Transcript What to do When the Judge is Hesitant to Remedy Alienation

CONTACT INFORMATION
Linda J. Gottlieb, LMFT, LCSW-r
8 Folger Lane
Dix Hills NY 11746
631-673-6665 work
[email protected]
www.LindaGottlieb.com
www.EndParentalAlienation.com
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
What to do When the Judge is
Hesitant to Remedy Alienation
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, LMFT, LCSW
Parental alienation is becoming an epidemic: Clawar and Rivlin, in
Child Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed
Children , published by the American Bar Association, stated that
some degree of alienation occurs in
80% of all divorces.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
2
We have to start acknowledging that alienation is a form of
emotional child abuse an that it must therefore be treated as any
other form of child abuse: removal from an incorrigible perpetrator.
The alienating parent is a child abuser. And the severe or obsessed
alienator is likely to be incorrigible. These cases are becoming an
epidemic, and, given the high divorce rate, we are losing a
generation of children.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
3
I originally planned to talk tonight about treatment for cases of alienation,
and I hope to be invited back to do so. But after extensive collaboration
about these cases with my colleague, Dr. Steven Miller, I decided that a
more meaningful focus for this presentation is to address why the
professionals who intervene in child custody so often get cases of
alienation wrong and backwards. I am including in these professionals:
mental health therapists, the custody evaluator, the GAL and/or attorney for
the child. And when the reports and testimony of these professionals are
presented in the legal proceedings, the resulting court rulings perpetuate
the alienation. This does not serve the best interests of the child.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
4
The following are the agenda for this Webinar:
1. Describe how professionals repeatedly and frequently miss the
blatant alienation; confuse it for estrangement to which they assert
that targeted/alienated parents contribute, and assign equal
culpability to each parent’s contribution to the child’s rejection of
the targeted parent
2. Provide the basics of a valid family assessment and custody
evaluation;
3. Critique of an invalid interpretation of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory or MMPI (the most common test given in
custody evaluations;)
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
5
4. Define the terms of alienation, estrangement, and hybrid cases;
5. Present a effective strategy to create reasonable doubt about the
distorted, invalid, and possibly biased testimony of the court’s
appointed experts without alienating the judge;
6. Explain how alienation is a form of emotional child abuse and of
the severest kind;
7. Discuss how to influence the judge to recognize that leaving the
children with the alienator is riskier than transferring custody;
8. Express the ineffectiveness of reunification therapy in severe
cases of alienation;
9. List effective treatment programs.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
6
1. How do all these professionals get things wrong and
backwards?
This question is meaningfully answered in Dr. Miller’s chapter
entitled, “Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making.” in a book
entitled, Working with Alienated Children and Families: A
Guidebook. (2012). Edited by Amy Baker and Richard Sauber.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
7
A. PAS cases are counterintuitive: the brain is hardwired to make very
common thinking mistakes in cases of alienation. The brain is
fooled just like it is in an optical illusion. PAS is counterintuitive,
for example, in that we think:
1. If a child rejects a parent, that parent must have done something to
warrant it: somehow brainwashing is not considered as the
explanation
2. It is irrational for the child to align with the abusive parent who is the
alienating parent
3. The pathological enmeshment in these cases appears to be healthy
bonding
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
8
B. As a result of the above, the therapist, evaluator, Guardian Ad
Litem, attorney for the child, will get the case wrong and
backwards.
These professionals make COMMON COGNITIVE ERRORS leading to
serious and very common clinical errors WHICH ASSESS THE
ALIENATING PARENT TO BE THE BETTER PARENT IF NOT ABOVE
REPROACH WHILE THE TARGETED/ALIENATED PARENT IS
ASSESSED TO POSSESS VERY LIMITED PARENTING SKILLS AND
PERHAPS EVEN to be A “HYSTERICAL PARANOID.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
9
According to Dr. Miller:
“Clinicians who attempt to manage them [cases of alienation]
without adequate skills are likely to find themselves
presiding over a cascade of clinical and psychological
disasters.” (p. 11)
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
10
As quoted from Dr. Miller in the following slides are
Four of the most common cognitive errors:
(please refer to Dr. Miller’s chapter for a more
complete list of these errors):
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
11
1. Anchoring Effect:
The phenomenon by which judgment is unduly influenced by initial
information; often accompanied by inadequate adjustment when new
information becomes available. For example, being influenced by a
biased GAL report and refusing to modify thinking based on new
evidence to the contrary, such as positive reports from the targeted
parents long-standing therapist who emphatically states that the TP’s
symptoms are being situationally created and maintained by the
alienation.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
12
2. Confirmation Bias:
The tendency to focus on evidence that might confirm a hypothesis
while neglecting evidence that might refute it. For example, placing
emphasis on MMPI scales that favor the alienating parent or reflect that
parent in a positive light while minimizing or ignoring scales that reveal
that parent to be faking answers; dismissing scales that reveal the
targeted parent in a positive light and misinterpreting the targeted
parent’s raw scores in insolation from the effects of the alienation on
that parent’s emotional life.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
13
3. Premature Closure:
Making a diagnosis or other decision before obtaining and/or
considering sufficient information. For example, completing and
submitting a court report without obtaining information from the
targeted parent’s long-standing therapist; failing to do interviews with
all relevant collateral contacts primarily collateral contacts who have
positive things to state about the targeted parent.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
14
4. Fundamental Attribution Error:
Concluding that behavior is dispositional or character-logical when in
fact it is situational. For example, when the origin of the targeted
parent’s anger is not the result of some character flaw but rather is
due to having been maltreated by the other parent and their children; is
due to being treated unfairly and/or biasedly by judicial and mental
health professionals who had been coopted by the alienating parent!
Who would not have a normal angry reaction to these kinds of
situations? Prior to the initiation of the alienation, this parent was
emotionally stable and was quite capable of managing her/his
emotions but this is ignored when the fundamental attribution error
comes into play.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
15
2. Partial list of Axioms for completing a proper family assessment and or
custody evaluation. (taken from table 2.1 of Steve Miller’s chapter, where
a complete list can be found.)
Axiom
Comments
1 Consider the
Consider all aspects of a
total clinical picture problem
Questions that clinicians should ask
What was the prior relationship between the child and the rejected
parent?
Is the favored parent manipulating the child?
Is there credible evidence that the rejected parent is abusive or
neglectful?
How cooperative is each parent with respect to both therapy and coparenting?
How credible are their stories?
Are there discrepancies or inconsistencies?
Does either parent breach court orders?
Is there psychopathology?
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
16
Axiom
Comments
Questions that clinicians should ask
2 Gather Adequate
Evidence
Obtain Sufficient high-quality
evidence
Do I have an in-depth understanding of this family?
Do I have enough high-quality evidence?
Do I need additional collateral source information?
Have I overlooked disconfirmatory evidence?
Have I overlooked circumstantial evidence?
Axiom
Comments
Questions that clinicians should ask
3 Use proper reasoning
Always employ metacognition Have I used both System 1 and System 2 (intuition and
(thinking about thinking)
analytic reasoning)?
Have I displayed any biases?
Have I followed the laws of logic and probability?
Have I found a plausible explanation rather than the
correct explanation?
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
17
Axiom
Comments
6 Develop an adequate Rank competing diagnoses
differential diagnosis
Questions that clinicians should ask
What are the possibilities? I need to rank them
Axiom
Comments
Questions that clinicians should ask
7 Consider Severity
Grade severity using a sliding scale Is the child’s alienation mild, moderate, or severe?
and consider whether problems are
getting better or worse
Is the parent’s behavior mild, moderate, or severe?
Is the behavior pathological, e.g., delusional, bizarre,
or extreme?
Am I guilty of severity neglect?
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
18
Axiom
Comments
Questions that clinicians should ask
Analyze the
evidence
Analyze the evidence with
respect to amount, quality,
strength, and weight. Seek
confirmatory and disconfirmatory evidence. Seek
direct and circumstantial
evidence. Explain any
discrepancies and
inconsistencies.
What is the evidence for alienation?
What is the evidence for estrangement?
If both are present what are their relative contributions?
Are the parents’ behaviors causally connected to the child’s
alignment?
Have I confused the strength of evidence with the weight of
evidence?
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
19
Many states have promulgated standards about how to undertake a
forensic evaluation, and you should check to see if your state has done so.
Most custody evaluators don’t know about their state’s guideline or fail to
follow them if they do. Look for the criteria of familiarity with family
dynamics. Only the degree of Marriage and Family Therapy offers a
profound understanding of family dynamics.
All other mental health professionals must take extensive training in family
dynamics in order to adequately understand this, and most do not. If your
state does not have standards, there are generally accepted standards
published by the legal profession. Get these standards and apply them to a
bad custody evaluation. These standards are RARELY followed. They are
probably not known to most evaluators.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
20
Ask that all forensic interviews be video recorded! That will permit an
independent, objective critique of the methodology and competency of
the evaluator. A COMPETENT evaluator will not object.
The following are minimum interviews of one each that MUST be
undertaken to rule in or out for alienation:
a) Each child alone
b) All siblings together
c) Each child with each parent
d) All siblings with each parent
e) The parents together
f) A family interview (this is the single most important interview, and
I have yet to see it done!)
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
21
3. So the forensic evaluator has made all the above cognitive errors
(and many more), and what do you know, you have been
diagnosed with paranoia---SURPRISE!
Yes surprise, because no one who knows you well ever labeled you
that before. Certainly before the onset of the PAS, your kids did not. No
one ever suggested that you need therapy because you thought the
world was against you. You functioned well as a parent and you had a
healthy relationship with your kids. You functioned on the job if you
worked, and you functioned in the home if you were a stay at home
parent. How did this happen? How did the results of the MMPI label
you paranoid, depressed, panic stricken, or with some other strange,
previously-undiscovered pathology about you? Do not despair.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
22
The results of the test are not the be-all and end-all because:
a) The test is designed for hypothesis generation not for hypothesis
confirmation. It is a misuse of the test to be used for confirmation.
a) The test interpretation is subjective, and I just discussed how
evaluators can develop biases leading to subjective
misinterpretation. (For example, there are multiple scales in this
test, such as for paranoia, faking, and depression. Which scales
the evaluator emphasizes and which are de-emphasized is
subjective and can skew results.)
b) The MMPI has not been validated for a person undergoing high
conflict divorce and for severe alienation. (I am not referring here
to minor triangulation or alignment.) The reference population of
the MMPI 2 is a normative population based on the 1980 census--this population is therefore not matched to the severely alienated
parent. The test results for the targeted/alienated parent reveals
what one would expect from a person undergoing a severe case of
alienation – particularly if her/his concerns have been trivialized,
dismissed, and criticized by numerous mental health and legal
professionals who are frequently co-opted by the alienating parent.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
23
d. The interpretation of the raw data cannot be done in isolation. The
clinical context of someone undergoing severe alienation is significantly
different from the context of a general population. So, for example, if you
took the test the day after you had been falsely accused of sexually
abusing your daughter, thereby put out of your home with just the clothes
on your back, and were apprised by your attorney that you could be sent
to prison for a long time (sound all too familiar to many of you?) I would
not call that situation optimal test conditions and conditions that
accurately reflect your general stabilty. Do you think a person may come
out APPEARING paranoid after going through this?)
d. The clinical context must be considered as a factor in assessing the raw
data (the person’s answers.) Often the context is not considered---particularly if interpreted primarily by a computer and not by the
evaluator! It is imperative to determine how the raw data was interpreted.
d. A PAS-aware evaluator would assert that the targeted/alienated parent
does not exist in a normative situation.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
24
g) The custody evaluator may have subjectively and biasedly chosen to
emphasize some clinical scales of the MMPI and de-emphasize or
ignore others in order to portray you in the worst light and the alienating
parent in the best light. Unfortunately, I have witnessed this in several
cases I have testified on.
g. Should we be surprised that the targeted parent would test positive for
paranoia? After all, aren’t your kids, your ex, the system talking
negatively about? Filing false allegations about you? etc. Even
paranoids have enemies.
g. In conclusion, I am saying that you would likely have very different
results had you taken this prior to the onset of the alienation.
g. Unfortunately, you may need to hire your own expert to combat a bad
MMPI test. But it will likely be well worth the investment depending
upon how distorted your test results were.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
25
4. Alienation v. estrangement v. hybrid cases (combination of both)
a) Alienation is very simply defined as a child’s unwarranted
deprecation and rejection of a parent generally at the behest of
the other parent but can be orchestrated by another significant
person in the child’s life. The rejection is completely out of
proportion to anything that the alienated parent did in relation to
the child. Alienation is readily diagnosed (meaning that there is a
high probability for the presence of alienation) by the presence
of Gardner’s 8 characteristic symptoms in the child along with
the research supported (refer to the studies by Amy Baker) of
the 17 alienating strategies by the alienating parent. (please
utilize my free website for an in-depth description with examples
of the 8 symptoms.) www.endparentalalienation.com.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
26
b) Most evaluators get the diagnosis wrong: they proclaim that the
targeted/alienated parent contributed to the child’s rejection of her/him,
and these evaluators thereby label these cases as hybrids when they
are either entirely or primarily alienation cases. These evaluator fail to
ask the question: “If there had been no alienating parent would the
targeted parent’s behavior alone been enough to warrant the child’s
rejection?” It is not sufficient for evaluators to state only, “Both parents
contributed.” It is incumbent upon the evaluator to assign weight to the
severity of each parents’ behaviors and assess what % each parent
contribute
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
27
Amazingly and irresponsibly, these evaluators rarely evaluate for such
severity. They generally fail to punctuate the cruelty, tenacity, and the
deliberateness of the alienating parent’s behaviors and goal (particularly in
severe cases) to sever the relationship between the other parent and their
child. These cruel behaviors, as most of you know, include but are not
limited to, false allegations of child abuse and child sex abuse; false
domestic violence allegations resulting in the TP’s ejection from the family
home; denying the TP access to the child and to the child’s medical,
educational, and social life, etc.
But, on the other hand, because the TP expresses anger as a normal
defensive reaction to being abused and rejected, the evaluators deem this to
be the TP’s contribution. I consider this to be a gross misinterpretation and
negligence.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
28
c) When the targeted parent does have the normal defensive reactions
to being abused and rejected not only by the child but exacerbated
by the professionals who have intervened in the case, this may be
referred to as a case of secondary estrangement. In other words, it
occurs as a result of the alienation that preceded it. In other words,
the behaviors on the part of the targeted parent is the result of that
parent reacting to the child’s deprecation, humiliation, rejection, and
maltreatment, etc. of her/him. In other words, the parent has a
normal negative reaction to being hurt by her/his beloved child. Or
the parents had made the typical trial and error mistakes of
parenting but is never forgiven. Or that parent is somewhat strict to
compensate for the permissiveness of the alienating parent. In the
case of secondary estrangement, the child’s rejection is also totally
out of proportion to anything the parent did.
I would challenge any mental health professional not to have an
angry reaction to being repeatedly abused, disrespected, and
rejected by her/his beloved child. Or to employ the appropriate
discipline for her/his child when the child is permitted by the
alienating parent to act-out. Or to seek psychiatric care when
her/his child exhibits extreme mental instability, as many alienated
children
do.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb,
Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
29
d) In the case of primary estrangement, to the contrary, the
parent’s behavior must be causally connected to the child’s
rejection, meaning that it temporally preceded the rejection.
And the behavior must be severely neglectful and/or
abusive enough that would justify the rejection. You need
not be a professional to assess for such behaviors. The
standard of a prudent person’s or parent’s perception will
suffice.
d) How to find this family dynamic in the DSM 5 (pp. 715-719)
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
30
5. You must not attack the person of the court-appointed evaluator. Not a
smart idea! (In fact, you may have to avert attacking several of the
court’s LOCAL professionals, such as therapists and attorneys, who
preceded your expert and who will not likely practice or be known
locally) Instead:
a) Point out that the cases of alienation are a subspecialty in the
mental health world and require special training, education and
experience, which your expert possesses.
b) Credit the evaluator (and any other professional involved in the
case) for his or her expertise in his or her particular area of
expertise. Express that you recognize that they do indeed have the
best interests of the child in mind but that cases of alienation are
extremely complex and easily misinterpreted by a professional
not trained in the subspecialty of alienation.
c) Convey that, due to the counterintuitiveness of alienation cases
previously discussed, it is not surprising that the local experts got it
wrong. This does not make them bad professionals.----just not
experts in this particular area of mental health. (As my colleague,
Steve Miller, repeatedly states, “Three third-graders don’t make a
Linda
Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
ninth
grader.
31
6. Alienation is child abuse. It must therefore be treated as any
other case of child abuse: removal from the incorrigible
alienating parent.
a)The DSM-5 on p. 719 states, “Child psychological abuse is nonaccidental verbal or symbolic acts by a child's parent or caregiver
that results, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant
psychological harm to the child----indicating that the alleged
offender will harm/abandoned – people or things that the child
cares about.”
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
32
b. From Gottlieb’s Amicus Brief that alienation is child abuse:
1. A child cannot feel loveable if a parent is perceived to have abandoned
her/him and does not love her/him. The inevitable result is that the child
“will seek love in all the wrong places.”
2. A child’s self-concept is that she/he is constituted of ½ mother and ½
father. If a child hates a parent or thinks ill of a parent, then the child will
have self-hatred; this inevitably induces bad behavior.
3. Because lying, deceit, disrespect, and aggression have been normalized,
alienated children frequently fail to conform to their cultural environment.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
33
4. Because the child’s judgment, perception, reality testing, and superego
have been compromised, psychosis and/or social deviancy are frequent
consequences.
5. The double-bind situation of being unable to have, love, and be loved by
both parents often creates psychosis.
4. Remaining with hatred and anger is not healthy under any
circumstances, let alone for a parent.
4. The process of using a child to serve the emotional needs of the
alienating parent and doing that parent’s appalling bidding is abuse in
itself. It is a reversal of a healthy family hierarchy.
5. The child’s individuality is squashed when the alienating parent fails to
recognize the child as a separate person from her/him with different
needs, feelings, and opinions----particularly for the other parent.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
34
9. The child is in a chronic state of depression regarding the loss of such a
significant person as a parent.
10. Anxiety results due to the possibility that a slip of behavior will reveal
the child’s true love and longing for the alienated parent, thereby
incurring the wrath of the alienating parent.
11. The child suffers from the guilt of having maltreated, disrespected, and
rejected a parent. And if that parent is no longer around due to either
death or unknown whereabouts once the child lifts her/his repression
regarding this family dynamic, she/he will suffer a lifetime of guilt.
9. The emotional vacuum left by the loss of a parent is filled with unhealthy
and destructive things: eating disorders; drugs and alcohol; criminal
activities; destructive relationships; truancy; cutting; suicidal behaviors,
school truancy, underperforming and/or failing in school etc.
(This Amicus Brief can be downloaded for free on my website.)
c)Refer to Amy Baker’s research in Adult Children of Parental Alienation
Syndrome.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
35
7) How to make the Judge “get it”
a. You must present massive overwhelming evidence (a phrase coined by
Steve Miller) of the abuse and its detrimental affects on your children.
Given that there is likely a 95% resistance to transferring custody, the
judge must be persuaded that doing nothing (leaving the child with the
alienator) is riskier than transferring custody.
a. Do not pussy foot around. Use specific, graphic examples from your
particular case. Make the judge SEE---rather EXPERIENCE---the face
of alienation. For example, don’t just describe the detrimental effects of
the abuse from the alienation on your children. Bring the abuse into the
courtroom with pictures (perhaps life size) of the effects. Show the
cutting, the violent behaviors, the hair pulling, the hysteria, etc. Bring in
videos of how your kids behave and maltreat you. (this is one reason
why I video record the reunification sessions so they can be played for
the judge).
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
36
c) Read for the courtroom any disturbing poems and writings by your children
that reflect the detrimental effects.
d) Bring in pictures your children drew that are indicative of their emotional
and behavioral disturbances.
e) Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words; but a video is worth a
million pictures.
(I am not an attorney. These suggestions for legal strategy were made by
a a NY attorney, Tim Coyle, with whom I collaborate on the alienation
cases I am hired to testify on. But I can say this from my own experience
with the courtroom: if you do not have the guts to dramatize the abuse to
your children, there is virtually no chance you will overcome the judge’s
95% prior probability of aversion to transferring custody!)
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
37
8) Reunification therapy in mild to moderate cases of alienation.
Why a family systems approach is the treatment of choice. (refer to pp. 213214 of the Guidebook.)
This will be a lecture/webinar for another time that delves more into the 11
reasons why Family Systems approach is the best.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
38
9. Reunification therapy does not work in severe
cases: it is illogical to believe that an hour of
therapy once a week will overcome the influence
of the alienating parent the rest of the time.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
39
10. What does work for severe cases of alienation?
a) transfer of custody to the targeted/alienated parent or a neutral
setting
b) no contact with the alienating parent and child for a minimum of
90 days
c) therapy for the alienating parent by a PAS-aware therapist
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
40
11. Where are these programs
a) Richard Warshak’s program in Texas
b) Kathleen Reay’s program in Canada
c) starting my program in NY
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
41
I would like to thank the following
people for their assistance:
Joan T. Kloth-Zanard
of PAS Intervention
This concludes the presentation.
I will now respond to questions and
comments.
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
42
CONTACT INFORMATION
Linda J. Gottlieb, LMFT, LCSW-r
8 Folger Lane
Dix Hills NY 11746
631-673-6665 work
[email protected]
www.LindaGottlieb.com
www.EndParentalAlienation.com
Linda Kase-Gottlieb, Jan 2014, prepared for Parental Alienation Awereness Organization
43