CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Clemente M, Padilla-Racero D. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2015; 56: 177-184. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2015, Elsevier Publishing) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
unavailable |
|
Abstract |
The authors of this article wish to respond to the criticism of Bernet, Verrocchio and Korosi, who have disqualified our research on contradictory grounds by claiming on the one hand that our methodology is flawed and the data is invalid, but simultaneously asserting the validity of our data for confirming Gardner's theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). This article begins by exploring the reasoning behind the arguments of our critics given that they resort to the "Devil's Proof of proving a negative" or "probatio diabolica" in Latin. Then, the relationship between PAS, child violence, and child sexual abuse will be examined before identifying PAS as a type of abuse. Moreover, two scientific concepts that explain the Psychology of child testimony i.e., false memory and unconscious transference, will be reviewed before undertaking a general critic of PAS, highlighting it is unscientific and bears a close resemblance to psychoanalytical theory. Thus, PAS leads to legal insecurity and hinders the investigation of reports of child abuse. Finally, criticism regarding supposed errors in bibliographical references and experimental design will also be addressed, and the conclusions will focus on measures designed to enhance the protection of the child by ensuring legal decision-making is based on scientifically attested methods and theories, which are the only safeguards protecting the legal interests and wellbeing of the child. |