Datasets:
deven367
/
babylm-100M-wikipedia

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
1
5.12k
Mikael Colville-Andersen (born 29 January 1968 in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada) is a Canadian-Danish urban designer and urban mobility expert. He was the CEO of Copenhagenize Design Company, which he founded in 2009 in Copenhagen, and he works with cities and governments around the world in coaching them towards becoming more bicycle friendly. He is the host of the urbanism documentary television series "The Life-Sized City", which premiered in 2017 on TVOntario and in 2018 on various other international channels including Finland's national broadcaster YLE and Italian broadcaster La Effe. Season 1 of "The Life-Sized City" was nominated for five Canadian Screen Awards in 2018.
He is known for his philosophy about simplifying urban planning and urban cycling and how cities should be designed instead of engineered. He is at the forefront of utilising observational techniques inspired by the likes of William H. Whyte for pedestrian and bicycle planning and has been called "the Modern Day Jane Jacobs". He employs anthropology and sociology in his work to develop liveable cities and, in 2012, he spearheaded the largest study of cyclist behaviour ever undertaken – "The Choreography of an Urban Intersection" – tracking the desire lines of 16,631 cyclists through an intersection in Copenhagen over a 12-hour period.
His approach and philosophy have led to him being referred to as "the Richard Dawkins of cycling" by Peter Walker of "The Guardian" in 2014 interview with Esquire magazine, "the Pope of urban cycling" by Canadian newspaper "La Presse" and Austrian newspaper Der Standard, among others and "the Bieber of urban cycling" in an interview with Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Colville-Andersen has been instrumental in orchestrating the global bicycle boom, starting with what was later called "the Photo That Launched a Million Bicycles" in 2006, which led to the Copenhagen Cycle Chic photography and streetstyle blog in 2007. Regarding his early work with the Cycle Chic movement, The Guardian dubbed him "The Sartorialist on Two Wheels".
He coined the phrase cycle chic in 2007, as well as the word "Copenhagenize" in the same year. He has also coined and popularised other phrases such as "Bicycle Urbanism", "Viking Biking", "Citizen Cyclist" and he started The Slow Bicycle Movement in 2008.
Before embarking on a career as an urban designer, he was a film director and screenwriter. His debut feature film, "Zakka West" (2003), was the first indie film in Denmark and premiered at the Copenhagen International Film Festival. He has written and directed several short films, including the award-winning short "Breaking Up" (1999), and founded the first pan-European organisation for screenwriters – "Euroscreenwriters" – in 1997.
As producer for The Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR) bicentenary website for Hans Christian Andersen, he and his team won the Prix Italia award at the Radiotelevisione Italiana 57th Prix Italia for Best Public Service Website.
In 2013, he made appearances in Edinburgh to help celebrate that city's Bike Week.
In 2014, he was cited as one of the influential urban planners suggesting that radical solutions were needed if improvement was to be seen in respect to congestion problems in the city of York. He has also explained that cycle parking is needed for cities to be cycle-friendly. He was booked as a keynote speaker at the Velo-city Global conference in Adelaide in May 2014.
= = = Operation Spanner = = =
Operation Spanner was a police investigation into same-sex male sadomasochism across the United Kingdom in the late 1980s. The investigation, led by the Obscene Publications Squad of the Metropolitan Police, began in 1987 and ran for three years, during which approximately 100 gay and bisexual men were questioned by police.
The investigation culminated in a report naming 43 individuals, of whom the Director of Public Prosecutions chose to prosecute 16 men for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, unlawful wounding and other offences related to consensual, private sadomasochistic sex sessions held in various locations between 1978 and 1987.
A resulting House of Lords judgement, "R v Brown", ruled that consent was not a valid legal defence for actual bodily harm in Britain.
The case sparked a national conversation about the limits of consent and the role of government in sexual encounters between consenting adults. It also spawned two activist organisations dedicated to promoting the rights of sadomasochists and an annual SM Pride parade through Central London.
The 1980s was a period of rising negative sentiments towards homosexuality in Britain, peaking in 1987 when the British Social Attitudes Survey found that 75% of the population thought that homosexual activity was always or mostly wrong. That year, a high-profile public information campaign 'Don't Die of Ignorance' saw the delivery of an educational leaflet about HIV/AIDS to every household in Britain. The association of gay and bisexual men with the pandemic worsened their stigmatisation.
The Conservative Party under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher made opposition to LGBT education a pillar of its 1987 general election campaign, issuing posters accusing the Labour Party of promoting the book 'Young, Gay and Proud' in British schools. At that year's Conservative Party Conference, Thatcher warned that children were being taught "that they have an inalienable right to be gay".
In 1988, Section 28 of the Local Government Act prohibited local authorities from 'intentionally promoting homosexuality'. The measure received broad support from Conservative MPs including Peter Bruinvels, who commented that "Clause 28 will help outlaw [homosexuality] and the rest will be done by AIDS". In the years that followed, further legislation was proposed to discriminate against LGBT foster carers and to increase the penalties for cruising.
Although male homosexuality had been partially decriminalised in England and Wales in 1967, the offence of gross indecency was still widely used to criminalise sexual activity between men. An investigation by Gay Times found that police in England and Wales recorded 2,022 such offences in 1989, the highest rate since decriminalisation. That year, 30% of all convictions for sexual offences in England and Wales concerned consensual gay sex, with such prosecutions costing the government £12 million, and the resulting prison terms an estimated £5.5 million.
The Obscene Publications Squad was a branch of the Metropolitan Police tasked with enforcing obscenity law, most notably the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which forbade the distribution of any article that "[tended] to deprave and corrupt" those who encountered it.
In 1976, following a three-year internal inquiry, it was revealed that the squad had been running a protection racket over the Soho sex industry for at least two decades, with Detective Superintendent William Moody alone receiving an estimated £25,000 a year in bribes. Prosecutors described a systemically corrupt organisation in which new recruits were coerced into attending 'Friday night shareouts', during which officers would be taken one by one into a store room at Scotland Yard and handed cash. Over the next two years, 13 officers were jailed, earning the Obscene Publications Squad its nickname: The Dirty Squad.
In the wake of the scandal, officers of the Obscene Publications Squad were limited to two years of service, later extended to three, in an effort to combat corruption. The reformed squad allied itself with the socially conservative campaign group National Viewers' and Listeners' Association and its controversial founder Mary Whitehouse, with the head of the squad becoming an annual speaker at Whitehouse's fringe meeting at the Conservative Party Conference throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The squad gained significant notoriety during this period for its role in the 'video nasties' moral panic—during which its officers raided video rental shops and seized horror films such as Evil Dead II and The Driller Killer—as well as a crackdown on gay pornography. Its critics accused it of having a Christian fundamentalist agenda, while the Lesbian and Gay Policing Association said its activities "damaged relations" between the LGBT community and the police.
In October 1987, Greater Manchester Police acquired a videotape—codenamed 'KL7'—depicting consensual sadomasochistic sexual activity between a group of men, including a sequence in which one man passed a nail through a piercing in another man's foreskin and hammered it into a block of wood, before making a series of incisions into the man's penis with a scalpel.
Greater Manchester Police launched an investigation into the KL7 tape and began looking for the men featured in the video. Their enquiries expanded as further tapes featuring whipping, spanking and wax play were seized, eventually leading to the involvement of sixteen police forces including West Mercia Police and West Yorkshire Police. A meeting was held to discuss the organisational structure of the expanded probe, and it was decided that the Obscene Publications Squad of the Metropolitan Police should lead the investigation, now called Operation Spanner.
On 4 November 1987, raids were carried out at the homes of men in Bolton, Shrewsbury and Shropshire. At the latter address, sniffer dogs were taken around the property's garden, with police claiming to have reason to think that individuals may have been killed during the making of the tapes. Activists and defence lawyers later questioned the likelihood of the men's consensual home sex videos being mistaken for snuff films, leading Detective Superintendent Michael Hames of the Obscene Publications Squad to admit that he could not explain how such an error could have been made. Nonetheless, he later insisted, "such reckless and escalating violence, left unchecked, was bound to lead to someone getting killed".
Those interviewed during the raids described a loose knit circle of men who met through advertisements in gay contact magazines and gathered regularly in various locations for sadomasochistic sex sessions, some of which were recorded to video and shared among the group. Most cooperated fully with the police's enquiries, acknowledging their involvement in the group and identifying themselves on the seized tapes, unaware that they may have broken the law.
Further raids were carried out on 10 November in Pontypridd, where a large quantity of sadomasochistic paraphernalia was seized, and on 11 November in Birmingham. The same day, the offices of the gay magazine Sir were raided. Other contact magazines including Gay Galaxy and Corporal Contacts were also raided during the course of the investigation. Two further raids were carried out on 16 November, at homes in Welwyn Garden City and Hampstead.
That month, the first reports of the investigation appeared in the gay press. One man questioned by police in relation to Operation Spanner told Him magazine that officers were working from a diary seized during an earlier raid, and had mentioned snuff films in the course of their questioning. An officer with Greater Manchester Police denied that the operation was related to snuff films but went on to falsely speculate that the investigation may be connected to an unsolved 1985 murder in Leeds.
By the beginning of 1988, police still did not know the identities of the two men on the KL7 tape, despite having unknowingly interviewed the man who filmed the scene the previous November. Though no faces were visible on the tape, the Obscene Publications Squad attempted to identify one of the men by a distinctive joint deformity on the index finger of his left hand, distributing a still image of the finger to police forces across the UK.
On 29 March, an officer with Hampshire Constabulary reported that he had spotted the man on that week's episode of Panorama. Detectives consulted a recording of the episode and recognised their suspect in a sequence depicting a 'special service of blessing' performed by a Church of England reverend for a gay couple. The man's joint deformity was visible in a close-up shot of his partner placing a ring onto his finger. A week later, on 7 April, police interviewed the man at a cafe in Evesham, and proceeded to search his home. He identified the other man on the KL7 tape, and a raid was carried out on that man's Broadway home the same day.
As the case began to come together, reporters were briefed that Operation Spanner "could be dealt with at the Old Bailey", prompting speculation that indictable-only offences would be brought against the men. The Obscene Publications Squad continued to build their case throughout 1989, even as the Metropolitan Police sought to replace the head of the squad, Detective Superintendent Leslie Bennett, after he was found to have used the Police National Computer to look up the license plate of his ex-wife's new partner.
Over the course of the investigation, in excess of 400 videotapes were seized, though a large number of these were commercial releases, and in some cases non-pornographic. The cost of the investigation was estimated at £2.5 million. Police were unable to find any participants who had not consented to the activities which took place, nor any who sustained lasting injuries.
In September 1989, sixteen men were charged with more than 100 offences including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and unlawful wounding. Several were charged with aiding and abetting assaults against themselves, charges which the Crown Prosecution Service said were "rare, except in cases where injuries were allegedly inflicted for a false insurance claim". In addition, one man was charged with bestiality and two were charged in relation to an indecent photograph of a child.
On 9 October 1989, the men appeared before Camberwell Magistrates' Court to face the charges against them. They were remanded to reappear at Lambeth Magistrates' Court on 20 November.
The charges brought against the men included conspiracy charges, which as indictable-only offences can only be heard in Crown Court, so the case was referred to the Old Bailey. The fact that these charges were later dropped led to accusations that the government viewed the trial as a test case, and intentionally sought to have it heard in Crown Court, where legal precedent could be set in the event of a guilty verdict.
The trial at the Old Bailey began on 29 October 1990 before Judge James Rant. The judge heard legal arguments from some of the accused that they could not be guilty because everyone involved had consented to what took place. However, Judge Rant rejected the argument and ruled that consent was not a defence, commenting that "people must sometimes be protected from themselves".
His decision relied heavily on R v Coney, an 1882 case in which participants in a bare-knuckle boxing match were found guilty of assault despite their consent to take part, and R v Donovan, a 1934 case in which a man was convicted of assault for caning a woman with her consent. After Judge Rant's ruling, the defendants changed their pleas to guilty, and were convicted on 7 November.
The remainder of the trial was dedicated to sentencing. Beginning on 11 December 1990, prosecutor Michael Worsley QC detailed the defendants' behaviour, which he characterised as "brute homosexual activity in sinister circumstances, about as far removed as can be imagined from the concept of human love". He explained that the state's evidence came not only from the men's own testimony, but also the many home videos seized during the investigation, though he conceded that these tapes had not been intended for distribution.
He described a group whose "nucleus" of key members "corrupted" others into attending "sessions of violence", where sadistic "masters" assaulted submissive "victims". Despite criticism that this framing misrepresented the nature of sadomasochism, his words were echoed in the press, with The Daily Telegraph branding the group a "torture vice gang" and The Times identifying the "leaders of [a] vicious and perverted sex gang".
Meanwhile, the defence argued for the consideration of a number of mitigating factors, including the fact that all those involved had consented to what took place, that they were all above the age of consent, and that none had at any time sought or required medical treatment.
Anna Worrall QC, representing one of the defendants, objected to a number of points raised by the prosecution, including the HIV status of some of the men, and the fact that police had taken sniffer dogs to the Shropshire raid, supposedly to search for buried bodies. She warned that "the world's press is listening to this" and that sensationalist reporting might "increase the punishment" of the defendants. Both details were indeed widely reported, with The Independent noting the men's HIV statuses in an article by Nick Cohen and The Sun detailing the use of sniffer dogs in an article headlined 'Pain Brigade of the Dungeon'.
Also widely reported was Judge Rant's 'horror' at having to watch the videotapes admitted into evidence. He requested an adjournment after going 'white in the face' during one viewing, and responded to a question about a sequence from the KL7 tape by saying, "I am not likely to have forgotten that film. I don't think any of us is likely to forget that particular film".
Two days before Judge Rant was due to sentence the men, Detective Superintendent Michael Hames, head of the Obscene Publications Squad, published an article in the Daily Mail in which he called the defendants "the most horrific porn ring ever to appear before a British court". Responding to a Home Office report which failed to find any link between pornography and sexual violence, Hames wrote that "everything I have learned [...] over the last 20 years tells me the opposite". The National Campaign for the Reform of the Obscene Publications Acts called the article "heavily propagandist" and filed an official complaint against Hames.
On 19 December, Judge Rant sentenced the men, handing down eight prison sentences of between 12 months and 4½ years. Passing the judgement, he said:Much has been said about individual liberty and the rights people have to do what they want with their own bodies, but the courts must draw the line between what is acceptable in a civilised society and what is not. In this case, the practices clearly lie on the wrong side of that line.
Five of the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal in February 1992. Three judges, headed by the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane, upheld the men's convictions, ruling that their consent to the activities involved was "immaterial". However, Lord Lane acknowledged that the men did not appreciate that their acts were criminal, and therefore reduced five of the prison sentences handed down by Judge Rant, cutting the longest down to six months.
Lord Lane granted the men leave to appeal to the House of Lords, which at the time was the UK's highest court of appeal, saying there was a "general public importance" in settling the question of whether the prosecution must prove that a victim did not consent before it could obtain a conviction for assault or wounding.
In March 1993, the five defendants appealed their case to the House of Lords. Ann Mallalieu QC, for the defence, argued that interfering in the private lives of consenting adults was justified only in cases where "private activity spills over into the public domain with adverse effects".
She went on to list several reasons why the case should not have been brought to trial, including the fact that no complaint was ever made to police, no serious or permanent injuries resulted from the activities, and participation in the acts was controlled, and limited to those wishing to take part.
The appeal was dismissed by a 3–2 majority of the Lords, with Lord Templeman declaring that:In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. [...] Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised.
In February 1997, three of the defendants took their case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, arguing that their convictions had violated their right to 'respect for their private lives through the expression of their sexual personality' as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In a landmark ruling, nine judges upheld that the laws under which the men were convicted were 'necessary in a democratic society for the protection of health'. The ruling followed pleas by the British government for the European Court to give greater consideration to individual nations' particular social mores.
There was immediate criticism of the investigation and trial in 1990, with the Gay London Policing Group describing the sentences as "outrageous" and Andrew Puddephat, general secretary of Liberty, calling for a "right to privacy enshrined in law". Keir Starmer said the judiciary had "effectively imposed its morality on others" and argued the "unrepresentative make-up of the judiciary makes it ill-equipped to do this". The Pink Paper branded the case a homophobic "show trial" designed to "get a clear ruling on the illegality of S&M sex, especially amongst gay men".
On 16 February 1991, police estimated that 5,000 people marched through Central London to protest the outcome of the Spanner trial, as well as the proposed Clause 25 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which would have raised the penalties for cruising and cottaging. On 13 April, thousands more protested the same issues at the Liberation '91 march in Manchester.
In August 1992, the campaign group Countdown on Spanner was formed in an effort to reverse the Court of Appeal ruling, and "demand the recognition that sadomasochism is a valid, sensual and legitimate part of human sexuality". The following month, it began publishing the newsletter Spanner People, and staged a public demonstration calling on Detective Superintendent Michael Hames, head of the Obscene Publications Squad, to resign.
On 28 November, the inaugural SM Pride parade was held, with more than 700 people marching through Central London.
In 1995, the Spanner Trust was established to provide assistance to the Spanner defendants, lobby for a change in British law to legalise sadomasochism, and provide assistance to any person subjected to discrimination because of their consensual sexual behaviour.
That December, following a public consultation, the Law Commission published 'Consent in the Criminal Law', a consultation paper recommending the decriminalisation of consensual sadomasochistic acts, except in the case of 'seriously disabling injury'. This recommendation was never adopted into law.
= = = Parental alienation = = =
Parental alienation describes a process through which a child becomes estranged from a parent as the result of the psychological manipulation of another parent. The child's estrangement may manifest itself as fear, disrespect or hostility toward the parent, and may extend to additional relatives or parties. The child's estrangement is disproportionate to any acts or conduct attributable to the alienated parent. Parental alienation can occur in any family unit, but is believed to occur most often within the context of family separation, particularly when legal proceedings are involved, although the participation of professionals such as lawyers, judges and psychologists may also contribute to conflict.
Proponents of parental alienation assert that it is primarily motivated by one parent's desire to exclude the other parent from their child's life. Some assert that parental alienation should be diagnosable in children as a mental disorder. Some propose that parental alienation be recognized as a form of child abuse or family violence. They assert that parental alienation creates stress on the alienated parent and child, and significantly increases the child's lifetime risk of mental illness.
Parental alienation remains controversial both within the psychological community and the legal system. The psychological community has not accepted parental alienation as a diagnosable mental condition. Critics within the psychological community note that alienating behaviors are common in high-conflict family situations such as child custody proceedings, but that the estrangement of a child from a parent remains rare. They assert that the research performed to date does not support the theory that parental alienation results in the harm described by proponents. They also express concern that a parent who has caused a child to become alienated, for example through acts of domestic violence or child abuse, may assert parental alienation to convince a court that the child's justified response to the abuse is the result of the other parent's misconduct and to potentially gain custody of the child. No diagnostic criteria have been established for parental alienation, and proposals made to date have not been established as reliable. No program of treatment has been demonstrated to be safe or valid, and proponents of parental alienation theory agree that more research into treatment is necessary.
The theory of parental alienation has been asserted within legal proceedings as a basis for awarding custody to a parent who alleges estrangement, or to modify custody in favor of that parent. Courts have generally rejected parental alienation as a valid scientific theory, but some courts have allowed the concept to be argued as relevant to the determination of the child's best interest when making a custody determination. Legal professionals recognize that alienating behaviors are common in child custody cases, but are cautious about accepting the concept of parental alienation.
Parental alienation describes the breakdown of the relationship between a child and one of the child's parents, when there is no valid justification for that breakdown. When parental alienation is found to exist between a parent and child, the alienation is attributed to inappropriate actions and behavior by the other parent.
Parental alienation falls within the spectrum of family estrangement, a term that broadly describes when family members become alienated from each other without regard to cause. As estrangement may occur between a parent and child for other reasons, it is possible to discuss alienation in terms of a child's having a preferred and a nonpreferred parent without implying that a child's avoidance of one parent is due to parental alienation.
While parental alienation describes a context in which a parent and child become alienated from each other, the term is normally used only in contexts in which the child's alienation from the parent is alleged to be unwarranted. Under that conception, alienation from a parent falls into one of two broad categories:
Justified parental estrangement is an understandable refusal by a child to see a parent, while parental alienation lacks justifiable reason, although there is no consensus regarding how to differentiate one from the other. Attribution of a child's attitudes toward a parent to parental alienation is complicated by the absence of a means of assessing whether a child's feelings toward a parent are "irrational" or "without legitimate basis".
Alienating behaviors are often demonstrated by both parents in high-conflict divorce and child custody cases, but do not ordinarily result in alienation of a child from a parent and may backfire against the parent who engages in alienating behavior. Theories of parental alienation should explain how the relationship between the child and the rejected parent deteriorates, why under similar circumstances alienation may occur in one family but not another, and the relationship between alienating behaviors and the severity of a child’s alienation from a parent.
In situations where a child avoids one parent and strongly prefers the other, the only behaviors that can be observed are avoidance and preference. Alienation by one parent thus cannot be directly measured, and is instead inferred from the child's behavior. Some researchers thus use "preferred" rather than "alienating" parent and "non-preferred" rather than "alienated", "rejected", or "targeted" parent.
Although a number of theories have been proposed, there is no generally accepted theory of parental alienation. One theory suggests that parental alienation may occur when divorce triggers reenactment of a parent's childhood feelings of inadequacy or abandonment, and causes alienating parents to reenact psychological processes experienced during their own childhood. In essence, the theory proposes that parents who fear inadequacy or abandonment based upon their own childhood experiences project those fears onto the rejected parent whose inadequacy they believe to be obvious. However, that theory does not explain alleged parental alienation that may occur in other contexts, nor in cases where there is no evidence of a parent's childhood trauma. Another theory of parental alienation posits that alienation is a form of harmful parenting by a parent who suffers from a personality disorder, specifically borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder. A divorce, breakup of a relationship or similarly difficult experience triggers feelings of inadequacy or abandonment that cause that parent to decompensate into persecutorial delusions, and to project their fears onto the other parent. However, parental alienation is frequently alleged in cases where neither parent has been diagnosed with a personality disorder.
Studies suggest that independent of other marital issues, acts of parental alienation may be harmful to children. While not all adults who experience acts of parental alienation during childhood report negative consequences, many report outcomes that they attribute to parental alienation, including low self-esteem, addiction and substance abuse, lack of trust, and relationship problems. For example, a retrospective study of adults found that independent of damage of a child's relationship with the other parent, perceived experiences with parental alienation during childhood correlate in adulthood with lower self-sufficiency, lower self-esteem, higher rates of major depressive disorder, and insecure attachment styles. A survey of self-reported childhood experiences of three hundred and sixty-one adults in Italy found that 42.1% of participants reported acts of parental alienation by their mothers, and 54.3% reported acts of parental alienation by their fathers. Reports of parental alienation were found to correlate with reports of psychological maltreatment.
Assessment of the impact of parental alienation within the context of legal proceedings, such as child custody litigation, is complicated by the participation of other professionals, including psychologists, lawyers and judges, whose actions and decisions may negatively affect family relationships. Although alienating behaviors by parents are common in high-conflict divorces, most children do not become alienated from a parent as a result of that behavior.
Some mental health professionals argue that severe parental alienation should be established as a form of emotional abuse and domestic violence. Controversy persists as to whether parental alienation should be treated as a form of child abuse or family violence.
No instrument or measure has been demonstrated to be valid or reliable in the assessment of parental alienation, or to diagnose parental alienation from any list of child behaviors. The claim that any individual behavior or cluster of behaviors demonstrates that the preferred parent has caused the child's avoidance is not based on empirical work and as an inference is the result of a problem of critical thinking called affirming the consequent. No diagnostic criteria have been proposed that can be applied to determine if a child's feelings toward a parent are irrational or disproportionate to the actions or behavior of the alienated parent. The absence of a valid and reliable assessment measure also means that it is difficult to evaluate whether parental alienation treatments are effective.
Although there are no accepted diagnostic criteria, it has been proposed that parental alienation can be diagnosed in a child who displays some or all of the following eight behaviors:
The eight criteria have not been studied empirically, and have not been demonstrated to occur more often in children who avoid one parent after high-conflict divorce than they do in children matched for age who are experiencing different stressors and do not have a strong preference for one parent.
These symptoms may occur in a high-conflict divorce even without indoctrination by the favored parent, rendering them problematic for identification of improper parenting. The use of the eight symptoms as diagnostic criteria has been challenged based upon the observation that if the symptoms can occur without an alienating parent, they cannot of themselves be used to determine if a child is demonstrating symptoms from parental alienation.
The symptoms have also been criticized as vague and subjective. For example, if a child claims to have independently formulated opinions of a rejected parent, the child's claim can be used as evidence of the independent-thinker phenomenon such that there is nothing that the child could say that could not be interpreted by a therapist as proof of parental alienation.
There is no generally recognized treatment protocol for parental alienation. A number of treatment models have been created for children considered to show parental alienation, with treatment typically carried out after custody of the children has been transferred to the nonpreferred parent. Five treatment programs were evaluated in terms of the levels of evidence provided by the empirical research said to support them. None were supported by research that met standards required for evidence-based treatments. Instead, they were at the third level of evidence, often called “promising”, as they involved before-and-after assessment of nonpreferred parents’ opinions rather than randomized controlled trials or clinical controlled trials using standardized assessments. Reports of some young adults who have been through one of these treatments suggest that as well as lacking an adequate evidence basis, the treatments may be either directly or indirectly harmful to children and adolescents.
One form of reconciliation therapy, described by its proponents as family reunification therapy, involves court-ordered removal of children from their preferred parent and the requirement that they engage in intensive programs with the rejected parent. Due to its unproven nature, this form of therapy has been criticized as "quack therapy". In order to avoid regulations and oversight that apply to psychological and medical treatment, these programs are often billed as educational or psycho-educational. These programs tend also to be very expensive. The safety and effectiveness of family reconciliation therapy remain in dispute.
Some children who have been compelled to participate in family reunification therapy have reported that they were forced to deny their truthful complaints about the parent that was alleged to be alienated. The scientific validity of this therapy, and whether it may properly be considered by a court, is in dispute.
Parental alienation concepts have been used to argue for child custody changes when children resist contact with a nonpreferred parent. The argument generally involves the request for a court order giving full custody to the nonpreferred parent and denying contact to the preferred parent. The child may also be ordered into a treatment program to facilitate reunification with the nonpreferred parent. The rationale of this argument is that the attitude and actions of children who reject a parent without clear evidence of abuse reflects mental illness. If that belief is correct then the child's mental disorder may be attributed to the actions of the preferred parent and, as the actions have harmed the child, those actions can be defined as abusive. Once an allegation of parental alienation is interpreted as abuse by a parent, that interpretation provides a strong argument against custody of or even contact with that parent. This line of argument, however, ignores other possible factors, such as the effect on a child of poor parenting skills of the nonpreferred parent or the influence of one or both parents’ new romantic partners, and depends on inferences about the behavior of the preferred parent rather than direct evidence of inappropriate parenting.
A number of articles in professional journals have presented critiques of the manner in which parental alienation advocates have construed children's avoidance of one divorced or separated parent and strong preference for the other parent. Key among their concerns is that advocates of parental alienation concepts have presented a highly simplified explanation of visitation and contact resistance or refusal by children of couples in high-conflict divorces. As multiple factors are generally involved in human behavior, they assert that without direct evidence it is not appropriate to infer manipulation or exploitation by one parent as the cause of a child's preference for one parent over the other. Another concern is that there is a lack of evidentiary support for the concept of parental alienation, as proponents of this theory have failed to meet standards for evidence-based treatment and have never produced empirical support for claimed symptoms of alienation such as "black and white thinking".
A particularly problematic aspect of the use of parental alienation concepts in child custody decisions is the possible association of allegations of alienating behavior by the preferred parent with allegations of domestic violence by the nonpreferred parent. As allegations of parental alienation can lead to court-ordered custody changes giving the nonpreferred parent full custody, and often including restraining orders against contact with the preferred parent, it becomes possible for a finding of parental alienation to cause children may be placed in the custody of a physically or sexually abusive parent.
Brazil has passed a law prohibiting parental alienation, which it defines "as the interference with the psychological formation of a child or adolescent that promotes repudiation of a parent or damage to the establishment or maintenance of ties with a parent, when such an act is practiced by a parent, grandparent, those who have the child or adolescent under their authority, custody, or supervision." A judge who finds that parental alienation has occurred may issue a warning, may modify the custody arrangement in favor of the alienated parent, may order counseling, or may place the alienated child in an interim residence.
In England, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) was formed to promote the welfare of children and families involved family court cases. Cafcass recognizes the possibility of parental alienation in family separation cases. Cafcass has developed a Child Impact Assessment Framework (CIAF) that is focused on understanding the child's personal experience of parental separation as a tool to help courts make more informed decisions about the best interests of the children. Alienation is specifically identified and assessed within that framework.
In Israel, parental alienation is known as "nikor horim", and the courts have begun to recognize it. In family cases, the welfare of the child is always paramount and previously where the child was settled with one parent, even where there had been parental alienation, the court was reluctant to act. However the courts have recognized parental alienation as being harmful to the child. In an article in the Jerusalem Post Hadassah Fidler explained "Recently, there have been changes to the procedures in the courts in Tel Aviv where, when a case of parental alienation is recognized, it is expedited to avoid the deepening the rift between the child and the alienated parent".
In the Federal District of Mexico, an area that is officially equivalent to Mexico City, 323 "Septimus" of the Civil Code prohibits a family member from transforming the conscience of a minor so as to prevent, hinder or interfere with the minor's relationship with one of the minor's parents. If a court finds that such acts have occurred and are of mild or moderate nature, and that the person responsible for the alienation is the father, the court must transfer custody to the other parent. If the court finds that the degree of parental alienation attributable to the father is severe, all contact with the father of the child must be suspended, and that the child must receive counseling.
No federal or state laws regulating parental alienation currently exist in the United States. Some courts recognize parental alienation as a serious issue with potential long-term effects and serious outcomes for the child. Other jurisdictions may suspend child support in cases where parental alienation occurs. For example, in a New York case in which the father was prevented from seeing his son by the child's mother through a "pattern of alienation", child support was suspended. Some United States courts have tried to address the issue through mandated reunification therapy.
Due to the nature of allegations of parental alienation, many courts require that a qualified expert witness testify in support of allegations of parental alienation or in association with any allegation that a parent has a mental health disorder.
The term parental alienation is derived from parental alienation syndrome, a term introduced by Richard Gardner in 1985 to describe a suite of behaviors that he had observed in children exposed to family separation or divorce whereby children rejected or showed what he interpreted as unwarranted feelings towards one of their parents.
The idea that children may be turned against one of their parents, or may reject a parent unjustifiably during family breakdown, has been recognised for centuries. The position that many family estrangements result from such a process of psychological manipulation, undue influence or interference by a third party (rather than from genuine interactions between the estranged parties themselves) is less well-recognized.
Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) was proposed by child psychiatrist Richard Gardner as a means of diagnosing parental alienation within a family by virtue of identifying a cluster of symptoms that he hypothesized would only co-exist if a parent were engaged in alienating behavior. This theory involved looking for a set of psychological symptoms in a child and proposing PAS as a basis for concluding that those symptoms were caused by harmful parenting practices. One psychologist disputes the characterization of PAS as a new syndrome, proposing instead that the phenomenon is best viewed as a combination of psychological problems, with the issue being how to develop effective treatment.
Mental health professionals are reluctant to recognize so-called parental alienation syndrome.{ In 2008, the American Psychological Association noted that there is a lack of data to support the concept of parental alienation syndrome, but took no official position on the syndrome. A 2009 survey of mental health and legal professionals found broad skepticism of the concept of parental alienation syndrome, and caution in relation to the concept of parental alienation.
In 2012, in anticipation of the release of the DSM-5, the fifth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, an argument was made for the inclusion of PAS in the DSM-5 as a diagnosis related to parental alienation. The argument was based upon the position that parental alienation and a variety of other descriptions of behaviors represent the underlying concept of parental alienation disorder. Despite lobbying by proponents, the proposal was rejected in December 2012.
With the exclusion of PAS from the DSM-V, some advocates for the recognition of parental alienation as a diagnosable condition have since argued that elements of parental alienation are covered in the DSM-5 under the concept of "Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention", specifically, "child affected by parental relationship distress". Those proponents assert that children who are exposed to intimate partner distress between their parents may develop psychological symptoms as a result of that exposure.
As the psychological and psychiatric communities did not accept the concept of a "syndrome", the term "parental alienation" was advanced in the 1990s as a possible explanation of a child's behavior independent of a psychological or psychiatric diagnosis. Among theories of parental alienation that have been proposed, psychologists have argued that the term parental alienation may be used in a manner synonymous with the original formulation of parental alienation syndrome, with diagnosis based upon signs observable in children, that it may be used to describe the process or tactics by which a child becomes alienated from a parent, or to describe the outcomes for parents and others who have experienced unwarranted rejection by a child.
Some empirical research has been performed, though the quality of the studies vary widely and research in the area is still developing. One complicating factor for research is that high numbers of parents involved in high conflict custody disputes engage in alienating or indoctrinating behaviors, but only a small proportion children become alienated.
In an informal survey at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 2010, 98% of the 300 respondents agreed with the question, "Do you think that some children are manipulated by one parent to irrationally and unjustifiably reject the other parent?". Survey participants were divided as to whether a rejected parent partially blame when a child becomes alienated from a parent and the other parent is exhibiting alienating behaviors, and by a significant margin rejected the inclusion of parental alienation in the DSM. However, parental alienation refers not to the acts of manipulation, but rather to the child's rejection of a parent that results from alienating behavior.
United States courts have broadly rejected parental alienation syndrome as a concept that may be presented in a child custody case, but it remains possible to argue within child custody litigation that parental alienation has occurred and to demonstrate how a parent's alienating behaviors should be considered by a court when evaluating a custody case. Behaviors that result in parental alienation may reflect other mental health disorders, both on the part of the alienating parent and the rejected parent that, if proved, remain relevant to a custody determination. The behavior of the alienated child may also be a relevant factor.
In late 2005, a Canadian activist named Sarvy Emo proposed that March 28 be designated Parental Alienation Awareness Day. The proposed date was later modified to April 25. The date has received some level of recognition, such as a 2006 proclamation by the Governor of Georgia recognizing April 25 as Parental Alienation Awareness Day, and its unofficial recognition by the Governor of Nevada in 2007.
An organization called ISNAF, the International Support Network of Alienated Families, was created to provide support to parents and families who believe that they are affected by parental alienation. Bubbles of Love organizes events intended to draw attention to children's need to be loved by both of their parents.