Tsiaras Law: Pseudoscience and the inspirers of «reunification camps» in Parliament

Article by Mariniki Alevizopoulou and Yiannis Orestis PapadimitriouSource: tvxs.gr
Date: 16/05/2021
Link: https://tvxs.gr/news/ellada/osa-krybei-i-epistimi-tis-eksanagkastikis-synepimeleiasThe problem with the promise of a science that produces conclusions about the world without the burden of political bias had already been identified since the early 20th century. By its middle, that promise had been abandoned. It is therefore undoubtedly interesting that such a self-satisfied version of science reappeared in the marathon discussion held last Thursday in Parliament's Committee on Public Administration, Public Order and Justice, where experts and organizations exchanged views with party representatives on the Tsiaras bill introducing mandatory joint custody of children after divorce.

It was, in fact, the opening statement of the discussion, that of the representative of the Hellenic Psychological Society (ELPSE) and Assistant Professor at the University of Athens (EKPA), Ms. Marietta Papadatou-Pastou, which, upon careful examination, reveals all the biases that supporters of the Tsiaras bill—now organized into a particularly powerful and pervasive lobby—invoke as "objective science" to substantiate their positions.

Admittedly, even in the public discussion on the issue, the view repeatedly expressed by Ms. Papadatou-Pastou was particularly original: that the proposed time ("at least 35%" - "ideally 50-50") of staying with the child can be shared between both parents even from infancy—she even emphasized the benefits for the child when caregivers alternate. The rest of her argumentation constituted an over-affirmation of the Tsiaras bill, not at all dissimilar to what we hear from the representatives of organized pressure groups in favor of mandatory joint custody, groups that have often hosted her views on their websites and social media.

The problem with Ms. Papadatou-Pastou's opening and follow-up remarks, however, lies not only in what she said but mainly in what she based it on. Although she ultimately refused to specify the sources from which she draws her conclusions, the two she did name—one domestic and one foreign—demonstrate a failure to adequately reflect on the validity of her conclusions and reasonably cast doubt on the sources she did not name as well.

The domestic source was Professor Ilias Kourkoutas of the University of Crete, himself also a member of ELPSE, equally popular—if not more so—than Ms. Papadatou-Pastou among the pressure groups for mandatory joint custody. The two of them have represented ELPSE in the public dialogue on the issue, although they are not among the governing members or coordinators of the Society's individual divisions.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with citing a scientist specializing in Child Psychology. But when an issue divides the scientific community worldwide to the degree that mandatory joint custody does, invoking a single scientist makes sense only when that person represents the consensus (the broadly shared agreement) of the scientific community. On this particular issue, to the extent that a consensus exists, it certainly is not represented by Mr. Kourkoutas's conclusions. Even more so since he himself often relies in turn on the other source cited by Ms. Papadatou-Pastou.

This source is none other than the notorious "Warshak report," a 2014 text by American psychologist Richard Warshak, which, as Ms. Papadatou-Pastou informed us, was endorsed by 110 scientists in the field and the American Psychological Association. The author of the text was a student of psychologist Richard Gardner, who introduced the concept of "Parental Alienation Syndrome," and heir to the scientific material he left behind. Since Gardner's death in 2003, Warshak has become the continuer of his theories on "parental alienation" and, by extension, the primary scientific alibi for advocates of mandatory joint custody.

This "report" cited by Ms. Papadatou-Pastou has a number of problems, the first of which is that it is not a report. It is a paper published in the pluralistic journal of the American Psychological Association, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, as part of scientific discourse, which argued, by synthesizing the literature on Parental Alienation, that equal time with both parents is proven beneficial for children under four years old. It is only the somewhat brazen title "a consensus report," given by the author himself, that makes it a "report," although neither its sources nor the text itself represent any "consensus" whatsoever, given that they have received and continue to receive criticism from a large part of the scientific community.

As for the official position of the American Psychological Association on Warshak and "Parental Alienation Syndrome," this is shown in the relevant entry of the Association's Dictionary: "The syndrome has been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association, due to a lack of empirical and clinical evidence to support it, and it is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)."

When the absence of the Syndrome from the DSM was pointed out to Ms. Papadatou-Pastou, her response was interesting: "It is not included in diagnostic manuals as parental alienation, but it is described under other terms in the chapter 'Problems in Parental Relations.'" It's a bit like saying that a package of pasta, ground meat, and béchamel sauce is exactly the same thing as a pastitsio.

It should also be noted that it is entirely unusual for 110 signatures to be collected from experts in support of a scientific paper. This indicates more the politicization of a conclusion than its common acceptance by the scientific community.

The reference to Warshak becomes doubly unfortunate when we consider that his work is not merely theoretical. For at least eleven years, he has actively supported and collaborated with various "workshops" against parental alienation, most notably the largest of these, based in California, called Family Bridges. These workshops, called "reunification camps" or "Rand and Warshak camps" by their critics, were founded by Randy Rand, a former psychologist whose professional license was revoked in 2009 for violating the duties of a psychologist-mediator in two family law court cases.

Since then, Family Bridges has begun presenting itself as "educational," rather than "therapeutic," workshops. According to the American network NBC, this has allowed them to operate without state oversight. The penetration of the ideas on which they are based—aided by relevant lobbying—has led to an industry of court orders in the USA, as well as in Canada, sending children of divorce to these workshops, whose cost starts at $20,000. A highly profitable activity that is not founded on any scientific certainty and operates without any state certification.

As for what happens when ideas about "parental alienation" are put into practice, in an extensive article titled "When a Child Is a Weapon," published in The Atlantic in December 2020, the founder of the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma likewise describes Family Bridges as "torture camps for children." The article talks about children who developed suicidal ideation within the program, suffered panic attacks, while one of them still describes themselves as "emotionally destroyed by the program."

The three children—now adults—who spoke to NBC about the program state, among other things, that "they wouldn't wish this on anyone" and that they all came out of it "hating" one parent. In another article by the American network from 2018, children who went through Family Bridges speak of manipulation and intimidation tactics.

In a recent podcast by Reveal, the award-winning Center for Investigative Reporting in the USA, the traumatic moment is described through primary testimonies of two siblings leaving the courtroom escorted by police to be transferred to a Family Bridges facility. Inside the program, they describe feeling "captive" and "trapped," and testify that Rand and Warshak themselves told them they would not get out until they admitted their father had brainwashed them.

There is a pattern in all the testimonies gathered by the journalistic investigation into Family Bridges: the side of the "alienated" parent proposes recourse to such a program in court; the court accepts it (in 27% of cases in Canada, and presumably a higher percentage in the USA); the parents pay an exorbitant amount for the program; the children go through a systematic "education" that changes their preference for a parent; the children are removed from the parent who had original custody and may not see them for years. As a lawyer testified in a relevant Washington Post investigation in 2017: "These programs are essentially scams. It's clear to me that they were making exorbitant amounts of money by selling a change of custody." Richard Warshak himself refused to speak to the newspaper, likely because legal action against him was pending, the outcome of which we were unable to learn.

It is therefore strange that Ms. Papadatou-Pastou considered it appropriate to base her argumentation on a person whose theories do not fall, even remotely, within the scientific consensus, while his clinical work appears to fall within the sphere of criminal procedure.

In her follow-up remarks, when the Committee questioned the validity of her sources, her answer was that she is a professor at EKPA. The circularity of the argument (a kind of "it's true because I say so") is obvious. By the same logic, we could say that since there is a news article presenting Ms. Papadatou-Pastou as having obtained her position at EKPA as the daughter of an EKPA professor, we could accept it as accurate simply because we are journalists and therefore qualified to judge. Of course, we do not do this, because it would violate journalistic ethics in exactly the same way that she violates scientific method.

Theoretically, it is not improper for a scientist to be drawn to someone's conclusions, even if that someone does not belong to the scientific consensus. This could even be considered healthy—although in this particular case, the reports in the American press should raise concerns. However, what creates a problem is when this contrarian view simply self-designates as "consensus," conspicuously bypassing the rigor of scientific discourse.

If these things are presented as "science" by someone with Ms. Papadatou-Pastou's résumé, we can only imagine what else has been cloaked in scientific garb in the public discussion on joint custody, in order to hide the fact that the issue is highly political, and that the position one takes answers fundamental questions, such as what should take priority in the terms of a divorce: the rights of the child, or those of the parent claiming to be "alienated"?

The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu devoted a large part of his life to studying the slippages that stem from bias and affect scientific method. The only solution he found was continuous critical reflection on the position from which the researcher speaks and their potential biases. If Ms. Papadatou-Pastou is looking for summer reading, she could set Warshak aside for a while and pick up Bourdieu instead. She might just like it.

* Mariniki Alevizopoulou and Yiannis-Orestis Papadimitriou are members of the investigative journalism team The Manifold.