Investigating Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

About ten years ago I received a call from a well known attorney representing a father in a paternity case. The attorney asked me to conduct surveillance at Mc Donald’s during a custody exchange. The father was picking up his children for weekend visitation. He told me he wanted me to observe any interaction the parents had with the children and to make special note of the children’s body language and expressions.

I arrived at the Mc Donald’s early and found a good seat that would enable me to observe all the parties involved. Shortly after the scheduled time, the mother arrived with the children. She pulled in the parking lot, parked, got out, and retrieved the two boys ages seven and nine from the backseat. My first observation was made as the mother and boys began to approach the restaurant. The mother appeared to be using her hands and body to shield the boys as if they were approaching a dangerous situation. When they entered the Mc Donald’s the children were trying to see their father. They were obviously much shorter than their mother but couldn’t seem to get past her. The father was waving from across the restaurant. The older son saw him, smiled, and began to wave back. As soon as he started to wave, the mother grabbed him by the back of his coat, pulled him towards her, and got down on one knee. She shook her finger in his face as if she were scolding him. He lowered his chin to his chest and became flush. Both boys then proceeded to meekly approach their father being careful to stay behind their mother. When the mother was approximately twenty feet from the father she began to yell at him. Several patrons in the area appeared to be uncomfortable and one of the cashiers stopped taking an order to see what the commotion was all about. The entire restaurant seemed to stop for a moment. The mother told the father that she had to force the children to come with her because they were afraid to see him. The boys continued to keep their heads down and continued to do so until the mother exited the restaurant. The mother made several comments about the father not loving the children, being a deadbeat, and not caring about them. The father, to his credit, remained calm and stoic. The mother not getting the response she desired from the father then addressed the children. Every time she would refer to the father she would say in a contemptuous tone, “your father”. She would say the word “father” as if it was a curse word. When the mother finally left the restaurant the children seemed to take on new identities. It was obvious to everyone watching that the children were in fact happy to see their father but were frightened of their mother. They were visibly happy, excited, comfortable, and relaxed around their father.

I immediately returned to my client’s office and reported on my somewhat alarming observations. The attorney was satisfied with my report and asked me to wait as he contacted a forensic psychiatrist. He put the doctor on speakerphone and asked me to repeat what I had just told him. After I finished explaining the events of the day, the forensic psychiatrist said, “Well, that confirms our fears”. After he hung up the phone the attorney explained to me that I had just witnessed first hand Parental Alienation Syndrome or PAS. The attorney explained he did not want to tell me about PAS prior to the investigation because he wanted me to approach the situation without creating potential bias in my observations. At the time of the surveillance, I didn’t realize that what I was witnessing was PAS first hand. Today I use the videotape of this event to show investigators I train some of the signs of PAS.

I recently attended a symposium sponsored by the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood. One of the speakers at the symposium was a friend and colleague of mine Dr. Leon Intrater. Dr. Intrater discussed the issue of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Over the years I have worked on many cases where PAS was prevalent and been given the arduous task of proving PAS exists. While it is not the investigators role to make a psychiatric evaluation of any type, documenting the parent’s actions and interaction with the child can be valuable to a psychiatrist and the court.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was discovered by forensic psychiatrist Dr. Richard A. Gardner and has emerged as an expert in dealing with the issue.

Gardner defines PAS as:

“The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.”

While PAS is manifested in several ways some of the more commonly cited examples are; bad mouthing the other parent in front of the children, withholding visits, and determining activities for the children while visiting with the other parent.

As the above investigation demonstrates, documenting the parents interaction with the children can provide evidence of PAS and ultimately may be used by a psychiatrist in the development of his/her opinion.

When a parent calls a child at a prearranged or court ordered time and is told on a regular basis that the child is not home, unavailable, or ill, an investigator may be able to determine if this is true or not. If the time of the call is documented and the child can be videotaped or otherwise proven to be not ill or in fact, playing in the front yard, at a neighbor’s house, or at baseball practice, this information can prove to be valuable. Additionally, when parenting time is canceled because, “an emergency came up”, the investigator can be called upon to document the truth. This may support the premise put forth or contradict it completely. The investigation will reveal the child’s true activities.

In many cases, a parent may be going to great extents to exclude the other from knowledge of and involvement in the child’s activities such as school sports, extracurricular activities, school activities and field trips. An investigator can obtain this evidence through the school, other parties, or surveillance. If this information is withheld from the parent being targeted this may be evidence of PAS.

Surveillance may also uncover medical, dental, or other important appointments which the other parent should have been notified of but was not. In some cases the targeted parent will find out about doctor appointments after the fact and unfortunately the only reason it is finally disclosed is for monetary purposes.

Claims made by one parent to the court that the other parent has strangers spending the night or leaves the child alone may also be either contradicted or supported through the use of surveillance.

While individually these events may not seem significant, a pattern of this type of alienation may be of interest to a Psychiatrist or Judge.

Investigating PAS may not be easy but an effective investigation can make a serious difference in the lives of parents and their children and prevent irreparable damage to their vital relationship.

Should Mental Health Evaluations Have a Role in Family Court

By Josh Hoff

One spouse is angry, the other is scared.  Both parties hire attorneys. One even brings in a mental health professional in an attempt to tip the scale in a child custody dispute.

Just how much influence do these mental health evaluations have in a child custody case? When the two parties in a trial become particularly adversarial, a mental health evaluator often enters the disagreement.  While it is rare for a mental health evaluator to appear at the trial, an expert very well may prepare a written report for submission to the court.  If the report is well-written, it is more likely to have an impact on the outcome of the case. 

The truth is, the weight of a mental health evaluation in a child custody case varies tremendously, with the judge in each case making the final determination.  Each judge does in fact know, however, that evaluators are often hired by one side or the other.  Bias may enter the equation, and judges know as much. 

In such cases, mental health evaluations are just one component in the much larger machinery of justice that has been set in motion.  There are other components as well.  The overall well-being of the child, for instance, is a factor.  If a child shows all the signs of good health, the court may be more accommodating in its assessment the parents.  The mental health of the child’s parents also needs to be considered.  One parent may very well be depressed but able to function in the role of a parent, while the other parent may suffer from a far more debilitating mental health condition that hinders their ability to perform as a parent.

The May 2005 issue of Family Court Review addresses the debate surrounding the role of mental health evaluation in child custody cases.  In an article by Timothy Tippins and Jeffrey Wittmann, the authors outline a model for what experts can justifiably present in a custody case – more specifically, the authors develop a four-level process that aims first and foremost to foster the best interest of the child.

According to their model, experts with sufficient training can offer family court judges admissible information at the first two levels – that is, level I, what the mental health evaluator observes, and level II, what the expert concludes about the psychological makeup of a parent, child, or family.  At level III, Tippins and Wittmann encourage operating in accordance with the conclusions grounded in empirical research within the discipline of psychology.  At Level IV, Tippins and Wittmann suggest that a recommended custody plan for the child would be inherently biased and, therefore, should not be admissible in court.  The plan thus acknowledges a place for mental health evaluation in a case, while implying the importance of limiting its admissibility in court.

Typically, however, if the court deems a parent unable to comprehend the scope of their role as a parent, it will try to protect the child.  Likewise, when the court does not trust a parent with a child, it might grant custody to the other parent and require supervised visitation.  It is important to note, however, that broad brush strokes are not employed in arriving at the final decision.  Rather, courts attempt to take into account the circumstances surrounding the case, enabling them to weigh psychological makeup on a case-by-case basis and adjudicate accordingly.

This tendency stems from the fact that there is no consensus about what constitutes mental illness, a term used to denote a problem that is fundamentally biological.  In some instances, perceived mental illness is in fact simply a matter of living.  For example, parents may be depressed but are still able to do what they need to do.  But a personality disorder, schizophrenia, and a bipolar disorder may pose more serious risks to the well-being of a child.  A bipolar parent, for example, needs to be treated, often with a combination of medication and psychotherapy.  The way for any parent suffering mental illness to be seen in the most favorable light in court is to be proactive and get into treatment.

Ultimately, the court will consider whether parents are able to put aside their own needs to take care of their children.  Furthermore, it is essential that a parent show the capacity to empathize. If so, more often than not, the impact of mental health evaluation will be just one of several factors contributing to the outcome of a child custody case.

Reforms: Seeds Sown For Change in Illinois Family Courts

By Josh Hoff

Ideally, every child grows up in a home where the parents co-exist in harmony and provide fertile ground in which the children can thrive.  Often times, however, this is not the case.  When a marriage dissolves, children are frequently caught in the middle of an adversarial legal system.  Typically, these cases end up in family court, where children are subjected to the trauma inflicted by a prolonged trial.

In the state of Illinois, reforms have been established and are underway to mitigate the impact of trials on children.  The statewide reforms have three components:

In July 2006, all parents in custody and visitation cases will be required to undergo four hours of education involving how to lessen the impact of custody disputes on children.
Lawyers appointed to represent parents in custody cases will be required to attend continuing education programs.

Beginning January 1, 2007, all custody disputes must first go to mediation prior to a court hearing to attempt to resolve the dispute before it goes to court.

“The reforms are intended to focus the guardians and the court on the children,”
explains Madison County Associate Judge Barbara Crowder, who presides over the family court division for the Third Judicial Circuit in Illinois.

In past cases, disputes have sometimes taken up the majority of a child’s life.  As a result, the child becomes surrounded by chaos.  Sometimes, when children are interviewed by judges, they curl up in a fetal ball.  In some instances, they will cry about not wanting to see their mother or father.  In fact, judges observe an entire range of children, from the angry to the withdrawn.

Once the custody case reaches the actual courtroom, various members of the extended family are brought in, which frequently proves divisive and undermines the cohesiveness of a family unit.  The reforms are intended in part to lessen the trauma of such conflicts.

“Two attorneys might swear that two parties could never see eye to eye,” Judge Crowder elaborates, referring to the trial process.  “By the time that they go to mediation, they are able to get past some of the conflict.”

“People are more open to possibilities,” adds Judge Crowder. The seeds were sown for change when the Supreme Court of Illinois appointed a special committee and requested that members address matters relating to custody – more specifically, the court wanted to address the need for cases to be handled in an expeditious manner and in the best interest of children.

“We were asked to draft some rules for circuits that do not yet have mediation,” says Judge Elizabeth Robb, who serves on the Eleventh Circuit and is the chair of the conference of chief judges.

Ultimately, the primary objective of these reforms is to send a strong statement to parents, lawyers, and judges that Illinois’ courts put the needs and concerns of children first.  Otherwise, children are put underfoot in a messy legal proceeding.

“The overall effect of mandatory mediation, parent education, and continuing legal education will be to emphasize that everyone in this process must do everything possible to minimize the emotional damage to children that accompanies child custody disputes,” Judge Crowder said in a written statement.

A Man’s Right To Choose-Alito & Men’s Reproductive Rights

By Joe Englert

President Bush’s appointment of conservative judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court has prompted outrage from the Left and praise on the Right.

During the months leading up to his confirmation, much of the opposition focused on one controversial case – Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In this case, Alito was the sole dissenter on the Third Circuit, which struck a Pennsylvania law that required women seeking abortions to consult their husbands. He argued that many of the potential reasons for an abortion, such as “economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands’ previously expressed opposition . . . may be obviated by discussion prior to abortion.” The case went on to the Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision 6 to 3.

Liberals highlighted this decision to demonstrate how far Alito is “out of the mainstream” and how his appointment to the Supreme Court could lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

But Alito’s opinion in Casey is really less about limiting abortions than about fairness and equal protection under the law. The public debate over the Casey opinion has brought to light a question that for too long has been pushed aside and ignored: what control do men have over the fate of their unborn children?

The answer, unfortunately, is that they have none.

Legalized abortion is commonly understood to promote equality between the sexes by giving women the same freedom to enjoy sex without consequences that men supposedly enjoy. However, in reality, when sex results in conception, the rights of men and woman in determining their reproductive fates are far from equal.

If a woman does not want to be a mother she can terminate a pregnancy, with or without the father’s consent. But if she wants to have the child, the father is still on the hook for as much as 21 years of child support. The father has no legal right to prevent the abortion of his unborn child nor can he “terminate” his parental responsibilities (at least financially). Unlike women, men do not have the luxury of deciding whether or not they are ready to be parents after conception.

Some argue that this apparent inequality stems from the biological fact that a woman must bear the child for nine months and endure the rigors of child birth. As the pro-choice mantra goes: a woman’s body, a woman’s choice. However, fundamentally, the child is a product of both a man’s and a woman’s genetic material and is in that sense a part of both parties’ bodies. While certainly women have the sole biological responsibility of bearing the child, is this fact enough to completely eliminate men from the equation?

Imagine a hypothetical situation – one that some day could become a reality – in which reproductive technology will have advanced to the point where a fetus can be removed from the womb early in the pregnancy and incubated until it becomes viable. Would men then be allowed to seek custody of the unborn child if the woman would seek an abortion? Would the mother be liable for child support afterward? In this scenario how many feminists would agree that a woman’s child should be brought into the world without her consent and then she should also have to pay child support?

But many people will argue that these examples of mothers terminating a pregnancy against the fathers wishes are so rare as if to be statistically irrelevant and therefore should not be used to justify policy that would in any way restrict a woman’s access to an abortion. Unfortunately, there is not much reliable data on the subject. However, one study conducted by Drexel University sociologist Arthur Shostak and journalist Gary McLouth (based on a survey of 1,000 men in abortion-clinic waiting rooms and some in-depth interviews) this situation may be more common than many people expect. While most men in the survey reported that ending the pregnancy was a mutual decision, 5 percent said they didn’t want the abortion and nearly half of the single and divorced men said that they had suggested getting married and having the baby. As for the roughly 50 percent of men who don’t show up at the clinics, various estimates cited by Shostak and McLouth suggest that a significant percentage oppose the abortion or are too upset about it to come along. As many as one in six men are never told about the pregnancy or the abortion.

And yet in the eyes of the law, there appears to be no set of circumstances, however unusual or extreme, that can excuse the biological father of his responsibility for child support.

For example, last year an Illinois Appellate Court decided a case in which a Chicago family physician alleged that his former girlfriend had secretly kept his semen after the two had had oral sex, and then impregnated herself with it. The court stated that if the doctor’s story is true, his former girlfriend “deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy.” Nevertheles, the court ruled the doctor was responsible for the child anyway, stating that “when plaintiff ‘delivered’ his sperm, it was a gift…There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request.”

Right now in Washington, liberals and conservatives are gearing up for the Alito confirmation battle, which they believe will determine the future of reproductive rights in America. Many people on both sides of the aisle believe the outcome will make or break Roe. But now is also the chance to balance the rights of the father with those of the mother, putting the focus on the child, and creating the most equitable law possible.

Depriving fathers of a meaningful voice in abortion decisions (especially between man and wife) denies men equal protection and due process, leaving many children beyond the protective reach of their fathers who want to be included in such a pivotal decision.

Under the Supreme Court rulings made over the course of the last three decades, fathers have been denied a voice in the issue, whether they were married to the mother or not.

The fact that Alito’s dissent on Casey has been held up by critics as “radical” demonstrates that men lack reproductive rights in America and that reform in this area will not come easy. The Pennsylvania law only required the wife to inform her husband of her decision prior to getting an abortion and did not require him to consent to that decision. And the truth is that the statute contained many protections for women, which Alito cited and supported. Section 3209 of the law specifically stated that a woman’s obligation to inform her husband did not apply if she had reason to believe it was likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury.

The ongoing debate over Alito’s appointment will continue to be defined by the limiting or expanding of a woman’s right to choose. But this is also a perfect time to consider whether a man has a right to choose whether or not the child he helped create should be brought into the world.

Anatomy of a Background Check

Anatomy of a Background Check

George Santayana once wrote, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” For detectives and fathers these are words to live by.

Several years ago I received a call from a client who was a wealthy businessman. He asked me to do a background check on a man he was considering for a position as a personal liaison. My client wanted to be cautious because he was not only wealthy but a well known collector of rare documents. The personal liaison would have access to his home, office and much of his wealth. He told me he was sure everything would check out because the candidate was a retired Army Major and had handled the interview perfectly. After checking out the job candidate’s background I discovered he was never in the military and was recently released from prison havng served time for forgery, counterfeiting, and burglary. The subject’s modus operandi was obtaining jobs where there was access to valuables. The subject would then research the interviewer in order to obtain enough knowledge to ace the interview. Once hired the subject would forge, counterfeit, and commit burglary as evident in his criminal record. Needless to say my client did not hire the criminal and has not hired anyone without doing a background check since.

Background checks are critical in business, but they can be equally critical in divorce and child custody cases. Information on the mother, father, boyfriend or relative responsible for caring for the child can be very relevant, and always important. What is the most effective way to conduct a background check? Is there such a thing as an instant nationwide background check?

In most cases the answer is, no. However, there are some very effective and reliable methods to uncovering the background of an individual. Cost and time are almost always a factor and the information must be accurate especially if it is going to be relied upon to determine custody, visitation or employment. For these reasons, as well as others, it is important to understand the structure and anatomy of our court and criminal system and some of the problems inherit in both.

Investigators and the criminal justice system break down records into four categories:

1. Arrest Records – these are arrest reports prepared by law enforcement agencies.

2. Criminal Court Records – records compiled from local, state, and federal courts.

3. Department of Correction Records- prison records.

4. State Criminal Repository Records- arrest, criminal court, and Department Of Correction records.

There are currently two nationwide systems that are used for background checks. The first system is the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. NCIC is the nation’s largest criminal justice database and is restricted to law enforcement only. This database compiles information from most of our nation’s federal, state and local courts. It is the responsibility of each court to report information to NCIC. Breakdowns in the reporting process compounded by lack of personnel available to do the reporting, creates errors in accuracy. NCIC currently stores 52.3 million criminal history files. Many counties do not or simply cannot report many of the lesser offenses committed in their jurisdiction. Most counties don’t have the capacity to report all offenses let alone update the information contained in the NCIC. Most misdemeanors are not reported. Modification of a felony conviction, probation or parole information or charge reductions and case dismissal may not even appear in the NCIC. A domestic battery conviction may not be important to a potential employer but may be of grave significance to a judge determining the custody of a child.

The second nationwide system is the National Criminal File (NCF). This database includes 60 million records. This system relies heavily on the State Repository Records which is just as poorly reported to as the NCIC.

The most reliable source of criminal information is individual county court records. Every person who is arrested for offenses ranging from loitering to murder has a file in the county court where they live. There are 4,086 counties in the U.S. In order to conduct a complete nationwide background check each county would need to be searched. This would be an almost impossible and ridiculous task. Many times an investigator is given a very short period of time to complete the investigation.

So how do we conduct a thorough background check on an individual or company? We must first learn a little about the person we are investigating. Most people only frequent counties where they live or work and some people never leave the county they live in. We need name, date of birth, social security number and any aliases used by the individual. Once we have the above information the decision needs to be made as to which counties to search. Since most courts keep records for a minimum of seven years, a seven year address history must be developed. This can be done a number of ways including; contacting relatives, utilizing old phone books, talking to the subject directly and in the cases of licensed private detectives, databases can help to determine this information. Sometimes as the investigation unfolds new information may lead the investigator in a different direction. A check of each of the local courthouses should be conducted. Any files identified for the subject should be manually reviewed and the identity of the person being investigated should be verified. For example, if an investigator is conducting a background on a James Roberts, date of birth 1/2/1950, and a person matching that description is identified in the courts system, the investigator should then pull the actual file which contains arrest reports, court orders and pleadings. On the arrest report the defendant’s social security number and date of birth usually appear. If it matches the social security number of the person being investigated, this would be one way of positively identifying James Roberts as the offender. In addition to court records, a check of sex offender, state criminal repository and department of correction records should be conducted as well.

While this process is time consuming, it is the only way to effectively know the criminal history of a subject. A professional investigator will then prepare a report on his or her findings for the client.

When looking for an agency to conduct a background investigation, it is critical to hire one that is licensed by the state in which they operate. This ensures the agency they are hiring is insured and one whose testimony will likely hold up in a court of law.

Criminals don’t always look like criminals and people that seem honest may be dishonest. When making decisions regarding employment, custody or business it is always better to be safe than sorry. By understanding the history of an individual, we can better assess that person’s integrity and ensure the safety of our assets. This includes our most prized possession: our children.

Detective Wayne Halick is a Licensed Private Detective and the agency director of Millennium Investigations, Inc.  http://www.dadsdetective.com/

You can e-mail Detective Halick at halickpi@sbcglobal.net. His agency is located at 358 W. Army Trail Road, Unit 140-355, Bloomingdale, Illinois 60108. Their telephone number is 630-543-7282.