Rebuttal to Kathleen Faller's Article
By Richard A. Gardner, M.D.

Kathleen Faller, DSW published her article, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Is It and What Data Support It?"in the May 1998 issue of Child Maltreatment, 3(2):100-115.

This article was published less than a year after I testified in support of a plaintiff in a malpractice lawsuit against her and members of her department at the University of Michigan (The case file is public record.)

Below is my response, published in the November 1998 issue of Child Maltreatment, 3(4):309-312.

On the one hand, I was quite flattered that Dr. Faller saw fit to dedicate herself so assiduously to write about the PAS, a disorder about which I have written so extensively in the last 13 years, a disorder with which my name has become closely associated. On the other hand, the article is so filled with misrepresentations and misperceptions that it is a disservice to the reader to take much of it seriously, especially because many of the things Dr. Faller says have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have ever written or said. I enumerate some of the most egregious examples.

On page 100, right side of page, top paragraph, line 3, Faller states, with regard to PAS behaviors:

I have never said that, nor do I believe it. I have never in any of my writings provided a percentage, especially a percentage that would imply or even suggest that most of PAS cases "include an allegation of sexual abuse." My own experiences have been that in possibly 10 or 15 percent of all PAS cases in which I have been involved, does a sex abuse accusation emerge.

Page 100, right, second full paragraph, Faller states that a sex-abuse accusation is "its usual product." Again, the same misrepresentation.

Page 101, column 2, bottom, paragraph 4 (near bottom), Faller states:

In the Introductory section of my 1992 PAS book (Gardner, 1992a) (the one she refers to in her article), page xviii, first full paragraph (bottom):

Furthermore, on page 86, paragraph 2, of my 1992 PAS book I state:

Page 102, left side, 2nd full paragraph, line 2, Faller states:

I have never said this. What I have said is that the child may view the accused parent to be an abandoner, but I do not claim that he (or she) is an abandoner. In fact, when the accused parent is an abandoner the PAS diagnosis is not applicable because the children’s anger is warranted.

In the 1992 edition of my PAS book, page 119, first full paragraph, lines 9-11, I state:

We see here how the selective omission of one word completely misrepresents my position.

Page 102, fifth full paragraph. Faller states:

Again, there is absolutely nothing in my writings to support this misrepresentation. In all my publications I have described fathers as potential aggressors and sometimes as the stronger of the two parents, i.e., fathers as possible PAS inducers. In fact, the money-power factor is often operative in enabling PAS-inducing fathers to override earlier stronger bonding that the children have had with their mothers.

In my 1992 PAS book I do describe many situations in which the father is the aggressor and becomes the stronger of the two parents. Specifically, I state (bottom of page 106 to the top of 107):

Page 104, left side, first full paragraph, lines 4-8, Faller states:

This statement is ludicrous. Faller would have the reader believe that I do not think there are any situations in which a mother, after discovering the father in an incestuous relationship with the child, asks the father to leave the home and institutes divorce proceedings. Not only is this an absurd statement, but there is absolutely nothing in any of my writings to provide any credibility for this allegation. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that when true abuse is present (and incest is one example of such abuse), then the PAS disagnosis is not applicable in that the children’s animosity is justified.

Page 105, left column, first full paragraph. Faller states:

Faller is correct here that I consider the term "validator" problematic because it implies that the evaluator is biased toward concluding that the sexual abuse actually took place. The implication here, also, is that I believe that people involved in sex abuse cases are operating under a high level of sexual excitation. Again, this is absurd. The media knows well that sex and violence attract attention and satisfy morbid curiosity. All I am saying is that sex-abuse evaluators are no exception to this principle. Last, she does quote me correctly in stating that I do believe that one of the great problems in the field is the large number of poorly educated, poorly trained, and incompetent individuals who use flawed techniques and "lead hundreds of children to falsely claim or affirm sexual victimization." This does not preclude, however (and I state this repeatedly in my writings), that bona fide sex-abuse is a widespread phenomenon. I have no problem viewing two groups: truly accusing and falsely accusing children. I have no problem, either, believing that the group of genuinely accusing children far outnumbers the group of falsely accusing.

Page 106, left column, bottom paragraph. Faller states:

There is no question that the statement is valid. I am not claiming, as is implied by Faller’s statement, that I view all, or almost all, female therapists to fall into this category. No one will ever know the percentage of female therapists who are paranoid, nor will one ever know the percentage of male therapists who are paranoid. All I am saying is that there are some who are indeed man haters, and who do indeed partake in a folie a trois relationship with their patients. Similarly, there are male therapists (again percentage unknown) who are women haters and will join in with their male patients in a folie a trois relationship.

Page 106, right side, paragraph 1, line 1. Faller states:

Again, a gross misrepresentation. I have published approximately 150 articles, none of which have been published by myself. With regard to my books, it is true that since 1978 I have published most of my books through my own publishing company, Creative Therapeutics, Inc. However, prior to that time, I published books through the following well-known publishers: Bantam Books, 5; Prentice-Hall, 2; Doubleday, 1; Avon, 1, G.P. Putnams, 1; and Jason Aronson, 6. The last Bantam Book was published in 1992 and, more importantly, invitations from major publishers have always been forthcoming. Furthermore, Creative Therapeutics does not publish any of the foreign translations of my books, which include: Spanish, French, Dutch, Italian, Japanese, Czech, and Hebrew.

In the same paragraph Faller states (page 106, upper right paragraph):

The facts are that I have published about 115 peer-reviewed articles.

Faller then goes on to criticize my 1995 book, Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation (1995). The book lists 62 criteria for differentiating between true and false sex abuse accusations made by children. When one reads her article, one would think the total protocol is worthless and that there is not one single criterion that is of any value. The fact is that every one of the criteria is valuable and the vast majority are routinely used. In fact, no competent professional has ever come forth and said that any particular criterion is of no value. The usual critique is that the total protocol has not been scientifically validated, something which is obviously impossible because one cannot have external validity for a sex-abuse protocol. Each of the criteria can be scientifically assessed as to whether or not it appears in children who have been documented to have been sexually abused. She also critiques the 26 criteria I use for assessing for the presence of pedophilic tendencies. Again, all of these are criteria derived from the scientific literature on the behavioral characteristics of pedophiles. Again, she cannot take issue with any single criterion because they are all well substantiated in the scientific literature.

Page 110, right, third full paragraph, line 3. Faller states:

There is absolutely no place where I make the statement that this occurs every time. What I do say is that sex and violence cases are much more attractive to most people because of the morbid curiosity and mild vicarious gratification that many people get from them. Faller implies here that it is my opinion that these cases routinely produce high levels of sexual excitation in everybody involved in these cases. This is gross misrepresentation.

Page 111, left. Here Faller claims that the parental alienation syndrome is not a syndrome. She quotes the APA’s 1994 definition of a syndrome (page 111, left column, third full paragraph): "A group of symptoms that occur together and that constitute a recognizable condition."

The PAS is a syndrome by this definition. In the PAS, especially in the moderate (and almost routinely in the severe type) most, if not all, of the following eight symptoms occur together as a cluster:

Page 112, right, first full paragraph. Faller states:

Basically, what Faller is saying here is that I do not consider bona fide abuse to be a possible explanation for the child’s animosity. This is absurd.

In my 1992 PAS book, Introduction, page xviii, first full paragraph (bottom), I state:

Furthermore, and more importantly, in the 1998 update of my PAS book (which was published simultaneously with Faller’s article and so she cannot be faulted for not having considered it in her article), there is a chapter (Chapter 9) entitled, "Differentiating Between the Parental Alienation Syndrome and Bona Fide Abuse/Neglect." Another book of mine, Psychotherapy with Sex-Abuse Victims: True, False, and Hysterical (1996), devotes approximately one-third of the book to the treatment of genuinely abused children. Even more importantly, for every one of the 62 criteria for differentiating between a true and false sex-abuse accusation, I describe the manifestations that are seen when the accusation is likely to be true and those that are likely to be seen when the sex-abuse accusation is false.

Faller goes on to discuss the Sex-Abuse Legitimacy Scale. Here she is beating a dead horse. She notes correctly that the term does not appear in my 1995 book, but she does not tell the reader the reasons for my dropping the term, which are clearly spelled out in my 1992b book (pages 34-35). In short, I describe therein how the scoring system was being frequently misused, sometimes in dangerous ways. Accordingly, I dispensed with the scoring system and, over years, have been able to add new criteria in all categories (accuser, accused, and the alleged child victim). Not only does Faller ignore my statement that I have not used the term SAL-Scale since 1990, but has entitled the Appendix with a bizarre and misleading title (page 112, right column), which indicates an impossible 1992 publication of the SAL-Scale:

I believe you have done your readers, and more importantly, your readers’ patients, a serious disservice by publishing this extremely biased and misleading article. The title of the article, "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: What It Is and What Data Support It?" belies at the outset her bias: by virtue of the question mark. The answer to the question: "What Data Support It?" is to be found at my website, which is rapidly expanding. There is the data if Dr. Faller wishes to avail herself of the opportunity to answer that question for herself.

REFERENCES