Note: Cross posted from [wp angelfury] A Human Rights Issue-Custodial Justice.
Permalink
Defining the
FETID FATHER SYNDROME
By liz, J.D., LL.M., D.B.A., P.T.A., Ph.T., N.N.F.L.P, and MoM.E
A parody of Ira Turkat's Malicious Mother Syndrome... or, wait... no. HIS was the parody!
MORE ON IRA TURKAT AND HIS THEORIES
With the increasing commonality of divorce involving children, a pattern of abnormal behavior has emerged that has received little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce Related Fetid Father Syndrome. Specific nosologic criteria are provided with abundant clinical examples. Given there is no lack of empirical data available on the disorder, issues of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear overripe for investigation. I.e., it's about damn time.
INTRODUCTION
A divorced woman gains custody of her children and her ex-husband vents his love and concern by shootingall of them.
A man in a custody battle has sex with his offspring because his divorcing wife finds him repugnant.
A father forces his children to sleep in a car while he downs a few in a bar on their way home.
The actions illustrate a pattern of increasingly common behavior that has emerged as the divorce rate involving children has grown. Today, half of all marriages will end in divorce (Beal and Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in divorce has grown dramatically (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah, 1988) as well. While the majority of such cases are "settled" from a legal perspective, outside the courtroom he continues to abuse and control, frequently rationalizing his behavior as merely divorce-related "battle."
The media have spent considerable effort raising public awareness about the problem posed for divorced mothers who do not receive court-ordered child support payments. Hodges (1991) has noted that less than 20 percent of divorced mothers receive all child support payments three years after their divorce. Research on the decline of women's economic status following divorce (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988) has contributed legislation of not much use in addressing the "Deadbeat Dad" problem, but has encouraged a backlashing trend of misogynistic propaganda and specious "research," in the ostensible interests of "presenting two sides of an issue" which never had a whole lot to offer on the wrong side in the first place.
While the media correctly portray the difficulties imposed upon women and children by the "Deadbeat Dad" phenomenon, the cameras have yet to honestly capture the warfare waged by a select group of fathersagainst child supporting, nurturing mothers. Everyday, attorneys and therapists downplay the many horror stories in which vicious behaviors are lodged against innocent mothers and children. Unfortunately, while there is considerable empirical data on the subject, researcher's agenda'd writeups and the scholarly literature have pretty much ignored the problems.
By contrast, the drivel prattering on and on and on in an effort to bolster Fetid Fathers is reaching absurd proportion. A noted example can be found in the writings of Gardner (1987, 1989) who has concocted a marvel of propaganda called the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Supposedly, a custodial parent successfully engages in a variety of maneuvers to alienate the child from the non-residential parent. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes "...preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent-denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated" (Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In the typical case of Parental Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child supposedly engage in an array of actions against the father. Gardner views "brainwashing" as a concept "too narrow" (Gardner, 1989) to capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a child against his/her non-residential parent. Of course, the entire theory is pure shit, but then again, so was Freud's theory of penis-envy, and a whole lotta other things people like to think are true.
While Gardner's fetid anti-woman descriptions of "Parental Alienation Syndrome" provide a major contribution to obfuscating the realities of men's child-involved hostilities, the present paper is concerned with a more global abomination. As noted in the examples provided in the beginning of this manuscript, lethal attacks on divorcing mothers take place which are beyond merely manipulating the children. Further, these actions include a willingness by some fathers to violate societal law. Finally, there are fathers who persistently engage in fetid behaviors designed to continue to allow them to exert control over the mothers of their offspring, despite being unable to show any good reason why they should have the right to do so. From yammerings on about the alleged harms of "fatherless" households, to the demanding of a "shared parental responsibility" post-divorce that they never undertook during marriage when she begged them to do so, these men epitomize the reason that for eons, societies have ended up engaging in wars, and atrocities of justice have never been quelched, and the reason that irrational male-mob-mentality, however ostensibly sophisticated, and however ostensibly educated, continues to be the rule of the day.
The purpose of the present paper is to define and illustrate just one aspect of this global abomination with the hope of generating increased honesty in the scientific and clinical investigation of the real problem.
DEFINITION
The present section provides a beginning definition of the Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, which has been derived from clinical and legal cases. As in all initial proposals, it is anticipated that future research will lead to greater refinement in the taxonomic criteria.
The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as follows:
1. A man who unjustifiably punishes his divorcing or divorced wife by: a. Attempting to remove the children from their closest attachment b. Involving others in fetid actions against the mother c. Engaging in excessivelitigation
2. The father specifically attempts to "possess" or "access" i.e. control and manipulate what he considers to be his human chattel, i.e. his ex-wife and the children by, among other things, a. Refusing to maintain a regular and consistent visitation schedule, refusing to regularly make payments of child and spousal support, refusing to continue the marital pattern of primary caregiving, etc. b. Attempting to purchase the affections of the children c. Sudden unwarranted and undesired interference with the child(ren)'s school, life, and household routines.
3. The pattern is pervasive and includes fetid acts towards the mother including: a. Lying to the children b. Lying to others c. Violations of law
4. The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder, although a separate mental disorder may co-exist. And usually does, albeit it's routinely ignored by therapists and the legal system. It's calledPatriarchal Psychosis and Sense of Entitlement.
CLINICAL ILLUSTRATIONS
In this section, I will provide clinical illustrations for each criterion using the reference numbers provided above. As criteria 1-3 are behavior specific to the Fetid Father Syndrome, I will provide a series of clinical examples. The fourth criterion which addresses the relationship of the proposed syndrome to other mental disorders, will be discussed more generally.
Criterion 1A: Demanding "Rights" to the Children
The range of actions taken by a father to attempt to remove the children from their mother is impressive. For example:
One father lied to his children that he could no longer buy food because their mother was getting all of his money via child support, and spending it going to male strip bars, shopping, and having her nails done.
A doctor's husband forced her 10-year-old son to apply for federally funded free school lunches to delude the boy that it somehow was his successful mother's fault that daddy was an alcoholic ne'er-do-well.
A woman who for years was very close to the children in a custody battle, was asked by their father to give up neutrality and join his campaign against the mother to "dance on her grave." When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the father falsely informed the children that their mother was a feminist dyke who was having an affair with this woman.
These behaviors, if successful, could lead a child to not only hate the father, but perhaps go years without seeing him. Of course, the father will immediately claim that the children's reaction is the result of their mother's behavior, backed up by such idiots as Ira Turkat. Another example would be Cartwright (1993) who flatulated: "The goal of the alienator is crystalline: to deprive the lost parent, not only of the child's time, but of the time of childhood." (p.210).
Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Fetid Actions
The second component of the first major criterion where the father attempts to punish the mother who gave lifeto his children at huge sacrifice to herself, involves manipulating other individuals to engage in fetid acts against the mother. Examples of this kind are as follows:
During a custody battle, a father lied to a therapist about the mother's behavior. The therapist, having never spoken with the mother, appeared as an "expert" witness to inform the Judge that the father should be the primary residential parent and that the mother needed to be in therapy. See, e.g. Karen Anderson's case, as well as the case of the child who killed himself after this sort of horsepucky by Gardner.
One angry father manipulated teenagers to leave anonymous threatening notes at the ex-wife's home.
A father who did not have legal custody of his children manipulated a secretary at the child's school to assist in kidnapping the child.
In the above examples, it is important to note that the person manipulated by the angry father has, in a way, been "charmed" into siding against the mother. Typically, the individual "duped" takes on a righteous indignation, contributing to a rewarding climate for the father initiating fetid actions. Commonly "duped" third parties are not only family law professionals, but also second wives, girlfriends, and the mothers of these men.
Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation
There is little question that either party in a divorce or custody proceeding is entitled to appropriate legal representation and action.
Most commonly, however, it is men who have the greater access to litigation funds, as well as community contacts, and interim legal fees and costs are seldom awarded.
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, therefore, attempt to punish the divorcing wife by engaging in excessive litigation.
A belligerent and unreasonable father verbally attacked his ex-wife whenever he saw her, which was often, because he also was engaging in stalking. Over time, her response was to try to avoid him. He then took her repeatedly to court, thereby using the legal system to force her to have contact with him.
One father told a judge that his daughter was not really his child, demanding a paternity test, and attempting to make the mother appear to be a free-wheeling slut.
One man refused to stop attacking his ex-wife through the courts, despite numerous attorneys being fired or voluntarily leaving the case. Over a three-year period, seven different attorneys were utilized.
Data exist which can help in determining the range of excessive litigation. For example, Koel et al. (1988) report on the frequency of post-divorce litigation in a sample of 700 families. Their data indicate that only 12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the court, whereas less than 5 percent file two or more petitions (Koel et al. 1988); less than one percent file four or more petitions.
Criterion 2A: Claiming Visitation Denial
Experts are in agreement that regular and uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is not harmful for children, albeit little research substantiates that it is of any benefit. (Cf Hodges, 1991). Despite this, however, because of the incessant drumbeat of pro-father propaganda, some states, such as Florida, actually have laws written to reflect the view that such visitation is "crucial" to child well-being. (Cf Keane, 1990). Unfortunately, even when it is recognized that the mother and children also have legal rights to some semblance of stability and normalcy in the post-divorce household, individuals with Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome continue to interfere with it, using, inter alia, usually false claims based on ridiculous exaggerations, that visitation is being denied.
A father who previously attacked his ex-wife physically during visitation transfers of the children, refused to return the children as required when the ex-wife obtained a court-order that exchanges be monitored by the police. Fathers also counsel each other on tactics to make the mother look like the party at fault, such as claiming a need for police to accompany them to exercise visitation that is not being denied in the first place.
A common strategy of Fetid Fathers is to exercise visitation sporadically, frequently failing to show up at all. Then, on an occasion when they do arrive (late), to make a brouhaha the first time when, weary of consoling disappointed children, and tired of having days on end and her own schedule repeatedly ruined by the manipulative pointless waiting, the mother and children decide to pursue other plans.
One father had his twenty-year-old girlfriend repeatedly pick up the children for visitation, during which times she would make snide comments to the mother, and gleefully inform her that the children would be in her care for the weekend, inasmuch as the father was "working overtime."
The President of the father's rights group pompously misnomered as Council for Children's Rights(Washington, D.C.) refuses to acknowledge such tactics, let alone that they really are a form of child abuse (Cf Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the police typically avoid involving themselves in such situations, unless it's to aid the father. Furthermore, even if a victimized mother is financially capable of returning to court on an ongoing basis, there is little that can be done to prevent such fathers' behaviors. Finally, even when such cases are brought to trial, the courts are often inadequate in protecting the custodial family's interests, instead choosing to give lip service to fathers' visitation rights. (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).
Given the physical absence of one parent, the telephone plays an important role in maintaining the communications between child and non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, however, engage in an array of actions designed to abuse telephone access.
A father claimed that he called to speak to his children and was told that they were not at home when, in fact, he could hear their voices in the background. In fact, what happened was that this was the father's third call that day, he already had spoken twice at length to the toddlers, the toddlers were napping, and he was interrupting the mother's Brownie Scout meeting.
One father claimed that when called to speak with his children, the mother put him on "hold," informed no one, and then left him on hold. In reality, this was yet another stalker-type, who had called upward of twenty times already that day to talk to the mother (not the children), and she put the phone down, rather than listen to the incessant ringing.
Another father even managed to claim that a mother's good intentions were somehow thwarting his "rights." He claimed, when she encouraged the children to call him (after not hearing from him for weeks), that she somehow "knew" that he was away on vacation and did this to "turn the children against him."
Some fathers claim that "alienation attempts" are so painful and fruitless that this is the reason they eventually stop calling their children; that they simply "give up." In reality, their original calls were for the purpose of stalking and harassing their ex-wife, and when this became of less interest, they moved on to other women. Speaking with their children was never of any but casual passing interest in the first place.
Criterion 2C: Claiming that Mothers Deny Them Participation in Extra-Curricular Activities
An ancillary aspect of the process of maintaining one's relationship with one's child is to participate in activities that one did before the parents separated. School plays, team sports, and religious events are just some of the type of activities of this type. Fetid Fathers frequently engage in maneuvers designed to make it appear that they have been prevented from participation in children's activities as a cover for their lack of interest, and also as a cover for their historic lack of participation altogether in other kinds of parenting activities that, while not of the sort that would garner public notice and kudos, might well be more meaningful, e.g. housework.
One father, who decided he preferred a happy hour with the new receptionist at the office, claimed he was given the wrong date and time for an important event for the child, thereby placing the blame for his own misplaced priorities on the mother who already was doing all the calling, scheduling, shlepping and arranging. The child was asked by the mother, "I wonder where your father is?" Incredibly, the father managed to convince the custody evaluator that this was thinly disguised "parental alienation" by the mother.
One father claimed that the mother refused to provide him with any information about any extra-curricular activities in which the children were engaged. Nevermind that the family hadn't heard from him at all in six months.
While coaching a child's soccer team, one father told many of the team parents disparaging falsehoods about the child's mother, and how she was engaging in "malicious mother syndrome." When she came to watch her son's soccer game, many of these parents essentially "betrayed" the father by telling the mother what he had said, thereby bolstering his specious claims that the mother was engaging in "parental alienation syndrome."
Fetid Fathers who engage in such behaviors rarely have to face penalties for their actions. Judges, attorneys, and policemen do not involve themselves in every instance of obnoxious social behaviors, nor should they. Furthermore, most mothers cannot afford the financial requirements involved to go to court again and again. As such, the cycle of harassment and threats and lies continues.
Criterion 3A: Fetid Lying to the Children
Given their developmental status, children in a disputed divorce situation are quite vulnerable. When one parent decides to attack the other by lying to the children, examples of this type of fetid behavior may include some of the following:
One divorcing father told his very young daughter that he was "not really" her father, which was not true, except in the biological sense, and incredibly inappropriate and cruel.
An eight-year-old girl was forced by her father to act as messenger to deliver copies of paid bills to him when he visited on the basis that he was entitled to an "accounting" of all the child support money the mother ostensibly had misspent.
One father falsely told the children that their mother, whom he had repeatedly beat her up in the past, was really the "batterer" in the relationship, even citing to (and misusing) Gelles and Straus research.
These examples of fetid lying can be contrasted with the more subtle maneuvers typically seen perpetrated by men, such as claiming that a mother has made "virtual allegations" (Cartwright, 1993). Here, a mother supposedly setting up a "Parental Alienation Syndrome" makes some casual or off-the-cuff comment overheard by the child about abuse by the father that may have occurred, and the individual suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome falsely claims not only that abuse has not actually occurred, but that the mother is engaging in "alienation."
Criterion 3B: Fetid Lying to Others
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome may engage a wide range of other individuals in their attacks upon the ex-wife. However, with this particular criterion, the individual with Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome specifically lies to other individuals in the belligerency against the mother. Some examples include the following:
One disgruntled father called the president of the (1500 employee) workplace of his divorcing wife, claiming falsely that she was using business property for personal gain and was abusing their mutual children at her work locale.
One man falsely told state officials that his ex-wife was sexually abusing their daughter because he suspected that she was about to get wise to HIS sexual abuse of the child. The child was immediately taken away from her and her access to the child was denied.
During the course of a custody dispute, one father informed the guardian, who was investigating the parenting skills of each parent, that the mother had physically abused him and then made "false allegations" when she obtained a restraining order.
Snyder (1986) has reported on the difficulty imposed upon legal authorities when confronted with someone who is an excellent liar. Consistent with research on the inability of "specialists" to detect lying (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), a skilled fabricator can be a compelling witness in the courtroom (Snyder, 1986). While sometimes seen in borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that pathological lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) is not restricted to that particular character disorder, so commonly attributed to mothers, as to whom experts for Fetid Fathers can actually find nothing really mentally amiss.
Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the Wife
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, have few, if any boundaries in their campaign against the divorcing wife. Violations of law are common in many cases, although the laws broken may be relatively minor. However, in some cases, the violations of law may be quite serious.
One man deliberately drove his automobile into the house of the ex-wife where their mutual children resided. Another, on visitation, doused his sleeping children in gasoline and set them on fire.
In the midst of a custody battle, one man broke into the residence of his divorcing wife and removed a number of personal and irreplaceable papers. Another cleaned out the house, lock stock and barrel.
One enraged father emboldened to "pursue his rights" confronted his girlfriend and infant on an Atlanta street, picked up the child by the feet and smashed his head into the concrete pavement repeatedly. Another shot his son to death when a New Jersey court decided the child's mother had an equal right to name the child.
The above descriptions may remind the reader of certain personality disorders (e.g., sociopathic) but these behaviors may be demonstrated by individuals with nothing more than Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome who do not appear to meet official diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder. The important thing to remember is, when concocting a bullshit politicized theory of psychology, you want to present horror stories and then make it seem as if your diagnosis could apply to every normal person, giving the impression that the most innocuous and mild behaviors could be foreboding mass murder and mayhem. So, continuing...
Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder
In assessing the Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, it is important to note that many of the above clinical examples seem to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental disorder diagnosis or treatment. In fact, one father who engaged in extremely fetid behaviors toward his divorcing wife and children had several mental health professionals testify that he was not suffering from any type of mental disorder (as if this has anything to do with facts about what actually happened.)
In the author's experience, for each mental disorder that might come to mind to account for some of this behavior, an exceptional case presents. For example, in some cases, an Adjustment Disorder might seem an appropriate diagnosis, yet one man still carried on about alleged visitation denial 10 years after the divorce. Other cases might suggest a possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis, yet one man who repeatedly violated the law in attacking his ex-wife, received no personality disorder diagnosis despite being evaluated by masters level and doctoral level examiners. In some instances, Intermittent Explosive Disorder might be considered, yet the anger for many of the batterers and stalkers and abusers and controllers does not appear to be intermittent.
Finally, the reader should appreciate that while diagnostic accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good as one would like (e.g., the personality disorders, see Turkat, 1990), the problem is compounded in family law where incompetent mental health examiners sometimes become involved in the judicial process (Turkat, 1993). Clearly, the relationship between Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome and other mental disorders is a complex one which requires significant investigation.
DISCUSSION
The above description of the Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome raises a variety of important clinical, legal and scientific issues.
From a clinical perspective, families subjected to Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome are subject to serious episodes of stress and distress. Yet, there is no scientific evidence on how to treat this phenomenon. It is particularly compromised by the fact that many of these cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria deny that there is anything wrong with them.
An additional difficulty is that many therapists purport to be unaware of this pattern of fetid behavior (Heinz and Heinz, 1993). As such, there are fetid therapists who are "fooled" by such cases and, as noted earlier, will come to court testifying that there is nothing wrong with the father involved.
From a legal perspective, there are some misogynists whose "theories" may encourage this type of behavior (see, e.g. Gardner, 1989). On the other hand, there are attorneys who deliberately miscast such behavior as the financial rewards for them are dependent on male business. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorney. (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). However, even for the subset of attorneys for whom this may be true, there is a point of diminishing returns. Furthermore, independent of economic considerations, many who become involved with family law courtrooms find that these types of cases are not handled well (Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992).
The man who is not disturbed "enough" to lose visitation rights to his children may well succeed in gaining custody outright. Rarely will he be sanctioned, and seldom will he go to jail. Thus, many mothers report significant frustration when they and their children are exposed to this type of behavior, and the courts seem to do little. In a review of pertinent law literature on gender bias in family law proceedings, Tillitski (1992) concluded that there is widespread discrimination. A frequent claim by Fetid Fathers and their advocates (contrary to what a review of the literature actually shows) that the bias is against men, is exemplified by one codger's oft-repeated truism. Some old family law judge in Georgia supposedly said once that, "I ain't never seen the calves follow the bulls, they always follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the mamas." (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992, p. 741). Similarly, it is noted that custodial rights of fathers are enforced as rigidly as are child support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992.) Such bias against the value of mothering and the efforts and experience of women's lives infamily law proceedings results in a clamoring of fathers who claim, with thwarted senses of entitlement, that they are "victims" of the system (see, e.g. Tillitski, 1992). This situation would seem to reinforce much of the vicious behavior displayed by men causing women and children to suffer from their Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome.
The issue of sex distribution of the disorder certainly needs to be addressed. The overwhelming majority ofcustodial parents are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Gardner (1989) uses this to claim that "Parental Alienation Syndrome" appears most commonly in females, although it's suggested possible for a male who has custody of the children to engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. The author's experience with Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome is not similar to Gardner's, however. The present writer has yet to see a case of a noncustodial mother engaging in all of the criteria listed. This does not mean that it is not possible for there to be a "Fetid Mother" Syndrome. But, Shephard (1992) reports that there is significant abuse of some custodial mothers by non-residential fathers. And while it should be noted that there are females who might appropriately be called "Deadbeat Moms," it's rare that we hear of a mother who shoots her ex-husband and children because she doesn't want to pay that "bastard." Given at the present time that a case in which a mother's meeting all of the criteria for Divorce-Related Fetid Mother Syndrome has yet to be documented, it appears advisable to await scientific evidence to guide issues of nosologic labeling.
How prevalent is the Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome? The answer is unknown. Gardner (1989) reports that approximately 90 percent of all custody battles involve some aspects of "parental alienation." That would imply that there could be Fetid Fathers in that number of cases, if not the litigants, then some of the therapists, custody evaluators and attorneys involved.
Further, Kressel (1985) reviewed data in which men claim up to 40 percent of maternal custodians denied visitation to the them, in order to punish him. And there's a possible 40 percent Fetid Fathers right there. Relatedly, Arditti (1992) reported that 50 percent of a sample of divorce fathers (N=125) indicated that visitation was interfered with by the mother. Fifty Percent. It's epidemic. While claims of parental alienation may be common, it is highly unlikely that such a percentage of fathers would meet all of the criteria for Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome, so this author believes that writers, such as Ira Turkat, are in fact moving much of the problem.
In regard to incidence, it would appear through the title of this syndrome that the fetid behavior is precipitated by the divorce process. However, this is clearly an empirical question. While the fetid actions may first be noted during a divorce process, it is possible that fetidness may have been present earlier but undetected. Research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal, 986) supports this speculation. Relatedly, it may also be that there are some cases of pre-existing mental disorder that have not been discovered until the stress of the divorce itself unfolds. And it may well be a substantial reason why 2/3 of divorces are filed by women.
Finally, it should be noted that research on the nature of post-divorce family functioning is beginning to emerge. Some data exist on the role of parental conflict in children's post divorce functioning (e.g. Frost and Pakiz, 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley and Steward, 1990; Kudek, 1988), but as Ira Turkat admits, studies do not document the so-called cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. It's bogus. Bogey. Bullshit. BULL shit. Fetid Father exaltation.
The Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome represents an important societal phenomenon. The disorder affects children, parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health professionals and others. Until the words "fetid father" are schmeared more thoroughly in and around the scientific and clinical literature, such that we all come automatically to associate the alliterating duo, the problems imposed by individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Fetid Father Syndrome will continue to plague us. Hopefully, the present manuscript will stimulate research so that clinical and legal management guidelines can be developed.
REFERENCE
AAAliznotes (1994-2002). Available online at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/contents.html
Arditti, J.A. (1992). Factors relating to custody, visitation and child support for divorce fathers: An exploratory analysis. J. Div. Remarr. 17:23-42.
Beal, E.W., and Hockman, D. (1991). Adult Children of Divorce, Delacorte Press, New York.
Cart wright, D.F. (1993). Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 21:205-215.
Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Georgia State Univ. Law Rev. 8:539-807.
Ekman, P., and O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46: 913-920.
Enos, D.M., and Handal, P.J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54:820-824.
Fatherhood and Family Law: The Myths and the Facts. What the Research REALLY says.http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/017.htm
Frost, A.K., and Pakiz, B. (1990). The effects of marital disruption on adolescence: Time as a dynamic. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60:544-555.
Furstenberg, F.F., Morgan, S.P., and Allison, P.D. (1987). Paternal participation and children's well being after marital dissolution. Am. Sociological Rev. 52:695-701.
Gardner, R.A. (1987), The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J. Gardner, R.A. (1989). Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration and Litigation, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J.
Greif, G.L. (1985). Single Fathers, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and thieves, Simon & Shuster, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Healy, J.M., Malley, J.E., and Stewart, A.J. (1990). Children and their fathers after parental separation. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 531-543.
Hetherington, E.N., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.) (1988). Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
Heinz, H.R., and Heinz, S.A. (1993). Emotional incest: The tragedy of divorcing families. Am. J. Fam. Law 7:169-174.
Hernandez, D.J. (1988). The demographics of divorce and remarriage. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 3-22.
Hodges, W.F. (1991). Interventions for Children of Divorce, (second edition), Wiley, New York.
Keane, G. (1990). Florida Divorce Handbook, Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.
Koel, A., Clark, S.C., Phear, W.P., and Hauser, B.B. (1988). A comparison of joint and sole legal custody agreements. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 73-90.
Kressel, K. (1985). The Process of Divorce, Basic Books, New York.
Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mothers' perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by non-custodial fathers in families with low and high levels of pre-separation interparental conflict. J. Appl Devel. Psychol. 9: 315-328.
Laos a, L.N. (1988). Ethnicity and single parenting in the United States. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 23-49.
Satire, Whatis (2002). http://www.fsu.edu/~CandI/ENGLISH/power/farm4.htm
Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welf. 71:357-367.
Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the borderline patient. Am. J. Psychiatry 143:1287-1289.
Tillitski C.J. (1992). Fathers and child custody: Issues, trends
Turkat, Ira Daniel. Defining the Malicious Mother Syndrome.
Turkeys, thewholelottayou. Who would take seriously for one second, let alone believe the dishonest, self-centered, unbalanced, transparent, ridiculous, paranoid and puerile drivel and spit parading as "scholarship" that emanates from the fecal matter even some Ph.D.s apparently use these days instead of their brains.
[The original article, an iconical testiment to the kind of foul air teenage boys think is funny to draw attention to with cigarette lighters (or psychological projection), below, was emailed around FR groups. Hard to believe Turkat actually posited Malicious Mother Syndrome as a serious theory, turning reality on its head. Even harder to believe are the numbers of ignorami who have swallowed this shit and regurgitate it back in the courtroom.]From: acfclist@usa.net [mailto:acfclist@usa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 1:29 PM
To: acfclist@svr2.marketrends.net
Subject: ACFC: Proving the existence of parental alienationThanks to Kelly Ryberg for sending us the following.
ACFC
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Defining the Malicious Mother Syndrome
By Ira Daniel Turket, PhD
With the increasing commonality of divorce involving children, a pattern of abnormal behavior has emerged that has received little attention. The present paper defines the Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome. Specific nosologic criteria are provided with abundant clinical examples. Given the lack of scientific data available on the disorder, issues of classification, etiology, treatment, and prevention appear ripe for investigation.
INTRODUCTION
A divorced man gains custody of his children and his ex-wife burns down his home. A woman in a custody battle buys a cat for her offspring because her divorcing husband is highly allergic to cats. A mother forces her children to sleep in a car to "prove" their father has bankrupted them. The actions illustrate a pattern of abnormal behavior that has emerged as the divorce rate involving children has grown.
Today, half of all marriages will end in divorce (Beal and Hochman, 1991). The number of children involved in divorce has grown dramatically (e.g., Hetherington and Arastah, 1988) as well. While the majority of such cases are "settled" from a legal perspective, outside the courtroom the battle continues.
The media have spent considerable effort raising public awareness about the problem posed by divorced fathers who do not provide court-ordered child support payments. Hodges (1991) has noted that less than 20 percent of divorced fathers provide child support payments three years after their divorce. Research on the decline of women's economic status following (e.g., Hernandez, 1988; Laosa, 1988) has contributed to recent legislation to address the "Deadbeat Dad" problem.
While the media correctly portray the difficulties imposed upon women and children by the "Deadbeat Dad" phenomenon, the cameras have yet to capture the warfare waged by a select group of mothers against child support paying, law-abiding fathers. Everyday, attorneys and therapists are exposed to horror stories in which vicious behaviors are lodged against innocent fathers and children. Unfortunately, there are no scientific data on the subject. Similarly, the clinical literature has relatively ignored the problem.
A noted exception can be found in the clinical writings of Gardner (1987, 1989) who has provided excellent descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Here, a custodial parent successfully engages in a variety of maneuvers to alienate the child from the non-residential parent. Once successfully manipulated, the child becomes "...preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent-denigration that is unjustified and/or exaggerated" (Gardner, 1989 p. 226). In the typical case of Parental Alienation Syndrome, both mother and child engage in an array of abnormal actions against the father. Gardner views "brainwashing" as a concept "too narrow" (Gardner, 1989) to capture the psychological manipulation involved in turning a child against his/her non-residential parent.
While Gardner's pioneering descriptions of the Parental Alienation Syndrome provide an important contribution to our understanding of divorce-related child-involved hostilities, the present paper is concerned with a more global abnormality. As noted in the examples provided in the beginning of this manuscript, serious attacks on divorcing husbands take place which are beyond merely manipulating the children. Further, these actions include a willingness by some mothers to violate societal law. Finally, there are mothers who persistently engage in malicious behaviors designed to alienate their offspring from the father, despite being unable to successfully cause alienation. In sum, these cases do not meet the criteria for Parental Alienation Syndrome. Nevertheless, they portray a serious abnormality.
The purpose of the present paper is to define and illustrate this more global abnormality with the hope of generating increased scientific and clinical investigation of this problem.
DEFINITION
The present section provides a beginning definition of the Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, which has been derived from clinical and legal cases. As in all initial proposals, it is anticipated that future research will lead to greater refinement in the taxonomic criteria.
The proposed definition encompasses four major criteria, as follows:
1. A mother who unjustifiably punishes her divorcing or divorced husband by: a. Attempting to alienate their mutual children from the father b. Involving others in malicious actions against the father c. Engaging in excessive litigation
2. The mother specifically attempts to deny her child (ren) a. Regular uninterrupted visitation with the father b. Uninhibited telephone access to the father c. Paternal participation in the child(ren)'s school life and extracurricular activities
3. The pattern is pervasive and includes malicious acts towards the husband including: a. Lying to the children b. Lying to others c. Violations of law
4. The disorder is not specifically due to another mental disorder, although a separatemental disorder may co-exist.
CLINICAL ILLUSTRATIONS
In this section, I will provide clinical illustrations for each criterion using the reference numbers provided above. As criteria 1-3 are behavior specific to the Malicious Mother Syndrome, I will provide a series of clinical examples. The fourth criterion which addresses the relationship of the proposed syndrome to other mental disorders, will be discussed more generally.
Criterion 1A: Alienating the Children
The range of actions taken by a mother to attempt to alienate her children from their father is impressive. For example:
One mother lied to her children that she could no longer buy food because their father had spent all of their money on women in topless bars.
A doctor's wife forced her 10-year-old son to apply for federally funded free school lunches to delude the boy that his "daddy has made us poor."
A woman who for years was very close to the children in a custody battle, was asked by their mother to give up neutrality and join her campaign against the father to "dance on his grave." When the friend refused to give up her neutrality, the mother falsely informed her children that their father was having an affair with this woman.
These behaviors, if successful, could lead a child to not only hate the father, but perhaps go years without seeing him. As Cartwright (1993) has noted: "The goal of the alienator is crystalline: to deprive the lost parent, not only of the child's time, but of the time of childhood." (p.210).
Criterion 1B: Involving Others in Malicious Actions
The second component of the first major criterion where the mother attempts to punish the husband, involves manipulating other individuals to engage in malicious acts against the father. Examples of this kind are as follows:
During a custody battle, a mother lied to a therapist about the father's behavior. The therapist, having never spoken with the father, appeared as an "expert" witness to inform the Judge that the mother should be the primary residential parent and that the father needed to be in therapy.
One angry mother manipulated teenagers to leave anonymous threatening notes at the ex- husband's home.
A mother who had lost legal custody of her children, manipulated a secretary at the child's school to assist in kidnapping the child.
In the above examples, it is important to note that the person manipulated by the angry mother has, in a way, been "alienated" against the divorcing husband. Typically, the individual "duped" takes on a righteous indignation, contributing to a rewarding climate for the mother initiating malicious actions
Criterion 1C: Excessive Litigation
There is little question that either party in a divorce or custody proceeding is entitled to appropriate legal representation and action.
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, however, attempt to punish the divorcing husband by engaging in excessive litigation.
A belligerent and unreasonable mother verbally attacked her ex-husband whenever she saw him. Over time, his response was to ignore her. She then took him to court, asking the judge to require the ex-husband to talk with her.
One mother told a judge that her daughter was not really her divorcing husband's child
One woman refused to stop attacking her ex-husband through the courts, despite numerous attorneys being fired or voluntarily leaving the case. Over a three-year period, seven different attorneys were utilized.
Data exist which can help in determining the range of excessive litigation. For example, Koel et al. (1988) report on the frequency of post-divorce litigation in a sample of 700 families. Their data indicate that only 12.7% of families file one post-divorce petition to the court, whereas less than 5 percent file two or more petitions (Koel et al. 1988); less than one percent file four or more petitions.
Criterion 2A: Denying Regular Visitation
Experts are in relative agreement that regular and uninterrupted visitation with the non-residential parent is desirable and beneficial for children, except in extreme circumstances (Hodges, 1991). In fact, some states, such as Florida, have laws written to reflect this view (Keane, 1990). Unfortunately, even when the father and children have legal rights to visitation, individuals with Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome continue to interfere with it.
A mother who previously attacked her ex-husband physically during visitation transfers of the children, refused to provide the children when the ex-husband had the police attend to monitor exchanges.
When one divorced father arrived to pick up his children for visitation, the mother arranged for her and the children to be elsewhere so that the father could not visit with the children.
One mother had her physically intimidating boyfriend assault her ex-husband when he came to pick up his children for visitation.
The President of the Council for Children's Rights (Washington, D.C.) notes that such alienation is considered a form of child abuse (Levy, 1992). Unfortunately, the police typically avoid involving themselves in such situations. Furthermore, unless a victimized father is financially capable of returning to court on an ongoing basis, there is little that can be done to prevent such mothers' behavior. Finally, even when such cases are brought to trial, the courts are often inadequate in supporting fathers' visitation rights. (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992).
Given the physical absence of one parent, the telephone plays an important role in maintaining the bond between child and non-residential parent. Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome engage in an array of actions designed to circumvent telephone access.
A father called to speak to his children and was told that they were not at home when, in fact, he could hear their voices in the background.
When one father called to speak with his children, the mother put him on "hold," informed no one, and then left him on hold.
Knowing that the children's father was away on vacation, one mother encouraged them to leave several messages on his answering machine to call back immediately only if he would like some additional visitation time with his children.
Some fathers find the alienation attempts so painful and fruitless that they eventually are extinguished from calling their children; they simply "give up." Placed in a no-win scenario, the father's "abandonment" (Hodges, 1991) unfortunately achieves the precise result aimed for by the individual suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
Criterion 2C: Denying Participation in Extra-Curricular Activities
An integral part of the process of maintaining one's bond with one's child is to participate in activities that one did before the parents separated. School plays, team sports, and religious events are just osme of the type of activities of importance. Malicious Mothers frequently engage in maneuvers designed to prevent participation in these activities.
One father was deliberately given the wrong date and time for an important event for the child. The child was asked by the mother, "I wonder why your father didn't want to come to see you today"?
One mother refused to provide the father with any information about any extra-curricular activities in which the children were engaged.
Prior to a child's soccer game, one mother told many of the team parents disparaging falsehoods about the visiting father. When he came to watch his son's soccer game, many of these parents looked at him with angry eyes, refused to talk with him, and walked away when he moved toward them.
Malicious Mothers who engage in such behaviors rarely have to face penalties for such actions. Judges, attorneys, and policemen cannot involve themselves in every instance of blocked paternal access. Furthermore, most fathers cannot afford the financial requirements involved. As such, the cycle of access interference perpetuates itself.
Criterion 3A: Malicious Lying to the Children
Given their developmental status, children in a disputed divorce situation are quite vulnerable. When one parent decides to attack the other by lying to the children, examples of this type of malicious behavior may include some of the following:
One divorcing mother told her very young daughter that father was "not really" her father, even though he was.
An eight-year-old girl was forced by her mother to hand unpaid bills to her father when he visited because the mother had falsely told the daughter that the father had not provided any economic means of support to the family.
One mother falsely told her children that their father had repeatedly beat her up in the past.
These examples of malicious lying can be contrasted with the more subtle maneuvers typically seen in Parental Alienation Syndrome, such as "virtual allegations" (Cartwright, 1993). Here, the mother setting up a Parental Alienation Syndrome may hint that abuse may have occurred, whereas the individual suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome falsely claims that abuse has actually occurred.
Criterion 3B: Malicious Lying to Others
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome may engage a wide range of other individuals in their attacks upon the ex-husband. However, with this particular criterion, the individual with Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome specifically lies to other individuals in the belligerency against the father. Some examples include the following:
One furious mother called the president of the (1500 employee) workplace of her divorcing husband, claiming falsely that he was using business property for person gain and was abusing their mutual children at his work locale.
One woman falsely told state officials that her ex-husband was sexually abusing their daughter. The child was immediately taken away from him and his access to her was denied.
During the course of a custody dispute, one mother falsely informed the guardian, who was investigating the parenting skills of each parent, that the father had physically abused her.
Snyder (1986) has reported on the difficulty imposed upon legal authorities when confronted with someone who is an excellent liar. Consistent with research on the inability of "specialists" to detect lying (Ekman and O'Sullivan, 1991), a skilled fabricator can be a compelling witness in the courtroom (Snyder, 1986). While sometimes seen in borderline personalities, Snyder (1986) notes that pathological lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) is not restricted to that particular character disorder.
Criterion 3C: Violating Law to Attack the Husband
Individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, have few, if any boundaries in their campaign against the divorcing husband. Violations of law are common in many cases, although the laws broken may be relatively minor. However, in some cases, the violations of law may be quite serious.
One woman deliberately drove her automobile into the house of the ex-husband where their mutual children resided.
In the midst of a custody battle, one woman broke into the residence of her divorcing husband and stole important business papers.
An angry divorcing mother called a Christian evangelical television station and pledged $1,000, giving the name, address and phone number of her divorcing Jewish husband as the pledgee
The above descriptions may remind the reader of certain personality disorders (e.g., antisocial, borderline, sadistic) but these behaviors may be demonstrated by individuals with Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome who do not appear to meet official diagnostic criteria for an Axis II disorder. Further, in each of the four examples provided above, none of the Malicious Mothers involved was sentenced for such behavior by a Judge.
Criterion 4: Not Due to Another Disorder
In assessing the Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome, it is important to note that many of the above clinical examples seem to have occurred in individuals who had no prior mental disorder diagnosis or treatment. In fact, one mother who engaged in extreme maliciousness toward her divorcing husband had several mental health professionals testify that she was not suffering from any type of mental disorder.
In the author's experience, for each mental disorder that might come to mind to account for some of this behavior, an exceptional case presents. For example, in some cases, an Adjustment Disorder might seem an appropriate diagnosis, yet one woman still denied her ex-husband visitation 10 years after the divorce. Other cases might suggest a possibility of a personality disorder diagnosis, yet one woman who repeatedly violated the law in attacking her ex-husband, received no personality disorder diagnosis despite being evaluated by masters level and doctoral level examiners. In some instances, Intermittent Explosive Disorder might be considered, yet the anger for many of the mothers does not appear to be intermittent.
Finally, the reader should appreciate that while diagnostic accuracy for certain psychiatric difficulties is not as good as one would like (e.g., the personality disorders, see Turkat, 1990), the problem is compounded in family law where incompetent mental health examiners sometimes become involved in the judicial process (Turk, 1993). Clearly, the relationship between Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome and other mental disorders is a complex one which requires significant investigation.
DISCUSSION
The above description of the Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome raises a variety of important clinical, legal and scientific issues.
From a clinical perspective, families that involve a Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome are subject to serious episodes of stress and distress. Yet, there is no scientific evidence on how to treat this phenomenon. It is particularly compromised by the fact that many of these cases that appear to meet the proposed diagnostic criteria deny that there is anything wrong with them.
An additional difficulty is that many therapists are unaware of this pattern of malicious behavior (Heinz and Heinz, 1993). As such, there are malicious therapists who are "fooled" by such cases and, as noted earlier, will come to court testifying that there is nothing wrong with the mother involved.
>From a legal perspective, there are some attorneys who may unintentionally encourage this type of behavior (Gardner, 1989). On the other hand, there are some attorneys who deliberately encourage such behavior as the financial rewards for them are time dependent. In other words, the more involved the litigation process, the greater the profits for the attorney. (Grotman and Thomas, 1990). However, even for the subset of attorneys for whom this may be true, there is a point of diminishing returns. Furthermore, independent of economic considerations, many who become involved with family law courtrooms find that these types of cases are not handled well (Greif, 1985; Levy, 1992).
The woman who is not disturbed "enough" to lose custody of her children in the courtroom will not have money denied to her because she engages in this behavior; nor will she go to jail. Thus, many clients report significant frustration when they and their children are exposed to this type of behavior, and the courts seem to do little.
In a review of pertinent law literature on bias against men in family law proceedings, Tillitski (1992) concluded that there is widespread discrimination. This is well illustrated by one family law Judge's statement that, "I ain't never seen the calves follow the bulls, they always follow the cow; therefore, I always give custody to the mamas." (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992, p. 741). Similarly, it is noted that visitation rights of fathers are not enforced as rigidly as are child support orders (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992.) Such bias against men in family law proceedings results in a unique group of fathers who unintentionally become relatively helpless victims of the system (Tillitski, 1992). This situation would seem to reinforce much of the vicious behavior displayed by women suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
The issue of sex distribution of the disorder certainly needs to be addressed. The overwhelming majority of custodial parents are female (Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System, 1992). Gardner (1989) has noted that Parental Alienation Syndrome appears most commonly in females, although it is possible for a male who has custody of the children to engage in the same type of alienating behaviors. The author's experience with Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome is similar to Gardner's. However, the present writer has yet to see a case of a father engaging in all of the criteria listed. This does not mean that it is not possible for there to be a "Malicious Father" Syndrome. In fact, Shephard (1992) reports that there is significant abuse of some custodial mothers by non-residential fathers. On the other hand, it should be noted that there are females who are required to pay child support, but we have yet to hear about "Deadbeat Moms." Given at the present time that a case in which the father met all of the criteria for Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndromehas yet to be documented, it appears advisable to await scientific evidence to guide issues of nosologic labeling.
How prevalent is the Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome? The answer is unknown. Gardner (1989) reports that approximately 90 percent of all custody battles involve some aspects of parental alienation. Further, Kressel (1985) reviewed data indicating that up to 40 percent of maternal custodians denied visitation to the ex-husband in order to punish him. Relatedly, Arditti (1992) reported that 50 percent of a sample of divorce fathers (N=125) indicated that visitation was interfered with by the mother. While aspects of parental alienation may be common, it is highly unlikely that such a percentage of maternal custodians would meet all of the criteria for Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
In regard to incidence, it would appear through the title of this syndrome that the malicious behavior is precipitated by the divorce process. However, this is clearly an empirical question. While the malicious actions may first be noted during a divorce process, it is possible that maliciousness may have been present earlier but undetected. Research on pre-divorce parental conflict (Enos and Handal, 986) supports this speculation. Relatedly, it may also be that there are some cases of pre-existing mental disorder that have not been discovered until the stress of the divorce itself unfolds.
Finally, it should be noted that research on the nature of post-divorce family functioning is beginning to emerge. Some data exist on the role of parental conflict in children's post divorce functioning (e.g. Frost and Pakiz, 1990; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Healy, Malley and Steward, 1990; Kudek, 1988), but studies have yet to appear on the more extreme cases of Parental Alienation Syndrome and Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome.
The Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome represents an important societal phenomenon. The disorder affects children, parents, attorneys, judges, guardians, mental health professionals and others. Until this phenomenon is explored more thoroughly in the scientific and clinical literature, the problems imposed by individuals suffering from Divorce-Related Malicious Mother Syndrome will continue to plague us. Hopefully, the present manuscript will stimulate research so that clinical and legal management guidelines can be developed.
REFERENCE
Arditti, J.A. (1992). Factors relating to custody, visitation and child support for divorce fathers: An exploratory analysis. J. Div. Remarr. 17:23-42.
Beal, E.W., and Hockman, D. (1991). Adult Children of Divorce, Delacorte Press, New York. Cart wright, D.F. (1993). Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. Am. J. Fam. Ther. 21:205-215.
Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System. (1992). Gender and justice in the courts: A report to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Georgia State Univ. Law Rev. 8:539-807.
Ekman, P., and O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46: 913-920.
Enos, D.M., and Handal, P.J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54:820-824.
Frost, A.K., and Pakiz, B. (1990). The effects of marital disruption on adolescence: Time as a dynamic. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60:544-555.
Furstenberg, F.F., Morgan, S.P., and Allison, P.D. (1987). Paternal participation and children's well being after marital dissolution. Am. Sociological Rev. 52:695-701.
Gardner, R.A. (1987), The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J.
Gardner, R.A. (1989). Family Evaluation in Child Custody Mediation, Arbitration and Litigation, Creative Therapeutics, Cresskill, N.J.
Greif, G.L. (1985). Single Fathers, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Grutman, R., and Thomas, B. (1990). Lawyers and thieves, Simon & Shuster, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Healy, J.M., Malley, J.E., and Stewart, A.J. (1990). Children and their fathers after parental separation. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 60: 531-543.
Hetherington, E.N., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.) (1988). Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
Heinz, H.R., and Heinz, S.A. (1993). Emotional incest: The tragedy of divorcing families. Am. J. Fam. Law 7:169-174.
Hernandez, D.J. (1988). The demographics of divorce and remarriage. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 3-22.
Hodges, W.F. (1991). Interventions for Children of Divorce, (second edition), Wiley, New York.
Keane, G. (1990). Florida Divorce Handbook, Pineapple Press, Sarasota, FL.
Koel, A., Clark, S.C., Phear, W.P., and Hauser, B.B. (1988). A comparison of joint and sole legal custody agreements. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 73-90.
Kressel, K. (1985). The Process of Divorce, Basic Books, New York.
Kurdek, L. (1988). Custodial mothers' perceptions of visitation and payment of child support by non-custodial fathers in families with low and high levels of pre-separation interparental conflict. J. Appl Devel. Psychol. 9: 315-328.
Laos a, L.N. (1988). Ethnicity and single parenting in the United States. In Hetherington, E.M., and Arasteh, J.D. (eta.), Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Step-Parenting on Children, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 23-49.
Shepard, N. (1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welf. 71:357-367.
Snyder, S. (1986). Pseudologia Fantastica in the
Tillitski C.J. (1992). Fathers and child custody: Issues, trends
SITE INDEX | LIZNOTES MAIN PAGE | COLLECTIONS | WOMENS HISTORY LIBRARY | RESEARCH ROOMS | THE READING ROOM
FATHERLESS CHILDREN STORIES | THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE | WOMAN SUFFRAGE TIMELINE | THE LIZ LIBRARY ENTRANCE
Except as otherwise noted, all contents in this collection are copyright 1996-2009 the liz library. All rights reserved.
This site is hosted and maintained by argate.net Send queries to: sarah-at-thelizlibrary.org
Permalink
