Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1250145
Sarah Miragoli, E. Camisasca, P. Di Blasio, Luca Milani, C. Ionio, Nico Gizzi, Angela Cammarella, M. M. Togliatti
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and ability of the Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory to discriminate parents in an Italian sample who are physically child abusive and physically nonabusive parents. The CAP Inventory and measures on parenting stress (PSI-SF) and parents’ attributions of child adjustment (CBCL) were administered in a sample of 37 abusive and 102 nonabusive parents in an Italian sample: Both groups of the respondents were similar in age, gender, marital status, and education. The Abuse scale showed adequate internal consistency (α = .86) and 52 items significantly discriminate between abusive and nonabusive parents. Moreover, the mean score of abusive parents (M = 194.5) was significantly higher than the mean score of nonabusive parents (M = 78) and the Abuse scale was correlated with parenting stress and parental perceptions of maladjustment in children (in terms of internalizing and externalizing symptoms). Finally, with the cut-off suggested in the original version of the CAP Inventory (Milner, 1986) when abusive and nonabusive groups are compared (166), the Abuse scale correctly classified 70.3% of the abusive group and 100% of the nonabusive group. These results showed adequate reliability and validity of the Abuse scale for Italy.
{"title":"Child abuse potential inventory in Italy: A comparative study of abusive and nonabusive parents","authors":"Sarah Miragoli, E. Camisasca, P. Di Blasio, Luca Milani, C. Ionio, Nico Gizzi, Angela Cammarella, M. M. Togliatti","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1250145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1250145","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and ability of the Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory to discriminate parents in an Italian sample who are physically child abusive and physically nonabusive parents. The CAP Inventory and measures on parenting stress (PSI-SF) and parents’ attributions of child adjustment (CBCL) were administered in a sample of 37 abusive and 102 nonabusive parents in an Italian sample: Both groups of the respondents were similar in age, gender, marital status, and education. The Abuse scale showed adequate internal consistency (α = .86) and 52 items significantly discriminate between abusive and nonabusive parents. Moreover, the mean score of abusive parents (M = 194.5) was significantly higher than the mean score of nonabusive parents (M = 78) and the Abuse scale was correlated with parenting stress and parental perceptions of maladjustment in children (in terms of internalizing and externalizing symptoms). Finally, with the cut-off suggested in the original version of the CAP Inventory (Milner, 1986) when abusive and nonabusive groups are compared (166), the Abuse scale correctly classified 70.3% of the abusive group and 100% of the nonabusive group. These results showed adequate reliability and validity of the Abuse scale for Italy.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75783912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1267522
R. Geffner
{"title":"Editor’s note and reviewer acknowledgments","authors":"R. Geffner","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1267522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1267522","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82545772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-10-01DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1253049
K. Faller
ABSTRACT In January, 2016, the Board of Directors of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children approved a position paper on allegations of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence in divorce/parental relationship dissolution. This commentary describes the range of dynamics that can lead to allegations of interpersonal violence in divorce/relationship dissolution, outlines the process employed in developing the position paper, and provides a description of the contents of the position paper.
{"title":"Commentary on the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children’s position paper on allegations of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence in divorce/parental relationship dissolution","authors":"K. Faller","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1253049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1253049","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In January, 2016, the Board of Directors of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children approved a position paper on allegations of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence in divorce/parental relationship dissolution. This commentary describes the range of dynamics that can lead to allegations of interpersonal violence in divorce/relationship dissolution, outlines the process employed in developing the position paper, and provides a description of the contents of the position paper.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83794542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1221270
R. Geffner
{"title":"Editor’s note about the special section","authors":"R. Geffner","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1221270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1221270","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73691942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1219974
S. Dallam, J. Silberg
ABSTRACT The coercive and punitive “therapies” recommended for children diagnosed with parental alienation constitute an ethical minefield and are especially inappropriate when used on children who have already been traumatized. Forced reunification against a child’s will and without taking into consideration the child’s point of view and emotional well-being, can be expected to reinforce a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in an already vulnerable child. Such “treatment” can be expected to do more harm than good, and rather than helping their well-being, could cause lasting psychological harm, particularly when imposed upon children who claim the parent they are being forced to reunify with is abusive.
{"title":"Recommended treatments for “parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) may cause children foreseeable and lasting psychological harm","authors":"S. Dallam, J. Silberg","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1219974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1219974","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The coercive and punitive “therapies” recommended for children diagnosed with parental alienation constitute an ethical minefield and are especially inappropriate when used on children who have already been traumatized. Forced reunification against a child’s will and without taking into consideration the child’s point of view and emotional well-being, can be expected to reinforce a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in an already vulnerable child. Such “treatment” can be expected to do more harm than good, and rather than helping their well-being, could cause lasting psychological harm, particularly when imposed upon children who claim the parent they are being forced to reunify with is abusive.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88740836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1213114
D. Saunders, Katherine H. Oglesby
ABSTRACT Women leaving violent relationships face many challenges and risks. A survivor with children may encounter even greater barriers in protecting herself and her children from an ex-partner. These barriers are especially insidious because they take the form of “no-win” situations or “traps.” If she stays she may be accused of “failing to protect” her children from violence and then faces more violence, yet leaving means facing the risk of stalking, harassment and more abuse. Reporting threats or violence to authorities or being reluctant to co-parent means she goes against the “friendly parent” standard used to award custody. She also risks being accused of making false allegations of abuse or being labeled as an “alienator,” causing “parental alienation syndrome” in her child. We illustrate such traps with survivors’ own words among those who experience very negative custody or visitation outcomes. Implications are made for professional practice and policy reform.
{"title":"No way to turn: Traps encountered by many battered women with negative child custody experiences","authors":"D. Saunders, Katherine H. Oglesby","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1213114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1213114","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Women leaving violent relationships face many challenges and risks. A survivor with children may encounter even greater barriers in protecting herself and her children from an ex-partner. These barriers are especially insidious because they take the form of “no-win” situations or “traps.” If she stays she may be accused of “failing to protect” her children from violence and then faces more violence, yet leaving means facing the risk of stalking, harassment and more abuse. Reporting threats or violence to authorities or being reluctant to co-parent means she goes against the “friendly parent” standard used to award custody. She also risks being accused of making false allegations of abuse or being labeled as an “alienator,” causing “parental alienation syndrome” in her child. We illustrate such traps with survivors’ own words among those who experience very negative custody or visitation outcomes. Implications are made for professional practice and policy reform.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81976876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1219246
Toby G. Kleinman
ABSTRACT This comment reviews attorney and mental health duties to the court and their profession and discusses ways to have an impact on how information, known to be considered without scientific basis, “junk science” is put forth to courts and what can possibly be done to stop that.
{"title":"Ethics on trial: A comment","authors":"Toby G. Kleinman","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1219246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1219246","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This comment reviews attorney and mental health duties to the court and their profession and discusses ways to have an impact on how information, known to be considered without scientific basis, “junk science” is put forth to courts and what can possibly be done to stop that.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82158401","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1217758
W. O’Donohue, L. Benuto, Natalie Bennett
ABSTRACT “Parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) is a phrase first coined by Dr. Richard Gardner. Since its inception several scholars have reviewed and criticized this construct, and it has never been accepted by the scientific community as a legitimate scientific construct, as a syndrome or as a mental disorder. Despite its general rejection as unscientific, the construct of PAS at times continues to be used in legal settings as if it has an adequate foundation within science, clinical, or forensic practice. This commentary briefly reviews past critiques of PAS and describes several additional problems that have occurred with the use of this construct.
{"title":"Examining the validity of parental alienation syndrome","authors":"W. O’Donohue, L. Benuto, Natalie Bennett","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1217758","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1217758","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT “Parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) is a phrase first coined by Dr. Richard Gardner. Since its inception several scholars have reviewed and criticized this construct, and it has never been accepted by the scientific community as a legitimate scientific construct, as a syndrome or as a mental disorder. Despite its general rejection as unscientific, the construct of PAS at times continues to be used in legal settings as if it has an adequate foundation within science, clinical, or forensic practice. This commentary briefly reviews past critiques of PAS and describes several additional problems that have occurred with the use of this construct.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79012931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1217759
Leah Dockler, J. Mueller
{"title":"Overview of child welfare issues and family advocacy","authors":"Leah Dockler, J. Mueller","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1217759","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1217759","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74276685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-07-02DOI: 10.1080/15379418.2016.1219245
M. Clemente, Dolores Padilla-Racero
ABSTRACT “Parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) is unscientific and is an affront to children, women who hold the custody of children of separated couples, science, human rights, and the justice system itself. Justice, to be just, should be based on scientifically proven theories and evidence. This article describes investigations carried out to show that two of the principles that underpin PAS are false: That children lie when pressed (alienated in the terminology of PAS), and that the principle that should guide judges’ actions for the good of the child should be that for the child to always be in contact with both parents. The results of these investigations show that these two principles are false and advocates the use of truly scientific proceedings for judges to grant custody in case of dispute between parents, as well as for determining the visitation for the noncustodial parent.
{"title":"When courts accept what science rejects: Custody issues concerning the alleged “parental alienation syndrome”","authors":"M. Clemente, Dolores Padilla-Racero","doi":"10.1080/15379418.2016.1219245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2016.1219245","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT “Parental alienation syndrome” (PAS) is unscientific and is an affront to children, women who hold the custody of children of separated couples, science, human rights, and the justice system itself. Justice, to be just, should be based on scientifically proven theories and evidence. This article describes investigations carried out to show that two of the principles that underpin PAS are false: That children lie when pressed (alienated in the terminology of PAS), and that the principle that should guide judges’ actions for the good of the child should be that for the child to always be in contact with both parents. The results of these investigations show that these two principles are false and advocates the use of truly scientific proceedings for judges to grant custody in case of dispute between parents, as well as for determining the visitation for the noncustodial parent.","PeriodicalId":45478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Child Custody","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75227661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：