a responsible publication.
Our letter demanding a retraction was signed by Fathers & Families Board member Thomas C. Meyers, Esq., a partner in the prestigious international law firm Brown Rudnick LLP, F & F Board Member Robert Franklin, Esq., F & F Board Chairman Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S., and myself.

Because Fink is a professor of psychiatry at Temple University, we also sent letters to John M. Daly, MD, Dean of the Temple University School of Medicine and William Dubin, MD, Interim Chair of the Psychiatry and Behavioral Science Department of the Temple University School of Medicine. In the letter to Daly and Dubin, which can be seen here, we explained:
We also cannot help but wonder whether a person so ready to make unsubstantiated accusations of criminal behavior properly belongs on the faculty of such a well respected Medical School such as Temple University and wanted to be sure you were aware of his unfounded and irresponsible comments.
Since Dr. Fink practices in Pennsylvania, we also sent a letter of complaint to Pennsylvania's Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation's Professional Compliance Office.

In response, Dr. Fink, to his credit, apologized and retracted his defamatory statement in the latest issue of the Clinical Psychiatry News. Dr. Fink wrote:
I apologize for suggesting that all fathers who accuse mothers of PAS are sexually abusing their children. That was clearly an overstatement that I retract. Admittedly, I got carried away when writing the article…I had absolutely no intention of impugning Dr. Bernet, his colleagues, or Fathers & Families in any way. I hope we can all come to an agreement about what constitutes alienation, how to deal with PAS, and how to proceed in court hearings when someone alleges that one or another parent is an alienator or an abuser.
On the subject of Parental Alienation, Dr. Fink also wrote:
I do not deny that parental alienation occurs and that a lot of people are hurt when there is an alienator…My major point is that all allegations of alienation by a parent need to be investigated. I am very interested in ensuring that the right thing is done on behalf of the children and that we stop any alienation of a parent that is occurring. It's the court's responsibility to ensure that a good evaluation is done.
We agree with Dr. Fink, and echoed similar sentiments in our recent column Preventing courts from considering parental alienation will harm kids (Capitol Weekly, 2/25/10):
Parental Alienation is a serious problem. When fact-finding in custody cases, judges and custody evaluators must be able to properly consider all available evidence. When abuse is alleged, the accusation merits serious consideration. When Parental Alienation is alleged, the accusation merits serious consideration, too.
Fink has long been an opponent of Fathers & Families and the Family Court Reform movement, particularly during our successful 2005 Campaign Against PBS's Father-Bashing Breaking the Silence. In response to our massive popular campaign, PBS commissioned an entirely new film on child custody issues–a film which was balanced and generally sympathetic to divorced fathers. To learn more, click here.

Some of you may recall that Fink squared off against us in a debate on the film in several newspapers--Fink's article can be seen here, ours can be seen here.

The debate over Parental Alienation has long been marred by hysterics and wild accusations from some of those who believe that family law courts should not recognize Parental Alienation. Fink's retraction and related statement are a significant step towards rationalizing this debate and focusing on the crucial task of protecting children of divorce from harm.

Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D., a member of the Bernet group, told the Clinical Psychiatry News, "Certainly, intelligent people can disagree about parental alienation without resorting to accusing one another of being sexual abusers." We agree, and hope that the quality of the debate over Parental Alienation can be elevated.

Together with you in the love of our children,

Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families
Join Fathers & Families
faf logo
Fathers and Families is a family court reform organization with a comprehensive strategy, an impressive history of legislative and fundraising success, and the largest reach of any advocacy group of its kind:
 
Parental Alienation Action Alert
Short version: Click here and here and respond to the fallacious attacks being made on the legitimacy of Parental Alienation.

Full version:
 Opponents of recognizing Parental Alienation have been making a lot of headway in the media recently. Last month Dr. Phil did an hour long special called "Crisis in Family Court". The view put forward both by Dr. Phil and his various guests was that mothers were losing custody of their children to abusive fathers, and that the courts were favoring fathers even when there is strong evidence that they are violent or have sexually abused their children. The show featured Kathleen Russell of the well-funded mothers' family court advocacy group The Center for Judicial Excellence.

As we pointed out in Report: Did Dr. Phil Unwittingly Promote False Accusations on Recent 'Family Court Crisis' Show? (4/26/10), the case Russell took to Dr. Phil was portrayed very inaccurately--the mother had made repeated sexual abuse allegations against the father, the girl had been medically examined for possible child sexual abuse on five separate occasions, and not one of the examinations substantiated any of the charges.

As we also noted, NOW recently criticized Fathers & Families over Our Campaign to Ask DSM to Include Parental Alienation in Upcoming Edition and warned of an alleged crisis in family court because of Parental Alienation.

Now the St. Petersburg Times has come out with a piece expressing unwarranted skepticism about Parental Alienation. We suggest you comment on the piece here and also write a Letter to the Editor of the St. Petersburg Times by clicking here.

The issue is also being debated on Drudge Retort here--we suggest you join the debate.
What's Happening
F & F Testifies at Hearing to Cut MA's Outrageous 18% Interest Rate on Child Support

Fathers & Families Chairman Dr. Ned Holstein, Deputy Director Melissa Hodgdon, and numerous Fathers & Families supporters testified Friday at a Massachusetts Department of Revenue hearing on lowering interest on child support. The proposed amendment to the current regulation would lower the combined interest and penalty rate from a whopping 18% annually down to 12%.

Fathers & Families has long fought to reform Massachusetts child support, and was successful in lowering noncustodial parents' child support by $200 million a year from 2001 to 2007. Friday's F & F testimony focused on the benefits lowered interest rates would produce both for people struggling to pay their child support and for the state.

A 2007 study by the Urban Institute showed that eighteen states routinely charge interest and those states have seen their arrears increase from $5.4 billion to $58.7 billion over a 10-year period. States that did not charge interest over that same period only saw arrears grow from $2.8 billion to $19.5 billion during the same time period.

Lowering the interest on child support would also help the state in collecting owed amounts.  If parents are unable to pay the support and interest and simply stop paying, the amount of uncollected arrears on the state's books grows.  This in turn hurts the state's chances of getting more federal incentive payments, since the more child support money they collect, the more money they get from the federal government in support of their collection programs.  A large amount of uncollected money does not make the state look good.

Several Fathers & Families members testified at the hearing.  John Natale wondered how the interest rate came to be 18% in the first place when he is refinancing his mortgage for 4.65%.  The DOR also heard from Sarah Blackford – a mother who depends on child support, but still thinks these interest rates are far too high.  She told the story of her friend who is constantly struggling to pay his child support, but is stuck in a $40,000 black hole of interest and penalties that he may never be able to dig himself out of.

Chris Jenson stated simply and clearly why the current interest rate is outrageous.  He told the story of falling behind on child support by $375 and reported that he has now paid the $375, but he still owes $1,240 in interest and penalties – almost three times as much as the amount originally owed.  F&F members Bill Zamzow, Hector Montalvo, Philip Alvarado, and Franco Marzouki also testified to the importance of lowering the interest rate.

The representatives from the Child Support Enforcement Division were unable to answer any questions during the hearing, including who will ultimately make the decision on lowering the rates and when that decision will be made.  We will be monitoring the situation and will keep our supporters posted.

To read Fathers & Families' full testimony, click here.

SCOTUS Rules for Dad in International Kidnapping Case

Mom Tells Some Truths About Being the Non-Custodial Parent


Japanese Custody Law - It's a Mom's World


Trial Court Declares Florida's Putative Father Registry Unconstitutional
CA Legislative Update
F & F Child Support Reform Bill SB 1355 Passes Both Senate Committees, Moves on to Full Senate

After passing the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously on May 4, SB 1355 went to the Senate Appropriations Committee. This is a difficult hurdle for California legislation right now--given California's terrible budget crisis, it is difficult to get any bill with a fiscal impact passed. SB 1355 passed Appropriations unanimously May 24, a big step forward, and now goes to the full Senate. Read more here.

© 2010. Fathers & Families. All Rights Reserved.

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn