Tuesday, December 17, 2019
In the last several months I’ve had several emails from an outfit called Forbrain™. These emails give purely anecdotal evidence for the use of some devices that are supposed to treat a variety of childhood problems such as motor and balance difficulties, autism, sensory processing disorders, and ADD/ADHD. As these problems probably have different causes and certainly have different trajectories, it seems unlikely that one form of treatment can help all of them, but who knows? I would not care to swear that it can’t, without further evidence.
However, neither would I swear that it can help without further evidence. One email I received stated that there were “scientific studies” supporting this view, but when I clicked on the link I got a warning so I didn’t go any further. The email described the case of a child named Josephine who was said to have had her speech and general conduct much improved by use of Forbrain™ technology and even stopped having frequent tantrums. This is very nice,(although obviously it can’t be checked, nor could we know whether Josephine would have started doing better even without this treatment. Nothing here seems to be providing the kind of information that consumers should demand before they commit to a treatment for children.
Forbrain™ apparently involves the wearing of a headset that provides conduction of sounds through bones into the inner ear, rather than stimulation of the inner ear in the usual way by the passage of sound waves through air in the auditory canal, followed by movement of the eardrum, etc. The Forbrain™ device also filters some sounds and is said to allow practice on the “audio-vocal loop". A second device advertised by the Forbrain™ advocates is called Soundsory ®; this one uses “specially designed music processed with neuro-acoustic modifications as well as a series of movement-based exercises” and is intended to “establish good foundations, from the fundamentals of sensory integration to more complex cognitive functions”.
Listening to special music? Being exposed to certain kinds of sound patterns? It’s all rather familiar—and the name Tomatis springs to mind. Yes, an Internet search shows Tomatis therapy , Forbrain ™ and Soundsory® on the same page. It would appear that there is no systematic evidence to support any of these practices.
What should consumers ask for before they commit to the trouble and expense of methods like these? Anecdotes are not good enough. It may be that Josephine’s condition did improve—but would this necessarily be true for any other child? Was Josephine’s improvement caused by Forbrain™? Might it have happened anyway? Or could it even have been that she would have improved more without Forbrain™? These questions can’t be answered by even the most touching story, but touching stories are likely to make us forget to ask the right questions.
For adequate demonstration that either Forbrain™ or Soundsory® technology are useful for any of the problems mentioned earlier, we need the following: A large group of children who share a problem that can be evaluated and quantified. These children are to be divided into two groups (treatment and comparison) with equivalent age ranges, gender proportions, and severity of problems. Assignment to groups is done by staff who do not have information that identifies individuals. Treatment is done by staff who do not know which group each child belongs to. One [treatment] group is given the treatment recommended by Forbrain™ advocates. The other [comparison] group receives a “sham” program—they wear headsets for the same amounts of time as the treatment group but hear different things. At the end of the treatment period, all children are re-evaluated by staff members who do not know which group a child was in. Finally, changes seen in the treatment children are compared to changes seen in the comparison children. If the changes seen in the treatment children are positive, and are statistically greater than those in the comparison group, then advocates of Forbrain™ and Soundsory® can say that they have evidence that their treatments are effective.
Until this happens, caveat emptor!
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
I hear from concerned people in the Netherlands that a new issue about “parental alienation” (PA) has arisen. Not only are some divorced parents accused of “alienating” children who do not want to have contact with the other parent, even though many factors other than alienating behavior are likely to be responsible for the children’s attitudes, and not only is notional PA argued to be a reason for prohibiting contact between children and their preferred parents. Now, in addition, it has been proposed that policemen can be trained to identify PA cases!
Let’s examine this proposal under a strong light.
The first question we need to ask is a simple but critical one: can anyone identify PA? Is there any established, evidence-based protocol that can be used to differentiate PA cases from other cases in which children’s refusal can be based on a range of causes, from domestic violence and abuse to dislike of a step-parent or step-sibling to situations where contact with one parent interferes with sports or friendships?
No, there is no such method. Identification of PA cases is a subjective process based on the opinions of PA proponents. In no case does such identification involve observation or even corollary evidence for alienating behavior by preferred parents. In a few cases known to me, the PA identification did not even consider whether a child had refused contact. In one I can think of, a girl actually asked to have contact with her father and he refused on the ground that she would accuse him of molesting her if he saw her; he stated that he planned to send her to boarding school if he got custody. In another case, a 17-year-old who had for years been alternating weeks at her mother’s and father’s houses said she needed more stability and wanted to have a “home” at her mother’s house while continuing to visit her father, and this was alleged to be a PA case.
Interestingly, Richard Warshak, a long-term proponent of PA and supporter of the Family Bridges treatment, has written of his concerns about false positive identifications of PA and about the need to discriminate between PA and other causes of contact refusal. He appears to recognize that children have been identified as PA cases when in fact they were not. (Although Warshak did not express concern about this point, the consequences of PA identification can include custody change and prohibition of contact with the preferred parent as well as court orders for that parent to pay extravagant fees for PA treatment. As PA proponents also argue that PA is child abuse, such parents are in danger of being affected personally and professionally when mistakenly identified as abusers.) However, Warshak did not mention false negative cases in which PA was not identified even though it was present. I assume that this means that he feels all PA cases—and then some—are being identified, and that only one kind of mistake is being made: the mistake that has the most obvious and serious bad consequences for the child and the preferred parent.
So it seems that nobody can clearly identify PA in a way that would allow others to confirm the identification. On the contrary, people are concluding that PA is present when even its proponents admit that this may not be correct. Among the undesirable consequences of this situation are possibilities that a child’s custody may be given to a genuinely abusive parent—and research has already indicated that this has happened.
Let’s get back to these policemen in the Netherlands. Can they be trained to assess PA? Well, it’s possible that they could, IF anyone else was able to make this assessment. As there is no one who can identify PA validly and reliably, with some known proportion of false positives and false negatives, it would appear that we have nobody to train the policemen. You can’t teach what you don’t know.
One more point: when child custody evaluations are done, they are supposed to include information from corollary sources. What do neighbors, teachers, grandparents, family friends think about the parents and children? Has domestic violence formed part of the background for the child’s refusal? Gathering this kind of information takes time and expertise. No doubt policemen could be trained to do this, but it hardly seems like their job. Of course, PA proponents are not doing this kind of investigation either, even though it should be part of their job.
Perhaps the conclusion here should be that policemen are just as capable as PA proponents of identifying PA: in other words, not particularly capable at all, and possibly not particularly interested in doing the job as they should.
I have been neglecting this blog so badly, because a lot of my time in the last six months has been taken up by writing and talking about “parental alienation” (PA) and I don’t suppose anyone wants to read about that every day. But a few days ago someone asked me a question about a non-PA issue and I think it’s one that may be of interest to a number of people.
My correspondent is a lawyer who works with an anti-child-abuse non-profit organization. She wrote to me to ask if I could recommend a psychologist who could diagnose a type of factitious disorder or “Munchausen’s by proxy”. These terms are used to describe cases in which an adult, usually a parent and often the mother, asks for medical treatment for her child but secretly does things that would cause the child to seem to need treatment. For example, the adult might substitute something else for the child’s urine for a urinalysis, or more seriously-- and this has been videorecorded—partially suffocate the child and then call for help because the child has stopped breathing. These cases are obviously to be taken very seriously. What if the child actually is sick but no treatment is provided because it’s mistakenly thought that the parent is causing the symptoms? What if the parent is causing the symptoms, this is not recognized, and the child dies because of the parent’s actions? It’s no wonder that there is much concern when such a situation is suspected.
Here is the story my lawyer-correspondent gave me. (Readers with infant mental health background will quickly see why I am bringing this up.) A woman of 40, who had a 5-year-old child, began to make frequent emergency room visits when her second child was about 2 months old. When I say frequent: she took the baby in on 27 of 30 possible days. No medical problems were detected. A neighbor reported that she had come into the house to find the baby turning blue and had restored the airway; as far as I know, she did not see the mother causing this episode.
Medical personnel were worried about this situation and suspected factitious disorder. They moved to have the baby placed in foster care and the mother has for at least a month had only supervised visitation. A forensic psychologist, who may or may not have any infant mental health training is to evaluate the mother. My lawyer-correspondent was concerned about the extent of the evaluation, and that was why she asked me to recommend an evaluator.
My response was that everyone was ignoring the most obvious explanation of the mother’s behavior: a perinatal mood disorder (PMD). PMD, sometimes called post-partum depression, is a state of anxiety and depression that sometimes occurs during pregnancy and/or after childbirth. Mothers with PMD may feel incapable of caring for the children and sometimes focus on the idea that there is something terribly wrong with a baby. By far the largest number of comments and queries I have had on this blog have come from mothers who were tortured by their beliefs that their babies were somehow damaged; many of the mothers were convinced that a baby of a few weeks of age might be autistic. When I answered these queries I usually recommended that the mothers see their ob-gyns for PMD evaluation and receive the treatment they needed, because the problem was in their own conditions, not in the babies. Many of them subsequently wrote and said that they had done this and had been helped a great deal.
PMDs have been known for quite a long time to be identifiable and treatable. They are no one’s fault and although the mothers often blame themselves, the rest of us should not blame or punish them. About 15 years ago, several states had innovative programs to educate people about PMD. New Jersey, for example, had a program called “Speak Up When You’re Down” that was sponsored very effectively by the wife of the then-governor. (I was at that time part of the train-the-trainer program for that program.) Regrettably, political forces cancelled funding for these programs and it appears that we are back where we started on this issue.
Ob-gyn offices should be making regular use of a screening instrument for PMD, the Edinburgh Depression Scale. This is quick and easy to use and identifies women who may benefit from treatment for PMD. In addition, I would argue that its use with every new mother benefits everyone, not just those with mood problems, as it reminds everyone of the potential for PMD in themselves and others. This is especially important as PMD symptoms may not occur until later in the first year after childbirth, and women who were screened early may realize later that new symptoms they experience are related to what they were asked on the screening instrument. In the case brought up by my lawyer-correspondent, the mother had apparently not been assessed for PMD, and candidly I remain unsure whether this is happening at this point, although I suggested some possible resources in addition to her ob-gyn.
I want to take a moment to talk about the experience of the mother in this case. I’m basing my comments on the assumption that PMD is at work here—I do not have enough details to know this, of course. The mother’s anxiety about her baby, expressed by multiple ER visits, has not been understood as an expression of her disordered mood, but instead has been interpreted as highly abnormal maternal behavior that is a danger to the baby. The obvious solution from that viewpoint is to put the baby in foster care. But what if the mother’s behavior is symptomatic of PMD and is thus both identifiable and treatable, but neither identified nor treated? In that case, the mother’s experience is of validation of her abnormal mood. Yes, we say to her, you are right to be anxious and depressed and feel that something is wrong, and we are taking your baby away because something is so wrong with you that you cannot be helped.
The mother now sees the baby only under supervision, and it is no longer “her baby”. The constant tiny maturational changes of the early months go by between visits without the mother having any chance to learn from them, and the baby at each visit is a somewhat different person than the mother saw the last time. Her behavior toward the baby is bound to be out of synch for exactly that reason, so she will be observed on each visit to be awkward and uncertain with the baby and not to behave like a “normal mother”. This kind of experience adds to her sense of anxiety and sadness, which apparently is not being treated by appropriate medication and talk therapy. Who will step in to help this family? When will anyone do anything to support the mother in her fight with PMD and to facilitate her relationship with her baby? Or is the solution seen to be indefinite foster care, even termination of parental rights?
N.B. I should point out that there is a severe form of perinatal mood disorder, sometimes called post-partum psychosis, and some readers will recall the tragic case of Andrea Yates, who killed all her children after repeated post-partum problems that were ignored by the children’s father. But these horrible cases are very unusual, and most cases of PMD, when identified, can be treated quite effectively.
Monday, October 28, 2019
As many readers already know, the term “parental alienation” (PA) refers to a parent-child situation and to the explanation of that situation by proponents of the PA belief system. PA describes a situation in which the child of a divorced couple rejects one of the parents and resists or refuses contact with that parent but there appears to be no serious reason (like experiences of abuse) for the child to take that position. The explanation put forward by PA proponents for this scenario is that the child’s preferred parent has worked in various ways to manipulate the child’s feelings and to make him or her afraid of or angry at the nonpreferred parent.
Human beings do some very peculiar things, so this could certainly happen. However, to know that it had happened—to “diagnose” PA—you would need to have clear assurance that the child had no serious reason for rejection, AND evidence that the preferred parent had acted in ways that persuaded the child that the other parent should be avoided. You would also need to have good evidence that the child had once liked and associated with the now nonpreferred parent.
Unfortunately, courts around the world have fallen for the argument that PA is present in a child’s reluctance for contact with a parent—and they have fallen for the claim without demanding the evidence described in the previous paragraph. The consequences that follow such decisions are serious ones for children and families. Family court judges are asked by PA proponents to order a complete change of custody from the preferred to the nonpreferred parent, prohibition of contact with the preferred parent, and child attendance at non-evidence-based treatment programs that are to be paid for by the preferred parent. Young adults who earlier went through these programs have reported their own distress and the potential for harm to be done by the programs.
Because of these and other problems, in spite of lobbying by PA advocates, PA was not accepted for inclusion as a diagnosis in DSM-5 in 2013. Now, efforts are being made to include a reference to PA in a volume that may be less familiar to some readers in the U.S., the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), issued at intervals by the World Health Organization. ICD lists both physical and mental disorders, and there is currently discussion about what will be included in the next volume, ICD-11.
There is no question of including PA as a diagnosis in ICD-11. However, PA advocates are pressing to have it included as an index term; this means that if a person were to look for PA in the index it would appear but would be linked to a legitimate diagnosis. People who are concerned about the potential harmfulness of PA concepts and practices object strongly to this, feeling that indexing the term would lend PA spurious respectability and allow PA advocates to claim that PA is “in ICD-11” when this will not be true in any real sense, Linking PA to a real diagnosis may also suggest to some ICD users that the two terms actually mean the same thing, when they do not.
Here are some reasons why PA should not be included as an index term in ICD-11:
1. 1. PA has never been operationally defined. That is, no one has outlined the measures or observations needed in order to identify PA. There is neither a way to identify the quality of behavior that would indicate PA nor a way to quantify PA (and thus to be able to see whether treatments are beneficial). One author who has looked at the effects of a treatment program, Richard Warshak, identified the children participating in the program as having been found to have PA by a family court judge—certainly a new approach to diagnosis of mental disorders.
2. 2. PA advocates label preferred parents as abusers and claim that the child’s rejection of one parent is a sign of mental illness that has been caused by the preferred parent, who is therefore abusive and should not have contact with the child. In spite of this claim, PA advocates rarely if ever report this notional abuse to child protective services even though they may be mandatory reporters of abuse.
3. 3. PA principles and practices are pseudoscientific. The mechanism PA advocates propose for persuasion of the child by the preferred parent, “brainwashing”, is a legal concept and not a psychological one. The language proponents choose for discussion of PA is obfuscatory, using the same terminology to refer to a child’s feelings and to efforts a parent might have made to change those feelings. Irrelevant information is often brought in to discussion of PA, as when problems of critical thinking are claimed without evidence to be responsible for a child’s resistance to contact with a parent. Claims of an evidence basis for PA treatments are based on research designs that are too weak to indicate the actual outcomes of the treatment. As Washburn et al. commented in a 2019 article in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, “Entire fields can be regarded as pseudoscientific when there is a seemingly wholesale absence of systematic safeguards against confirmation bias (e.g., randomized controlled trials, blinding of observers…” (p. 80). Although this comment was not directed at PA in particular, it is an excellent description of PA and the reasons it can be described as pseudoscientific despite claims to the contrary
4. 4. PA has the potential for harming children and their families both directly and indirectly. Children have reported being taken under duress, even in handcuffs, to PA treatment sites, having their money and phones taken away, and being prohibited from contacting people they trusted. This would be frightening and distressing for all children but is especially so for any who have special vulnerabilities like autism or like previous experiences of abuse. As for indirect harm, preferred parents who have to pay large sums for these treatments will find themselves without the funds to pay for needed services or even to maintain their home. Parents who work with children as teachers, pediatricians, day care providers, and so on, may lose their jobs if labelled child abusers in the course of PA claims.
Now, what about the woozle part? That's the reason for being particularly concerned about what seems to be a trivial matter of indexing. It is understandable that PA advocates want to get a toehold in ICD-11, even if only having PA as an index term. Although in the past few psychologists had ever heard of PA, more and more now recognize the term and understand the reasons for rejecting it. Unfortunately, however, for those who come across PA only in passing or are never exposed to any of the related issues, the term PA has the makings of a “woozle”—an idea that seems to refer to something real only because it has become familiar as it is mentioned repeatedly. Including PA as an index term would help push forward the “woozle” process which adds to the obfuscation and muddled thinking already associated with PA ideas. Rampant woozles make it easier for alternative psychotherapists to persuade people that they are legitimate-- and in the case of PA, being persuaded can lead to very disturbing consequences.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
When I realized that Craig Childress and his life coach sidekick Dorcy Pruter had had a paper accepted for presentation at the 2019 convention of the American Psychological Association, I was alarmed. As I have said in the courtroom and in published articles as well as here on this blog, I consider Childress’s views on Parental Alienation (PA), its identification and treatment, to be implausible, lacking in an evidence basis, and potentially harmful to children and families. In other words, I would categorize the High Road treatment that Childress recommends as an alternative psychotherapy, foreign in its principles and methods to mainstream psychology. Childress, of course, says it is not a therapy at all but “psychoeducation”—a claim that does not actually bring this treatment any further into the mainstream.
Yes, I was alarmed by the idea that Childress’s views were going to be presented in a way that implied APA approval. But now that I have seen the paper presented at the conference (see , I am also flabbergasted. The central part of the paper is basically a series of claims about the High Road treatment of a teenager who avoided contact with one of his parents, and in that it was no different than what Childress has previously stated; that was not the flabbergasting part. What amazed and frightened me was that the High Road narrative was embedded in one of the wilder psychological ideas of the 1970s, an idea that would have passed quickly from the scene had not its originator had sufficient personal funds to maintain for many years a journal promulgating his beliefs. The originator was Lloyd DeMause, the idea was what he called “psychohistory”, and the journal was the Journal of Psychohistory.
I first encountered DeMause at a history conference in 1974. I attended this small local conference because I was given to understand that presenters would discuss associations between child rearing and historical events. To my surprise, the first paper I heard attempted to trace personality disorders to the unborn baby’s experience of the tightness of the womb. I pointed out during the discussion period that there is variation in that “tightness” and it would be possible to examine the empirical support for the hypothesis. This proposal was far from welcome, and I caught on to the fact that the psychohistory group thought that theory was far more important than evidence.
My next DeMause (it’s pronounced Dee Moss, not like the Mickey kind) experience came about years later as I tried to trace the beginnings of some alternative psychotherapies, especially the ones that resemble Scientology in their reliance on what they believe to be the experiences that occur before or during birth and serve to shape personality at an unconscious level (i.e., it makes you do things but you don’t know it). DeMause, a political scientist who became a lay psychoanalyst, wrote in loving (perhaps even salivating) detail about the history of child abuse and claimed that human history has been shaped by children’s trauma (you can see some of this at psychohistory.com). DeMause’s fascination with trauma and the unconscious made him a favorite with the primal therapy group and later with the Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health (APPPAH), whose members believed that unborn babies were in telepathic communication with their mothers and that all babies remember the details of their births. William Emerson, a member of APPPAH, recommended massaging babies’ heads roughly in imitation of the birth experience and allowing them to cry uncomforted for purposes of catharsis. This way of thinking dates back at least to Freud’s friend Georg Groddeck, and it temporarily rose to prominence again when Lawrence Durrell engineered a translation into English of Groddeck’s Book of the It in the late 1940s. It was further cultivated during the irrationalism and anti-rationalism of the ‘60s and ‘70s.
Incidentally, I presented about DeMause at EPA several years ago, in the history of psychology section, and I don’t think anyone present had ever heard of him before (not even sure they listened at the time)—so I would suppose that Childress’s APA audience did not know any of the background. And indeed I wonder whether Childress knew who he was referring to, or whether he just chose for a sort of camouflage an obscure author who talked about trauma a lot. I am not sure which is worse, whether DeMause was just pulled DeMause from the ether as an impressive-sounding name, or whether Childress knew full well what DeMause’s beliefs were and has subscribed to them. It may be that an obscure book by Robert Grille was Childress’s introduction to DeMause.
In creating the wraparound “theoretical” piece in which his claims about High Road were embedded, Childress oddly included a story about the World War I Christmas truce in which German and allied soldiers stopped shooting at each other. He spoke of the way the soldiers’ animosity was disarmed and implied that similar mechanisms could reduce the animosity the teenager in his case felt toward his parent. Unfortunately, Childress seems to have missed the point that the soldiers did not feel personal animosity, but were forced by those in power to fight against people with whom they actually had much in common— hardly a good example of the use of change agents outside psychotherapy to produce alterations in attitudes. The reference to the truce seems to have come from a TED talk by Robert Sapolsky, so perhaps this example was no better thought through than the DeMause reference.
In any case, none of the flabbergasting material, and none of what Childress presented as support for his High Road claims, offered any convincing supporting evidence. I do wish I could know what APA Division 24 (theoretical and philosophical psychology) now thinks of the decision to accept this presentation—but perhaps they never heard of DeMause themselves. Or, it may be that they are pleased with this little visit to the counter-Enlightenment and wish APA would drop all this concern about evidence-based treatment.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has posted an interesting report at discussing child custody decisions in the presence of domestic violence. The report notes that “Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), discredited by the scientific community, is not admissible evidence and any reference should be stricken under the standards established in Daubert and Frye”, (“Daubert” refers to standards for acceptable scientific evidence, “Frye” to standards based on whether most members of a profession support an idea.)
In spite of this recommendation from NCJFCJ—echoed by many other sources—family courts daily admit evidence about parental alienation (PA) and even make decisions based on that evidence. Parents whose children avoid contact with or who reject the other parent are increasingly accused of creating PA by manipulating and exploiting their children. People who are accused of PA risk losing custody of and even contact with their children even when there is no evidence that they have caused the children’s attitudes. Worse, advocates of PA argue that most children who reject a parent are emotionally disturbed, that the emotional disturbance was caused by the preferred parent, and thus that the preferred parent is an abuser and must be removed from the child’s life, in the child’s best interests. For parents who are teachers, psychologists, or physicians, a court’s acceptance of this argument can have a devastating effect on their professional lives in addition to the tragic effects on family relationships.
Fighting allegations of PA can be ruinously expensive. A lawyer I talked to yesterday estimated possible costs to one parent at $100,000 to $150,000 over several years. As a result, it is common for the accused parent to run out of money and no longer to be able to afford legal representation. (This situation may allow for legal aid in Canada and the United Kingdom, but to the best of my knowledge this is not the case in the United States.) Thus, although we all know that “the person who has himself for a lawyer has a fool for a client”, many people sooner or later find that they have to represent themselves in family court—or simply give up their attempts to have contact with their children.
NCJFCJ has prepared a document called “10 Things to Know About Family Court” (https://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/defaut/files/NCJFCJ_10ThingsKnowFamilyCourt_Final.pdf). This document describes family courts’ officers and their functions and defines and discusses some important terms that should be kept in mind if you have to represent yourself when fighting PA allegations.
Here are some terms and concepts that are especially important to parents accused of PA:
1. 1. In discussing presumptions made by courts, the NCJFCJ document refers particularly to the role of child abuse in custody decisions. They say “many states …have a presumption forbidding a court from awarding custody to a parent who has abused the child or the other parent, if the abuse is properly proven, unless the court finds reasons that would not be in the child’s best interests.” This item is highly relevant to the claims made by PA advocates that PA can be determined simply on the basis of a child’s attitude and behavior, and that PA is by definition a type of abuse. Although neither of these claims is generally accepted by psychologists, there is nothing to stop a family court from basing decisions on them unless strong arguments to the contrary are presented – or even then.
2. 2.The NCJFCJ document points to the role of the “burden of proof” in family courts. People who ask for unusual decisions or who make unusual claims must present more convincing evidence to support what they say than those who have more typical claims or requests. Because PA concepts and their associated treatments are poorly substantiated by empirical research , related claims and requests should bear a heavy burden of proof and should be required to address either the Daubert or the Frye standards mentioned above, depending on what a state’s laws determine. Requests for ordinary, normal parenting plans and schedules should not require much proof, nor should refutation of PA claims require much proof to be offered. When PA claims are made, claimants should be asked to provide published evidence of research support for the claims. If an evaluator has stated that PA is present, the evaluator should be asked to show how his or her methods met the guidelines of the American Psychological Association given at https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/child-custody. A very important point about these guidelines is that a psychologist making a custody recommendation should have interviewed all family members as well as looking for supportive evidence from teachers, neighbors, etc. PA recommendations are often made on the basis of an interview with one parent and are based on the belief that a child’s avoidance of the nonpreferred parent is caused by the machinations of the preferred parent.
3. The NCJFCJ document discusses settlement out of court and points to problems of reaching agreement when one parent is threatening or has been involved in domestic violence. Allegations of PA by the nonpreferred parent may arise following complaints about child abuse or domestic violence, so this issue may be an important one. In many ways court orders may work better for parents who have been accused of PA, but there are also downsides to court involvement that may lead to orders of complete custody change.
If you are fighting allegations of PA and must represent yourself, the NCJFCJ document can be helpful-- but it is not the same as having experienced counsel.
Hello folks-- Blogspot has changed its method of handling comments and I have just figured out how they are doing it. If you posted a comment in the past months, I apologize for not seeing it! Please try doing it again and I will try to stay on top of this. Problem is, they used to send me an email reminder when there was a comment, now they don't. So sorry!
Discussion of current events shows that there is still much confusion about the relationship between the U.S. Magnitsky Act of 2012 and Russian prohibition of adoption of Russian children to the U.S. It’s commonly said that the strictures on adoption were a “tit for tat” response to the Magnitsky Act, and some private discussions with Russians have been claimed to be about the adoption prohibition when in fact they were apparently about something else entirely.
In fact, in 2012, the Russian children’s ombudsman at that time, Pavel Astakhov, was already seriously concerned about mistreatment and even murder of Russian children adopted to the U.S. He attempted to visit the “Ranch for Kids” in Montana, a facility that had received a number of Russian adoptees who were placed there by their adoptive families. But he could not get in and was told that the children had gone away for the day. That and other experiences moved Astakhov to require that adopted Russian children should remain Russian citizens and should be in contact with Russian consuls while in the U.S. Eventually, the practical difficulties with this idea and resistance to it led to a blanket prohibition of adoption of Russian children outside Russia (and not just to the United States).
The concerns about Ranch for Kids expressed by Astakhov and others appeared for a long time to have been ignored by the Montana authorities. However, as of July 1, 2019, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services took over regulation of facilities like Ranch for Kids. As of July 23, Ranch for Kids was closed down with its license suspended(https://flatheadbeacon.com/2019/07/23/state-removes-27-children-ranch-kids-amid-allegations-abuse/; my thanks to my colleague Linda Rosa for this reference). The reasons for the license suspension were described as “egregious abuse”. Ranch for Kids staff were said to have hit, kicked, body-slammed, and spat on children. Other concerning actions, according to this report, were using inappropriate harsh discipline like requiring 15-20 mile walks in harsh conditions with improper or no shoes; withholding food; prolonged isolation of children; shooting a nail gun at a child; and failure to give needed medical attention or deal properly with medications. Runaways were not consistently reported to law enforcement, even in harsh winter weather.
Why would Ranch for Kids staff mistreat children in these ways, especially after attention had been drawn to their methods after Astakhov’s abortive visit? It is easy to assume that this situation resulted simply from the kind of people staff members were, and it may well be true that an isolated facility like this one may not draw staff from an ideal pool of people who ought to be working with at-risk children. However, to conclude that adult personality characteristics alone drove the child maltreatment is to commit the fundamental attribution error, a mistake of critical thinking that ignores multiple factors that affect any behavior.
A clue to the factors contributing to Ranch for Kids mistreatment is found on the facility’s website, which declares that their program is directed toward children who have Reactive Attachment Disorder (FASD is also mentioned). The RAD reference suggests reasons behind the abusive behavior, with a belief system and a set of misguided principles that encourage mistreatment.
Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) is indeed an “official” diagnosis found in the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). This disorder, which must be diagnosable before age 5, is associated with inconsistent and insensitive early care and is shown in withdrawn behavior and failure to seek comfort from familiar people when in distress. Effective treatment for RAD involves working with parents and other caregivers to help them become more sensitive and responsive to a child’s communications.
When organizations like the Ranch for Kids use the term RAD, however, they are not actually referring to the social and emotional problems described in DSM-5. Instead, they are indicating their commitment to an “alternative psychology” in which children’s symptoms of RAD are those which conventionally would be classed as conduct disorders, oppositional and defiant disorder, or obsessive and compulsive disorder. Instead of using those disorders as frameworks for discussing a child’s problems, alternative psychologists use an unconventional, non-evidence-based system in which behaviors like aggressiveness, disobedience, and lack of affection are all attributed to attachment problems and described as symptoms of RAD—which in fact they are not.
When facility staff are committed to the idea that undesirable child moods and behaviors are caused by failures of attachment, they readily accept two other propositions. One is that adopted or foster children are likely to have difficulties with attachment even if their placement occurred before they were 6 months old, the age at which emotional attachment to adults and attachment behaviors really begin. Adopted and foster children thus become the special focus of the facility. Second, staff also tend to accept the belief that “fixing” the child’s problems is a matter of “fixing” attachment, and that this is to be accomplished by methods that establish the absolute authority of adults over the children. Such methods, often known collectively as attachment therapy, are without any evidence basis but have been promulgated and encouraged by people like Foster Cline, Nancy Thomas, and Forrest Lien. The writings of this group propose that attachment problems (and therefore disobedience etc) are cured by the same methods used at Ranch for Kids—difficult physical tasks, limiting food, social isolation, and use of physically and emotionally stressful conditions and punishments (usually referred to as “consequences”).
Mistreatment of children at Ranch for Kids was based on a disturbing unconventional belief system. It would have been possible years ago to examine this fact and to prevent the resulting harm to children, but it has only been with the recent changes in regulation that facilities that claim religious connections or purposes have become open to this kind of examination.
An important question: what is going to happen to the 27 kids removed from the Ranch? The news reports mention placing them elsewhere (but where?) or finding their families and achieving reunification. But what would be the results of reunifying children with families who presumably share the belief system of Ranch for Kids or they would never have placed their children there? Ranch for Kids is appealing the DPHHS decision; is it possible that some or all of the children will end up back where they started?
****More on this subject—my colleague Yulia Massino has sent me the following:
In the article, published (in Russian) in July of 2013, in Kasahstan Today ( https://www.kt.kz/rus/society/detej_na_rancho_v_montane_vospitivali_bivshie_dressirovshtiki_sobak_1153575282.html ), one can see such remark by Pavlov Astachov as regards his investigation of this ranch (the quote, translated by Google):
"P. Astakhov noted that the authorities of the state of Montana checked the ranch (Ranch for kids) at the request of the Russian guardianship authorities twice and twice found violations there. "The fire alarm system is not arranged on the ranch, and the houses there are wooden, there is no fire extinguishing system," said Mr. Astakhov after meeting with the Ombudsman of the Republic of Kazakhstan Askar Shakirov.
According to him, ranch specialists in the past were engaged in a completely different activity.
“We looked at these specialists, for example, the procedure of cultivating attachment. You know, this is more like torture, it can be seen on Youtube. These specialists are licensed. There’s such a woman (I can’t remember her name), in the past she has been training dogs during 20 yerars, and for the last seven years she has been raising difficult children. She comes, teaches how to educate a child, to raise child’s attachment. There are such specialists", - he said."
Yulia has suggested the wonderful term “RAD-ranch” to describe this kind of place!
N.B. Yulia has written a further analysis of the Ranch for Kids on her Russian blog https://yuliamass.livejournal.com/268211.html
This can be translated with Google Translate. Some important additional information Yulia has provided shows the links on the Ranch for Kids website to Nancy Thomas and to Ronald Federici, both proponents of alternative therapies that have abusive components. Thank you, Yulia, for your work on this and for your demonstration of similar beliefs and practices in Russia!
N.B. Yulia has written a further analysis of the Ranch for Kids on her Russian blog https://yuliamass.livejournal.com/268211.html
This can be translated with Google Translate. Some important additional information Yulia has provided shows the links on the Ranch for Kids website to Nancy Thomas and to Ronald Federici, both proponents of alternative therapies that have abusive components. Thank you, Yulia, for your work on this and for your demonstration of similar beliefs and practices in Russia!
Monday, May 13, 2019
Most people know that in legal systems that derive from the British common law, an accused person is held to be innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser and the prosecutor—the accused person should not have to prove that he or she is innocent of wrongdoing, and of course in many cases it would be impossible to prove that something does not exist or did not happen.
It’s less well known that the idea of the burden of proof also applies in scientific investigation. The assumption is always that an effect (like the outcome of a psychological treatment, for instance) does not exist, and anyone who claims that it does must provide strong evidence that it does. The burden of proof that “something happened” is on the people who claim that it did. Others do not have the job of proving that there is no effect of a treatment or other event, and once again, as with the legal system, it can be impossible to show that there is no effect.
Unfortunately, rather than accepting and working on the burden of proof that their treatments are safe and effective, proponents of alternative psychotherapies all too often rely on “proof by assertion”. They repeatedly state that their diagnoses are correct and meaningful, or that their treatment methods are effective, and rely on this repetition to convince not only people in general, but courts in particular. Proof by assertion does not yield evidence that a diagnosis is correct or that a treatment has good outcomes, but as the advertising industry knows, it can be hard to resist repeated claims, especially for anyone who has good reason to want to believe them. If those claims are obfuscated by reference to apparently scientific terms or methods, so much the more likely that they will be convincing.
Proponents of parental alienation (PA) concepts and methods have made rather a specialty of proof by assertion combined with obfuscation. Consider the diagnostic methods that are used, first of all. These range from “scales” created by Craig Childress for the rating of normal parent and child behavior to the use of various more or less standardized tests (some of these, like the MMPI, are quite standardized; others, like the Bricklin, much less so). Tests for any behavioral or emotional disorder must be reliable (that is, give about the same results every time), but they must also be valid. A valid test is one that tests what it is claimed to test, and there must be evidence that a test does this before it is used for decision-making. The whole point of a psychological test is that it should be able to determine quickly information that would otherwise be time-consuming and difficult to obtain. But unless such a test’s result is highly correlated with the information obtained in the more difficult way, the test cannot be considered valid.
To show that any test for PA is valid, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the test gave the same results as would be obtained by interviews and observations of a family in which a child was rejecting contact with a parent. By definition, PA is present when a child rejects contact with one parent, that rejected parent has not behaved abusively, AND the preferred parent has worked to create alienation by manipulating and exploiting the child’s thoughts and feelings. Thus, anyone who claims that a psychological test or set of tests validly diagnose PA would have the burden of proof of showing that the tests are highly correlated with information that includes the three factors just mentioned—including observational evidence that the preferred parent’s actions have created rejection that would not have occurred otherwise. It is certainly true that there could be cases in which all three of those factors are present, but we cannot assume that psychological tests are valid measures of PA until someone systematically demonstrates that this is the case. An adequate test of PA must be able to discriminate between child rejection of a parent with and without the intervention of the preferred parent, but none of the tests in use have been shown to do that. In reality, the tests used to claim PA are “validated” against the opinion of one or more PA proponents rather than against empirical evidence—in other words, not validated at all.
PA treatments (including Family Bridges, etc.) have been claimed to be effective by their advocates, but as was the case with diagnosis, no one has accepted the burden of proof and done the work needed to demonstrate this. (Once again, this is the job of those claiming the effectiveness of a treatment; it is not the job of others to show that it is not effective.) Given the nature of the family situations and treatments, it is probably too much to ask that PA treatment advocates do randomized controlled studies, but it would be quite possible to do controlled clinical trials in which outcomes for children receiving PA treatment are compared to outcomes for children of similar characteristics who receive no treatment or some conventional form of psychotherapy. The burden of proof is not carried unless there is a well-defined, transparent standard of comparison presented. Published research on PA treatments so far has compared children’s attitudes and behavior before treatment to their own attitudes and behavior ; this is not adequate because there is rapid developmental change in adolescence and because even low-conflict families go through many changes following divorce, with or without psychological treatment.
When attorneys and family court judges meet arguments about PA diagnoses and treatments, they need to think about the right questions to ask and to realize that the burden of proof on these topics is on those making the claims, not on those who deny the claims.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Mt. Holyoke College, 1959-1961
Occidental College. 1961-63; A.B. in Psychology, 1963
9/67-6/69 Norton, MA
State University College
9/69-6/71 Buffalo, NY
9/74-9/77 Pomona, NJ
Associate Professor, Professor,
9/77-2/81 Pomona NJ
Professor of Psychology,
2/81-2006 Pomona, NJ
Professor Emerita of Psychology, Richard Stockton College (now Stockton University), 2006--
Consulting reader, Infants and Young Children,1992- 2000
Editor, The Phoenix (NJAIMH Quarterly Newsletter), 1994-1999; Editor,
Nurture Notes (NJAIMH Newsletter), 2000-2001.
Association for Infant Mental Health, 1996-2000 New Jersey
Association for Infant Mental Health, 2000-2005 New Jersey
Past president, ex officio Board of Directors member, NJAIMH, 2005- 2009
Member, Prevention and Early Intervention Committee,
Community New Jersey
Mental Health Board, 2000-2002
Consulting editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 2002-2010
Care Campaign Advisory Committee, 2002-3 New Jersey
Fellow, Council for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health, 2003-2008
Faculty member, Youth Consultation Services Institute for Infant and Preschool Mental Health, 2003-
Chair, Board of Professional Advisors, Advocates for Children in Therapy, 2003--
Expert witness, Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, 2005
(license revocation matter)
[*Name was legally changed from Gene Alice Lester, May, 1977]
Expert witness, Middlesex NJ Family Court, 2005 (best interest hearing)
Member, "Critical Pathways" teleconference on training and credentials (formed after ZTT/Mailman Foundation Infant Mental Health Systems Development Summit Conference, September 2005)
Consultant, Thibault vs. Thibault, Paco County FL , 2006 (child custody and discipline matter)
Jovanna Vasquez, Santa Barbara County, CA, 2007 (child abuse matter) California
Reviewer, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2008.
Testimony, Robertson vs. Mannion, Montgomery County, PA, 2008 (child custody matter)
Founding member, Institute for Science in Medicine, 2009; Board of Directors, 2014-
Reviewer, Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, 2009-
Board of Directors, Delaware Valley Group of WAIMH, 2010—2014.
Co-director, PA-IMH infant mental health breakfast series, 2014-2017
Editorial board, Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 2014—
Reviewer, Professional Psychology, 2015—
Reviewer, Child and Family Social Work, 2015—
Reviewer, Evidence-based Practice in Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2016
Reviewer, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2017
Reviewer, Theory & Psychology, 2018
Expert witness, Sahar vs. Sahar, Yolo County, CA, 2018 (child custody/parental alienation matter)
American Psychological Association
Pennsylvania Association for Infant Mental Health
Society for Research in Child Development
Lester, G., & Morant, R. (1967). Sound localization during labyrinthian stimulation.
Proceedings of the 75th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, 1, 19-20.
Lester, G. (1968). The case for efferent change during prism adaptation. Journal of
Psychology, 68, 9-13.
Lester, G. (1968). The rod-and-frame test: Some comments on methodology. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 26, 1307-1314.
Lester, G. (1969). Comparison of five methods of presenting the rod-and-frame test.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29, 147-151.
Lester, G. (1969). The role of the felt position of the head in the audiogyral illusion. Acta
Psychologica, 31, 375-384.
Lester, G. (1969). Disconfirmation of an hypothesis about the Mueller-Lyer illusion.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29, 369-370.
Lester, D., & Lester, G. (1970). The problem of the less intelligent student in the introductory psychology course. The Clinical Psychologist, 23(4), 11-12.
Lester, G., & Lester, D. (1970). The fear of death, the fear of dying, and threshold differences for death words and neutral words. Omega,1, 175-180.
Lester, G. (1970). Haidinger’s brushes and the perception of polarization. Acta
Psychologica, 34, 107-114.
Lester, G., & Morant, R. (1970). Apparent sound displacement during vestibular stimulation. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 554-566.
Lester, G. (1971). Vestibular stimulation and auditory thresholds. Journal of General
Psychology, 85, 103-105.
Lester, G. (1971). Subjects’ assumptions and scores on the rod-and-frame test.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 205-206.
Lester, G., & Lester, D. (1971). Suicide: The gamble with death.
Cliffs, NJ: Englewood
Lester, D., & Lester, G. (1975). Crime of passion: Murder and the murderer. Chicago:
Lester, G., & Rando, H. (1975). No correlation between rod-and-frame and visual
normalization scores. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40, 846.
Lester, G., Bierbrauer, B., Selfridge, B., & Gomeringer, D. (1976). Distractibility,
intensity of reaction, and nonnutritive sucking. Psychological Reports, 39, 1212-1214.
Lester, G. (1977). Size constancy scaling and the apparent thickness of the shaft in the
Mueller-Lyer illusion. Journal of General Psychology, 97, 307-398.
Mercer, J. (1979). Small people: How children develop and what you can do about it.
Mercer, J. (1979). Personality development and the principle of reciprocal interweaving.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 186.
Mercer, J. (1979). Guided observations in child development. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
Mercer, J., & Russ, R. (1980). Variables affecting time between childbirth and the establishment of lactation. Journal of General Psychology, 102, 155-156.
Mercer, J., & McMurphy, C. (1985). A stereotyped following behavior in young children.
Journal of General Psychology, 112, 261-265.
Mercer, J. (1991). To everything there is a season: Development in the context of the
lifespan. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Mercer, J.,& Gonsalves, S. (1992). Parental experience during treatment of very small
preterm infants: Implications for mourning and for parent-infant relationships.
Illness, Crisis, and Loss, 2, 70-73.
Gonsalves, S., & Mercer, J. (1993). Physiological correlates of painful stimulation in preterm infants. Clinical Journal of Pain, 9, 88-93.
Mercer, J. (1998). Infant development: A multidisciplinary introduction. Belmont, CA:
Mercer, J. (1999). ‘Psychological parenting” explained (letter). New Jersey Lawyer, July 12, 7.
Mercer, J. (2000/2001). Letter. Zero to Three, 21(3), 39.
Mercer, J. (2001). Warning: Are you aware of “holding therapy?” (letter). Pediatrics, 107, 1498.
Mercer, J. (2001). “Attachment therapy” using deliberate restraint: An object lesson on the identification of unvalidated treatments. Journal of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Nursing, 14(3), 105-114. This paper is posted at
with permission of the publisher to the Child and Adolescent Bipolar
Mercer, J. (2002). Surrogate motherhood. In
N. Salkind (Ed.),
(pp. 399). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Mercer, J. (2002). Child psychotherapy involving physical restraint: Techniques used in four approaches. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 19(4), 303-314.
Kennedy, S.S., Mercer, J., Mohr, W., & Huffine, C.W. (2002). Snake oil, ethics, and the First Amendment: What’s a profession to do? American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 72(1), 5-15.
Mercer, J. (2002). Attachment therapy: A treatment without empirical support. Scientific
Review of Mental Health Practice, 1(2), 9-16. Reprinted in S.O. Lilienfeld, J. Ruscio, & S.J. Lynn (Eds.), Navigating the mindfield: A user’s guide to distinguishing science from pseudoscience (pp. 435-453). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Mercer, J. (2002). The difficulties of double blinding (letter). Science, 297, 2208.
Mercer, J. (2002) Attachment therapy. In M.Shermer (Ed.), The Skeptic Encyclopedia of
Pseudoscience (pp. 43-47) .Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Mercer, J., & Rosa, L. (2002). Letter on Attachment Therapy. New Jersey School
Psychologist, 24 (8), 16-18.
Mercer, J., Sarner, L., & Rosa, L. (2003). Attachment therapy on trial: The torture
and death of Candace Newmaker. Westport, CT: Praeger. (see also reviews in Scientific American, PsycCritique, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice).
Mercer, J. (2003). Letter to the editor. APSAC Advisor,15(3), 19.
Mercer, J. (2003) Attachment therapy and adopted children: A caution. Readers’
Forum. Contemporary Pediatrics, 20(10), 41.
Mercer, J. (2003). Violent therapies: The rationale behind a potentially harmful child psychotherapy and its acceptance by parents. Scientific Review of Mental Health
Practice, 2(1), 27-37.
Mercer, J. (2003). Media Watch: Radio and television programs approve of Coercive Restraint Therapies. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 2(2).
Mercer, J. (2004). The dangers of Attachment Therapy: Parent education needed.
Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 20(10), 1, 6-7.
Mercer, J. (2005). Bubbles, bottles, baby talk, and basketty. Early Childhood Health Link
(Newsletter of Healthy Child Care New Jersey), 4(1), 1-2.
Mercer, J. (2005). Coercive Restraint Therapies: A dangerous alternative mental health intervention. Medscape General Medicine, 7(3). (see also letters in subsequent issue). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508956.
Mercer, J. (2006). Understanding attachment: Parenthood, child care, and emotional development. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Mercer, J. (2006). IEPs and Reactive Attachment Disorder: Recognizing and addressing misinformation. Scope (Newsletter of the Washington State Association of School Psychologists), 28(3), 2-6.
Mercer, J., Misbach, A., Pennington, R., & Rosa, L. (2006). Letter to the editor (age regression definition). Child Maltreatment, 11, 378.
Mercer, J. (2007). Behaving yourself: Moral development in the secular family. In D..McGowan (Ed.), Parenting beyond belief (pp. 104-112). New York: Amacom Books.
Mercer, J., & Pignotti, M. (2007). Letter to the editor (neurofeedback research critique). International Journal of Behavioral and Consultation Therapy, 3 (2), 324-325
Pignotti, M., & Mercer, J. (2007). Holding Therapy and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy are not supported, acceptable social work interventions: A systematic research synthesis revisited. Research on Social Work Practice,17 (4), 513-519.
Mercer, J. (2007). Systematic child maltreatment: Connections with unconventional parent and professional education. Society for Child and Family Policy and Practice Advocate (Division 37 of APA), 30 (2), pp.5-6.
Mercer, J. ( 2007).Media Watch: Wikipedia and "open source" mental health information. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. 5(1), 88-92.
Mercer, J. (2007) Destructive trends in alternative infant mental health approaches. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 5(2), 44-58.
Mercer, J., & Pignotti, M. (2007). Shortcuts cause errors in Systematic Research Syntheses: Rethinking evaluation of mental health interventions. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 5 (2), 59-77.
Mercer, J. (2008). Minding controls in curriculum study (letter). Science, 319, 1184.
Mercer, J. (2009).Child Development: Myths and Misunderstandings.Los Angeles,CA: Sage.
Mercer, J., Pennington, R.S., Pignotti, M., & Rosa, L. (2010). Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy is not "evidence-based": Comments in response to Becker-Weidman and Hughes (2009). Child and Family Social Work, 15, 1-5. http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=1356-7500 . DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00609.x.
Mercer, J. (2009). Child custody evaluations, attachment theory, and an attachment measure: The science remains limited. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 7(1), 37-54.
Mercer, J. (2010). Themes and variations in development: Can nanny-bots act like human caregivers? Interaction Studies, 11(2), 233-237.
Mercer, J. (2011). Attachment theory and its vicissitudes: Toward an updated theory. Theory and Psychology, 21, 25-45.
Mercer, J. (2011). The concept of psychological regression: Metaphors, mapping, Queen Square, and Tavistock Square. History of Psychology,14, 174-196.
Mercer, J. (2011). Some aspects of CAM mental health interventions: Regression, recapitulation, and “secret sympathies”. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 8, 36-55.
Mercer, J. (2011). Book review: Rachel Stryker’s (2010) The road to Evergreen. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 8, 69-74.
Mercer.J. (2011). Martial arts research: Weak evidence. (Letter). Science, 334, 310-311.
Mercer, J. (2012). Reply to Sudbery, Shardlow, and Huntington: Holding therapy. British Journal of Social Work, 42, 556-559 . DOI: 10.1093/bjsw.bcr078.
Mercer, J. (2013). Child development: Myths and misunderstandings, 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mercer, J., (2013). Deliverance, demonic possession, and mental illness: Some considerations for mental health professionals. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture 16(6), 596-611. DOI:10.1080.13674676.2012.707272.
Mercer, J. (2013). Attachment in children and adolescents. (Childhood Studies section). H. Montgomery (Ed.), Oxford Bibliographies Online. www.oxfordbibliographies.com.
Mercer, J. (2013). Holding Therapy in Britain: Historical background, recent events, and ethical concerns. Adoption & Fostering, 37(2), 144-156.
Mercer, J. (2013). Holding therapy: A harmful alternative mental health intervention. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 18(2), 70-76.
Mercer, J. (2013). Giving parents information about Reactive Attachment Disorder: Some problems. Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 29 (8), 1, 6-7.
Mercer, J. (2014). International concerns about Holding Therapy. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(2), 188-191.
Mercer, J. (2014). Children in institutions. (Letter). Zero to Three, 34(4), 4.
Mercer, J. (2014). Examining Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy as a treatment for adopted and foster children. Research on Social Work Practice, 24, 715-724. Doi:10.11771049731513513516803.
Mercer, J., ( 2014). Alternative psychotherapies: Evaluating unconventional mental health treatments. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
[Review: Thyer, B. (2015). Playing whack-a-mole with pseudoscientific psychotherapies. PsycCritiques, 60(28), Article 5.]
Mercer, J. (2014). Parenting: Section deserves a scolding (LTE). Science, 345(6204), 1571.
Mercer, J. (2015). Attachment therapy. In S.O. Lilienfeld, S.J. Lynn, & J.M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (2nd edition) (pp. 466-499). New York: Guilford.
Mercer, J. (2015). Attachment therapies. In R. Cautin & S.O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), Encyclopedia of clinical psychology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mercer, J. (2015). Controversial therapies. In R. Cautin & S.O.Lilienfeld (Eds.), Encyclopedia of clinical psychology. New York:Wiley-Blackwell.
Mercer, J. (2015). Thinking critically about child development: Examining myths and misunderstandings ( 3rd ed. of Child development: Myths and misunderstandings).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mercer, J. (2015). Revisiting an article about Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: The life cycle of a “woozle”. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 32(5), 397-404.
Mercer, J. (2015), Examining Circle of Security: A review of research and theory. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(3), 382-392.
Mercer, J. (2017). Evidence of potentially harmful psychological treatments for children and adolescents. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 34, 107-125.. DOI: 1007/s10560-016-0480-2. Available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10560-016-0480-2?sap-outbound-id=15F8540F330C2FDCFB43493B1AD91F0D8FA120D8&utm_source=SAPHybris&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3068&utm_term=CtW_Authors___DA-ZIC_DC_EMAIL_STAR-DC_PERSONALIZATION03&utm_content=EN
Mercer, J. (2017). Examining DIR/Floortime as a treatment for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(5),625-637.
Mercer, J. (2017). Conventional and unconventional perspectives on attachment and attachment problems: Comparisons and implications, 2006-2016. Child and Adolescent Social Work. http://rdcu.be/u2u2.
Mercer, J. (2018). Child development: Concepts and theories. London: Sage.
Mercer, J., Hupp, S., & Jewell, J. (2019). Thinking critically about child development (4th edition). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Mercer, J. (2019). Are parental alienation treatments safe and effective for children and adolescents? Journal of Child Custody. DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2018.1557578
Mercer, J. (2019). Chto takoe privyazannost? Ehmocionalnoe razvitie, roditelstvo, uhod za detmi. Translation of Understanding attachment. Moscow: Cogito-Centre, 2019.
Mercer, J. (2019). Response to Comments on "Conventional and Unconventional Perspectives on Attachment and Attachment Problems: Comparisons and Implications, 2006-2016." Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. DOI: 10.1007/s10560-019-00608-9
Hupp, S., Mercer, J., Thyer, B., & Pignotti, M. (2019). Critical thinking about psychotherapy. In
S. Hupp (Ed.), Pseudoscience in child and adolescent psychotherapy (pp. 1-13).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mercer, J. (2019). Trauma and attachment. In S. Hupp (Ed.), Pseudoscience in child and
adolescent psychotherapy (pp. 172-188). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
UNPUBLISHED/ IN PREPARATION:
Lester, G. (1968). Some investigations of the audiogyral illusion. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
. Brandeis University
Mercer, J. (1993) The successful single parent. Unpublished book-length ms.
Mercer, J. The developing child in
changing times: Infancy through adolescence Unpublished book-length ms.
Invited comments on the New Jersey Children’s Initiative proposal (
March 10, 2000);
with Gerard Costa and Elaine Herzog.
Invited comments on the U.S. Bright Futures children’s mental health proposal (July 5, 2000); with Gerard Costa.
Mercer, J. (2000). Notes on Attachment Therapy: Relevant Research and Theory. Prepared for use by the prosecution in the trial of Connell Watkins, Colorado, April 2001.
Sarner, L., & Mercer, J. (2003). Statement to Human Resources Subcommittee of House Ways and Means Committee. http:// waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode+view&id+1342.
Mercer, J. (January, 2005). Expert witness report. State of Utah Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing. Case number 2002-223.
Mercer, J. (April, 2005). Expert witness report. Child custody case, Middlesex Family Court, New Brunswick, NJ.
Mercer, J. (October, 2006). Expert witness report. Child custody case,
. Pasco County, Florida
Mercer, J. ( Associate editor; in production). Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. (S. Hupp & J. Jewell, Eds.)
Mercer, J. (in preproduction). Attachment research. In S.Hupp & J.Jewell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Mercer, J. (in production). Perinatal mood disorders. In S.Hupp & J.Jewell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
BLOGS AND OTHER INTERNET MATERIALS:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/161745967794736/ Psychology Continuing Education Watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIa27ptA3WQ&feature=youtu.be (article summary)
Remarks to Russian psychology conference, presented by Dr. Michael Ivanov (2016): https://vimeo.com/159317432
“Attachment therapies and associated parenting techniques.” www.scienceinmedicine.org/policy/papers/AttachmentTherapy.pdf.
“Critical thinking and the mastery of child development concepts.” www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/critical-thinking.html.
Various presentations on child development and parenting issues to parent groups and
training workshops, including CASA.
“Law, policy, and attachment issues”; presentation at the Second Annual Conference on Attachment of the New Jersey Psychological Association. June 9, 2000, Newark, NJ (Social work CE units).
“Custody changes and their effect on children’s development”; presentation at New Jersey State Child Placement Advisory Council conference, April, 2001 (Social work CE units).
“Bad language: How the professions confuse each other with words,” welcoming address at conference on Attachment, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health,
Piscataway, NJ, April, 2002 (Social work CE units).
“That cranky, crying baby”; presentation at National Association for Education of Young Children Conference on Health in Child Care, Princeton, NJ, May, 2002; repeated May, 2003, May, 2004.
“Warning Signals: When parents consider unusual mental health treatments for their children”; presentation at Third Annual Multicultural Health Conference, Richard Stockton College, Pomona, NJ, Sept. 2002.
“Misuse and abuse of attachment theory”; keynote speech at 2002 Annual Meeting, New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health, Piscataway, NJ, Nov. 2002.
“Attachment Therapy: Science adversaries appeal to scientific evidence.” Institute of Contemporary British History conference, “Science, Its Advocates and Adversaries”, London, July 7-9, 2003.
“Analyzing Attachment Therapy”, at “Right From the Start: Supporting the Earliest Relationships and their Impact on Later Years,” professional conference presented by Youth Consultation Services Institute for Infant and Preschool Mental Health, Newark, Sept. 24-25, 2003 (continuing professional education credit-bearing).
“Principles of Infant Mental Health”, at “What Does Infant Mental Health Mean to Me?”, professional conference sponsored by New Jersey Association for Infant Mental Health, Gateway Maternal-Child Health Consortium, Northwest Maternal-Child Health Consortium, Piscataway, NJ, Nov. 13, 2003 (continuing professional education credit- bearing).
“Attachment and Attachment Therapy: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, at annual meeting, Gateway Maternal-Child Health Consortium. East Orange, NJ, March 25, 2004 (Continuing professional education credit).
“Attachment.” Annual conference of New Jersey Association for Education of Young Children, East Brunswick, NJ, Oct. 16, 2004 (continuing professional education
Discussion of Attachment Therapy. “All in the Mind”, Australian Broadcasting Company, Dec. 18, 2004. Transcript available at http://abc.net.au/rn/science/mind.
“Attachment: Social and Emotional Development from Birth to Preschool.” Conference of Coalition of Infant and Toddler Educators, East Brunswick, NJ, March 18, 2005.
“Attachment Therapy: Concerns on Unvalidated Treatments.” Institute for Infant and Preschool Mental Health Didactic Series, Youth Consultation Service, East Orange, NJ, May 12, 2005.
"Violent therapies with children: History and theory.” 9th International Family Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH, July 11, 2005.
Invited state delegate and
presenter, Infant Mental Health Systems Development Summit conference,
sponsored by Mailman Foundation/Zero to Three. New Jersey ,
Sept. 22-24, 2005. Washington DC
New Jersey Perinatal Mood Disorders training program presentations, 2005-2006.
“Dangerous therapies”, with Alan Misbach. LCSW. Independent Educational Consultants Association conference,
, Nov. 14, 2005. Philadelphia
"Attachment Therapy". Institute for Infant and Preschool Mental Health Didactic Series, Youth Consultation Service, East Orange, NJ, April 27, 2006.
"Attachment Therapy" comments, Paula Zahn show, CNN, Nov. 14, 2006.
"Attachment Therapy" comments, Court TV, Nov. 27, 2006.
"Understanding attachment." Delaware Valley Group, WAIMH.
Dec. 1, 2006.
"Strategies for picky eaters." Jan 31, 2007, NJ WIC training, Ewing, NJ.
"Just the facts, ma'am: Asking and answering the right questions about evidence-based treatment."
Association for Infant Mental Health, Florida Ft.
Panel on secular parenting, moderated by Dale McGowan. Atheist
Sept. 29, 2007. Arlington, VA
"Circumstantial Evidence: Evaluating Design and Details of Outcome Research" (poster presentation). Dec. 1, 2007. Zero to Three National Training Institute, Orlando, Florida.
"Theory of Mind: A New Approach to Attachment." Conference of Coalition of Infant and Toddler Educators, New Brunswick, NJ, March 14, 2008.
"Novel Unsupported Therapies: Pseudoscientific and Cult-like". With Monica Pignotti and James Herbert. International Cultic Studies Association conference, Philadelphia, June 27, 2008.
"Attachment Theory, Evidence-based Practice, and Rogue Therapies: Using and Misusing the Concept of Attachment." With R.S. Pennington, L. Rosa, and L. Sarner. Wisconsin School Psychologists Association conference, LaCrosse, WI, Oct. 29, 2008.
"Are There Research-based Child Custody Evaluations? An Ongoing Case and an Ongoing Discussion." Annual Conference,
for Infant Mental Health, Dec. 12, 2008, North Brunswick, NJ. New Jersey
“A Problematic Parenting Pattern Associated With Child Deaths.” Eastern Psychological Association, March7, 2009, Pittsburgh, PA.
“Personalities and Power Struggles: Discipline, Temperament, and Attachment.” Coalition of Infant and Toddler Educators Annual Conference, March 14, 2009, Somerset, NJ.
“Don’t Be So [Un]critical! Using Critical Thinking to Foster Mastery of Child development Concepts.” Developmental Science Teaching Institute, Society for Research in Child Development, April 1, 2009, Denver, CO.
“Psychological Concepts and Measures in the Family Court”. Judicial Orientation, Essex Vicinage (NJ). Princeton, NJ, Oct. 2, 2009. (With Michelle DeKlyen, Ph.D.)
“Are There Research-Based Child Custody Evaluations?”. Conference on Infants and Children in the Courts, sponsored by Youth Consultation Service and NJAIMH; Clara Maass Medical Center, Belleville, NJ, March 19, 2010.
“Unconventional Psychotherapies: Some Questions About Their History.” Eastern Psychological Association, March 11, 2011, Cambridge, MA.
“Myths and Misunderstandings.” Conference of the Delaware Valley Group of the World Association for Infant Mental Health, Feb. 3, 2012, Philadelphia, PA.
Comments on Attachment Therapy and treatment of Russian adoptees. “Life with Mikhail Zelensky”, Rossiya-1 TV, Feb. 21, 2013.
“Fetal Psychology in Psychohistory.” Eastern Psychological Association, March 2, 2013, New York.
“Jirina Prekopova’s holding therapy: Scientifically founded or otherwise?” Conference of the International Working Group on Abuse in Child Psychotherapy, April 20, 2013, London.
“ ‘Nancy Thomas parenting’ in the U.S. and Russia: Another part of the holding therapy problem.” With Yulia Massino. Conference of the International Working Group on Abuse in Child Psychotherapy, April 20, 2013, London.
Testimony on “conversion therapy” bill, New Jersey State Assembly committee, June, 2013, Trenton.
“Evidence-based treatment versus alternative psychotherapies.” APLA (Associace pomahajic lidem s autismem; Czech division of Autism Europe), October 17, 2013, Prague, CR.
“What are holding therapies?” APLA, October 19, 2013, Samechov, CR.
“About attachment”. PA-IMH breakfast group, Oct. 3, 2014, Philadelphia, PA. APA CEUs given.
“Systematic misunderstandings about attachment. Nov. 20, 2014, ABCT, Philadelphia, PA. Preconference, “Social Learning”.
“Legislation to prohibit potentially harmful psychotherapies for children: Three cases.” Poster presentation, APA, Toronto, 2015.
“Challenges of disseminating evidence-based material through the Web.” . Symposium: The Role of Technology in Disseminating Psychology. APA, Toronto, 2015.
“Born that way! The role of temperament”. PA-IMH breakfast group, Oct. 2, 2015.
“Temperament.” Philadelphia School for the Deaf, Jan. 27, 2016.
“Evaluating mental health interventions on Internet registries.” PA-IMH breakfast group, Sept. 9, 2016 (2 CEs).
“Internet registries and clearinghouses: Evaluation of mental health interventions for children.” NCCCP, Lawrence, KS, Sept. 23, 2016.
“Modern myths and misperceptions: Parental Alienation”. With Steve Hupp. ABCT Social Learning and the Family Preconference. New York, Oct. 26, 2016.
“Changing concepts of attachment”. PA-IMH breakfast group, April 7, 2017 (2 CEs).
“Potentially harmful psychotherapies for children: How not to be addicted to pseudoscience and popular beliefs.” Conference on Modern Challenges: Psychology of Addictions, sponsored by Moscow Psychoanalytic Institute and PSYCHOLOGIES, Moscow, Feb 10, 2018. (Presentation by Skype.) Available at https://yadi.sk/i/fMGcDn_e3TS5fZ.
“Pseudoscience and Potentially Harmful Treatments for Children.” Workshop for College of Educational and Developmental Psychologists, Hobart, Tasmania, May 9, 2018. 4 CE credits, Australian Psychological Society.
“A pattern of systematic abuse associated with beliefs and instruction.” Poster with Alan Misbach. APSAC Colloquium, New Orleans. June 14, 2018.
“Family engagement, trauma, and attachment. “ Presented to PAIMH groups; Philadelphia, Sept. 7, 2018, Bethlehem PA, Sept. 14, 2018. (meets criteria for IMH endorsement credit)
Panelist, “A duty to warn? A discussion of potentially harmful therapies.” ABCT conference, Nov. 17, 2018, Washington, DC. Amanda Jensen-Doss, moderator.
“Examining the unexamined belief: Claim, ground, warrant, and critical thinking about child development.” Round table with Steve Hupp. Society for Research in Child Development
Teaching Institute, Baltimore, March 20, 2019.