PROBLEMS WITH KAYDEN'S LAW INFOGRAPHIC

VIEW ACLU OPPOSITION TO KAYDEN'S LAW

BRIEF BY ​CONSORTIUM OF EXPERTS
​AGAINST KAYDEN'S LAW

Kayden's Law is Title XV of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 (VAWA). The concern that the VAWA places on curbing domestic violence and protecting children and victims of violence is both praiseworthy & necessary to prevent tragic cases such as the murder of Kayden Mancuso. However, Kayden's Law is so extensively inaccurate and xenophobic in its portrayal of parental alienation (PA) that it needs to be amended. It was cleverly written to undermine almost all testimony regarding PA without ever saying the words “parental alienation”. Nevertheless, its anti-PA legislative intent (which is based upon inaccurate & false information) is pervasive. It will ultimately harm the children that this law is meant to protect. 

The excerpts below from Kayden's Law are examples of its intention to discredit and exclude the admissibility of parental alienation in custody cases, to preclude parental alienation experts from expert witness status, and to prevent court officials from receiving training in the science of parental alienation. The intention of Kayden's Law is contrary to the APA 2022 Guidelines for Custody Evaluators and the 2022 AFCC and NCJFCJ Joint Statement on Parent-Child Contact Problems. In order to truly protect children from all types of physical and emotional abuse including parental alienation, Kayden's Law needs to be amended.

A consortium of parental alienation experts created a brief to explain the misrepresentations about parental alienation that are found in Kayden's Law and the harm that this law will cause. This website was created to make this brief available to the public, explain its content and to proclaim a CALL TO ACTION to amend Kayden's Law. This website speaks on behalf of various organizations representing children, mothers, veterans, and victims of abuse including The Hero's Circle, Servicemembers and Veterans for Children's Rights, Mothers Against Child Abuse. The Eeny Minie Moe Foundation and others.

Kaydens Law

• SEC. 1502. FINDINGS. 
• (6) Empirical research indicates that courts regularly discount allegations of child physical and sexual abuse when those allegations are raised in child custody cases. Courts believed less than ¼ of claims that a father has committed child physical or sexual abuse. With respect to cases in which an allegedly abusive parent claimed the mother “alienated” the child, courts believed only 1 out of 51 claims of sexual molestation by a father. Independent research indicates that child sexual abuse allegations are credible between 50 and 70 percent of the time.​​

Sec. 1502 (6) What needs to be amended?

These findings are based on the "research" of Joan Meier. The alleged findings of this research were not accepted for peer-reviewed publication in any high-quality journal. A comprehensive empirical study by Harman and Lorandos in a highly regarded peer-reviewed journal refuted her findings and exposed gapping research flaws and statistical manipulation in Meier's research. This peer-reviewed publication did not deem Meier's responses to this critique worthy of publication.
Therefore, the legislative intent behind this law (to discredit parental alienation theory and to portray PA as a threat to mothers who allege abuse claims) is based on highly suspicious and not replicable research. Bullet #6 needs to be removed.

• ​​SEC. 1502. FINDINGS. (9) Scientifically unsound theories that treat abuse allegations of mothers as likely false attempts to undermine fathers are frequently applied in family court to minimize or deny reports of abuse of parents and children. Many experts who testify against abuse allegations lack expertise in the relevant type of alleged abuse, relying instead on unsound and unproven theories.​

​SEC. 1502 (9) WHAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED?

The legislative intent of this section is to deem PA an unscientific theory. This is a myth that has been perpetuated by a gender-biased element of domestic violence groups. It ignores the vast body of scientific research and acceptance in the professional community about PA. Likewise, it alleges that experts who rely on PA theory lack expertise when in fact that are up to date with the current scientific knowledge. This bullet needs to be removed to reflect the scientific reality of PA. 

• Sec. 1504. “(3) LAWS. —The laws described in this paragraph are the following:
  “(A) A law that ensures that, with respect to a child custody proceeding in which a parent has been alleged to have committed domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse--
  “(i) expert evidence from a court-appointed or outside professional relating to the alleged abuse may be admitted only if the professional possesses demonstrated expertise and clinical experience in working with victims of domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse, that is not solely of a forensic nature; and
  “(ii) in making a finding regarding any allegation of domestic violence or child abuse, including child sexual abuse, in addition to any other relevant admissible evidence, evidence of past sexual or physical abuse committed by the accused parent shall be considered, including-
  “(I) any past or current protection or restraining orders against the accused parent;
  “(II) sexual violence abuse protection orders against the accused parent;
  “(III) arrests of the accused parent for domestic violence, sexual violence, or child abuse; or
  “(IV) convictions of the accused parent for domestic violence, sexual violence, or child abuse.

SEC 1504. LAWS (A) ​WHAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED?

THIS SECTION ASSUMES THAT ONLY EXPERTS WITH A CLINICAL BACKGROUND ARE EQUIPPED TO OFFER OPINION. THIS IGNORES THE COMPLEXITY OF THESE CASES AND THE NEED FOR VARIOUS KINDS OF EXPERTS SUCH AS TO DETERMINE THE EMOTIONAL HEALTH OF A PARENT. ALSO, IT LUMPS TOGETHER ANY PRIOR HISTORY OF ABUSE NO MATTER HOW LONG AGO IT OCCURRED OR IF THERE IS A CURRENT DANGER. IT ALSO TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION RESTRAINING ORDERS EVEN IF THEY WERE UNFOUNDED. IT LIKEWISE MISUNDERSTANDS PA TO BE A RELATIONSHIP PROBLEM INSTEAD OF AN ABUSE ISSUE AND DENIES CUSTODY CHANGES TO PROTECT FROM THIS EMOTIONAL ABUSE. THESE ITEMS NEED TO BE CORRECTED.

​

• SEC. 1504. “(B) A law that ensures that, during a child custody proceeding--
  “(i) a court may not, solely in order to improve a deficient relationship with the other parent of a child, remove the child from a parent or litigating party--
  “(I) who is competent, protective, and not physically or sexually abusive; and
  “(II) with whom the child is bonded or to whom the child is attached;
  “(ii) a court may not, solely in order to improve a deficient relationship with the other parent of a child, restrict contact between the child and a parent or litigating party--
  “(I) who is competent, protective, and not physically or sexually abusive; and
  “(II) with whom the child is bonded or to whom the child is attached;
  “(iii) a court may not order a reunification treatment, unless there is generally accepted and scientifically valid proof of the safety, effectiveness, and therapeutic value of the reunification treatment;
  “(iv) a court may not order a reunification treatment that is predicated on cutting off a child from a parent with whom the child is bonded or to whom the child is attached; and
  “(v) any order to remediate the resistance of a child to have contact with a violent or abusive parent primarily addresses the behavior of that parent or the contributions of that parent to the resistance of the child before ordering the other parent of the child to take steps to potentially improve the relationship of the child with the parent with whom the child resists contact.

​sec 1504 laws (b) what needs to be amended

The legislative intent of this section is that since "PA doesn't exist", any efforts to deal with it are no more than relationship building and should not be at the expense of the relationship of the other parent. This is a misconstrued understanding of PA.
PA is psychological and emotional child abuse that causes live long damage to the health of the child. Reunification therapy is not for the purpose of building a relationship but to provide the child with the emotional stability to recover from this emotional abuse. Any removal of a child from an alienating parent is because the alienating parent is emotionally abusive. Just like CPS regularly removes a child from a parent who is physically abusive, it is sometimes necessary to do the same when a parent is emotional abusive. This sections also ignores that a child could be attached to a parent in an emotional unhealthy way such as in enmeshment. Closeness cannot mitigate the need to deal with abuse. Likewise, this text assumes that PA reunification programs are unscientific when in fact research confirms their scientific basis and effectiveness. This text needs to be amended to reflect the abusive nature of PA, the scientific basis of treatment programs and the necessity to remove custody from alienating parents in cases of severe alienation.

• SEC. 1504. “(5) TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAM.—The training program described in this paragraph is an ongoing training and education program that--
  “(A) focuses solely on domestic and sexual violence and child abuse, including--
  “(i) child sexual abuse;
  “(ii) physical abuse;
  “(iii) emotional abuse;
  “(iv) coercive control;
  “(v) implicit and explicit bias, including biases relating to parents with disabilities;
  “(vi) trauma;
  “(vii) long- and short-term impacts of domestic violence and child abuse on children; and
  “(viii) victim and perpetrator behavior patterns and relationship dynamics within the cycle of violence;
  “(B) is provided by--
  “(i) a professional with substantial experience in assisting survivors of domestic violence or child abuse, including a victim service provider (as defined in section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291)); and
  “(ii) if possible, a survivor of domestic violence or child physical or sexual abuse;
  “(C) relies on evidence-based and peer-reviewed research by recognized experts in the types of abuse described in subparagraph (A);
  “(D) does not include theories, concepts, or belief systems unsupported by the research described in subparagraph (C)

 SEC. 1504 (5) TRAINING WHAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED? 

The text states that training focuses "solely on domestic and sexual violence and child abuse." The legislative intent in this statement is to exclude training about PA. This needs to be amended to include PA which is a form of emotional abuse and coercive control.
Likewise, the qualifications for trainers in the program are intended to exclude those with knowledge about PA and to also create intrinsic biases by advocating that preferably only victims of abuse should be allowed to conduct the treatment. This needs to be amended to reflect the validity of PA and to remove biases in the training. Likewise, experts in PA should play an integral part in this training.

Kayden’s law needs to be repealed or amended to reflect accurate and transparent scientifically sound research on parental alienation and domestic violence. The law should acknowledge that:

• PA is real
  
• PA is scientific
  
• PA is psychological abuse to children and domestic violence to parents
  
• PA organizations should have a seat at the table when it comes to providing training
  
• False allegations of abuse do happen
  
• When custody is provided based on false allegations, psychological abuse can be as damaging as physical and sexual abuse

CALL TO ACTION

SHARE THIS CAMPAIGN WITH YOUR FRIENDS AND SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS

​Please contact [email protected] with questions or comments. ​