Requiring Parental Alienation Evaluators to Have Expertise in Domestic Violence

I am deriving this post, based on A Policy Proposal in Joan Meier's research, Parental Alienation Syndrome & Parental Alienation: Research Reviews.

2. Require evaluators to have genuine expertise in both child abuse and domestic violence.
Evaluators who lack such expertise should be required to bring in an outside expert. This is a requirement of the APA's ethical custody evaluation guidelines (APA, 1996). "Expertise" requires more than one or two continuing education seminars. It requires in-depth training in abuse and/or in working with abused children or adults. Evaluators who have worked with families primarily in the context of litigation may operate from the same inaccurate assumptions which are widespread in family courts; That is, that many mothers falsely allege abuse out of vengeance, that children are capable of being brainwashed to an extraordinary extent, and so forth. Precisely because assessment of abuse is notoriously dependent on the assessor's predispositions to believe or not believe such claims, actual training and experience working with abused populations is a necessary prerequisite for a valid assessment.
Okay, how many parental alienation evaluators have expertise in child abuse, domestic violence, rape, etc.? That is why they are parental alienation evaluators. And no one goes to psychology school to study parental alienation...they just take it up as a cause [once they see the $$$ LOL].

Isn't that akin to rape experts having expertise in false memory syndrome? Does that make sense? This, is why psychology has no place in the courtroom. See Liz Kates on therapeutic jurisprudence.

And so instead, a parental alienation "expert" should, according to APA Guidelines (they're just guidelines, you know), bring in the expertise of someone in the domestic violence field. (I wonder if John Michael Bone did this.) But, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest to his testifying on behalf of the client that hired him? No, no, it shouldn't because the "expert" is supposed to be "balanced and impartial" from the start.

This isn't making any sense to me. Is anyone else confused?

If expertise in domestic violence is having more than a few continuing ed come in Florida, a lot of the d.v. training for professionals is only 4 clock hours (and then they get a certificate)?

What I am failing to understand is this: If there is an "expert" in parental alienation on the case and the judge and the attorney only have a few bullshit hours in domestic violence training, who is advocating for the abused?

Please mothers, tell me your stories...

2 advocates for peace:

A Mother's Heart said...

I think "parental alienation evaluator" is a total farse. When a GAL or Coparenting Counselor, as in my case, claim that "parental alienation" "COULD" be happening because they can't find any real evidence. And all agree that my child is not "alienated" from his father. What kind of "expertise" is that...sounds like a bunch of crap, and it is. Why do people like this get away with "expert" testimony like that? (Sorry for all the "..."s, I just can't believe they can say this stuff, and it means so much to the court.)

Barbara said...

They should also be educated in PERSONALITY DISORDERS like Destructive Narcissism and Psychopathy. Those disorders, which are near impossible to spot, often have the abuser looking wonderful while covertly abusing the children. And the GAL and Evaluators are TOO STUPID or clueless to spot it.