Posts from former Discussion pages 

Is PAS Political Propaganda?

NOTE: All posts are presented 'as is' as the poster wrote it originally, with no editing of the content except for last names and E-Mail addresses.  The poster's ISP address is included as it was required to create the original post. 

 

Original
Post # 00000058
PAS: Political Propaganda
From: clementine833608@aol.com
Date: 10/4/00
Time: 4:11:16 AM
Remote Name: 152.163.201.196

Comments
A noted PAS writer, did my evaluation . . . it is an entire-re-creation of the case history of the case. I made no allegation against the father . . and yet the evaluator mispresented me as having made all kinds. The evaluator accepted a "tele-report" from opposing counsel without even checking it. They did not know, even though I wrote a letter of explanation, that my one phone call to DCS was a phone call on myself . . . yes, believe this . . .I called on myself because the evaluator accepted the same fabricated evidence of the father's ex parte child abuse claim against me to which he nor opposing counsel ever contacted DCS.

As to the evaluator, the worst is the equivocation between two pieces of evidence and wherein she presents the father's brainwashing of the children as my supposed pyschological abuse of them.

the evaluator announced to court that the court order "temporary" removal of the children from me and without a hearing . . . and the court did so. It turns out the evaluator is a court advisor . . and on the court panel. Recommendations are supposed to be reviewed on their own merit . . . not due to some pre-supposed influence of an evaluator.

My parenting of the children is excellent, and the oldest, age five, did remarkably well, and the divorce started the very same week of her first school week. And my relationship with the children was not alienating. And the very evaluation wherein the child's statements are presented, prove it was not alienating of the father.

My child's unwillingness to go to the evaluator(a just introduced stranger) was labeled "not typical" behavior of children that age. Then the child's responses to the questions of "does anybody miss you when you are gone?" and "who misses you more" and "who is sadder" is manipulated to seemingly mean "I miss my mommy more because she is sadder." The lack of consistently applied reflection of self-perception syndrome is incredible. The child's meaning "I am very sad when I miss my mommy" is manipulated to be "I miss my mommy more because she is sad." As such, the "not typical" behavior of the previous announcement is then given the add-ons of "wary" and "vigilant" so to present the child was protecting the mother emotionally, instead of the child seeking emotional protection from the mother. Most of nature, with few exceptions, shows that the young offspring prefers one parent over the other, and usually that parent from whose body the offspring resided in during the "incubation" period. Not only that, human psychology would announce that the child misses the mother when the mother is gone. Does not mean that the child would not want to be necessarily ever without mom, in fact, the child might prefer just dad at the park. Maybe he plays soccer better. The point is, the evaluator manipulated an entire arguement, and did so using applied meaning outside of child psychology.

And the announcements are announcments themselves that the evaluator was operating outside the field of child psychology.

Any parent, mom or dad, who has had a negative evaluation, let me know. I know it's confidential. I am not asking you to do something you are not supposed to do. I can see through these arguments like an owl sees at night. To anybody who had a "past issue" presented such that the issue was made as though it was necessarily indicative of "disturbance" today via the "tangential" and "out of structure" adjectives used a favored terms by unethical evaluators, call me up. I can help you.

You got something negative, let me know, and most especially if it is from a panel psychologist and definately if it is PAS application within the evaluation, or some "disturbance" they predicate of you in the present because of some long-ago past issue. There should be no PAS application at all, nor any applied reason to any individual observation, nor an assumed "disturbance" in the present based on long ago. Why? 

Contrary to scientific method . . . big word . . . basically means, if you say someone opened the door to steal your purse, then when your purse is stolen next week, you will necessarily say that that person stole it. In other words, your pre-determination of their intention pre-supposes the conclusion without any evidence and without even your checking with the person as to what was their reason for opening the door. PAS application, or any application as the determined cause to individual observation (data) pre-concludes the reason as the conclusion. That is totally against due process, and serious, outside of scientific inquiry and the basic understood of the process of determination.

Men seemingly don't care about the PAS being "non-scienfic" because it is the means by way they can dismiss the primary caretaker of the children . . . that's why they have so enthusiastically taken up a theory that is at best political propaganda. The internet as a propaganda machine is being used such that the American Bar Association and the LA Bar Association are represented as awarding students who wrote essays about the Gardner theory as "winning" the essay contest. I doubt that. 

The fact that neither student brought up the immediate logical redundancies within Gardner's study, and that AMA and APA do not acknowledge the syndrome, and that the students don't mention the other major issues, tells me that the internet is being used as a means of political ploy to funnel political propaganda. Stick something on the internet, announce it as being recognized by some group, regardless of whether it is or not, and there you have it: no-one thinks to question. Well, I'll question. And I'll question every day of the week.     (Last changed: February 26, 2006)

***

 

REPLIES:

Post # [No replies found]  

 

 

 

 

END OF THIS TOPIC.

 

 

 

RETURN TO CATEGORY INDEX

 

RETURN TO HOME PAGE OF 
PARENTAL ALIENATION WEB SITE

 

Disclaimer: PsyCare Inc. and Dr. Douglas Darnall, Ph.D. assumes no responsibility for the views expressed in any posting.  When posting on any public forum, users should be aware that User Names and E-mails addresses which the poster included were/have been archived by sources which compile almost all Internet websites into an archives. Since these posts in their original forum  were / have been online since 2006, there is no way to remove content because almost all Internet Websites are "archived" and therefore, the content with the identifiable information will remain in the Internet Archives even if completely removed from these pages.  Internet Archiving is not under the control of PsyCare, Inc., its owner, or employees.