Lesbian adoption story

The NY Times celebrates the story of a lesbian couple trying to buy a child. The first attempt failed, so they tried to get their money back and try again, getting a baby the second time:

For the following year, the only connection to our “disrupted” adoption was financial. The agency was lax in returning the small amount of the thousands we paid that we were entitled as a refund. Not being a legally recognized couple, we couldn’t split the burden of chasing down the money. Because only one of us was listed as the adopting parent, my partner had to deal with every call and detail related to the child that didn’t enter our lives as I stood mutely by, the unrecognized party, unable to share the burden. ...

We had learned that no country in the world would let an openly gay couple adopt internationally. Many of our states don’t either, so gay couples try to adopt, as we did, as a single parent. We comforted ourselves with the idea that at least we had the resources at our disposal to try again. Some lesbian couples we know did not.

We started again, this time with an “open” adoption agency. The openness didn’t just apply to the adoption itself, where we would have lifelong relationships with the birth parents, but in another way, with us as a gay couple. We could be ourselves, out and together, as we are in all other aspects of our lives.

We steeled ourselves for the process yet again: more fingerprints sent to the F.B.I., a new home study, a new agency, and another wait (average length for straight couples: 13 months, for gay couples: 16 months). At almost exactly 16 months, we got the call: a birth mother from the Seattle area had picked us off the Web site. She was due in August. An art student, she had connected with us because we cited Harry Potter and “The Lord of the Rings” in our profile as books and movies we enjoy. ...

After a full day spent together, topped by a dinner of sushi, I realized how much I liked this girl. She said she had picked us, in part, because she had read that lesbians have the longest wait for adoptions of all, and she wanted to right that wrong. How could we not love her? ...

It was 10:15 on Monday night when the agency called. “The parental rights have been terminated,” a woman said. ...

Jennifer Hauseman is the head of new media for a family foundation based in Seattle.

A "family foundation"? She works for The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

I guess that if you are acquiring a baby from a flaky tattooed 20-year-old girl, it helps to show an interest in Harry Potter.

Americans adoptions of overseas kids have been declining, and not just because the Russians banned them.

The article has no mention of dads. The 20yo mom was paid to give up her parental rights, but there is no mention of the dad giving up his rights. There is no mention of anyone wanting the kid to have a dad. There is no mention of the reasons that most countries and states do not want lesbian adoptions.

Call me paranoid, but I say that there is a plot to marginalize dads.

Happy New Year.

Bad judges want protection

The UK Guardian reports:

Family judges across England say they fear being attacked by angry or disturbed parents because security in court is often dangerously inadequate.

It is rare for judges to raise their concerns publicly, but a number have taken the unusual step of speaking out to criticise security at the principal registry of the family division (PRFD) in central London, and also at district courts around the country.

In one incident, a female judge was seriously injured in an attack. Judges also told of parents shouting threats at them, as well as throwing books and cups.

"I have been threatened," one judge told the Guardian, speaking under condition of anonymity. "A very angry father stood up and shouted antisemitic threats at me. Another father threw a cup of water across the courtroom. Another parent threw a book, but fortunately I was too far away for it to reach me."

A second judge, also speaking anonymously, said of the PRFD: "I'm constantly, constantly exposed when I work there. There's no security in the courtroom. None. Sometimes we are in the courtroom alone with a parent. Most commonly, we sit with a clerk, who, in my experience, is always an elderly woman. If anything went wrong, believe you me, she would not be the one defending me.

"We shouldn't have to walk in the public corridors of a building where we have just removed someone's child for ever," the judge added. "At the PRFD, there are no private corridors for judges at all, which means we have to walk through public waiting areas and corridors when moving between courtrooms, entering and leaving the building. We can't even go to the loo without passing through a public area. I feel uncomfortable every time I have to do it. I'm very aware of the constant risk."

Wow, a judge removes a man's child forever, and he complains about having to listen to an antisemitic slur while going to the loo, whatever that is. (Okay, that is a composite. A loo must be some sort of English slang for a toliet.)

In Santa Cruz, the court security was installed after a family court shooting. They have never had a problem in the criminal court or other courts. Just the family court. Does that tell you something?

The solution here is not to install a new loo for judges and put it under armed guard. They should stop taking kids away.

The cause of most social problems today

The Wash. Times has a Xmas story on the decline of dads:

Fathers disappear from households across America
Big increase in single mothers ...

In her neighborhood in Southeast Washington, 1 in 10 children live with both parents, and 84 percent live with only their mother.

In every state, the portion of families where children have two parents, rather than one, has dropped significantly over the past decade. Even as the country added 160,000 families with children, the number of two-parent households decreased by 1.2 million. Fifteen million U.S. children, or 1 in 3, live without a father, and nearly 5 million live without a mother. In 1960, just 11 percent of American children lived in homes without fathers.

America is awash in poverty, crime, drugs and other problems, but more than perhaps anything else, it all comes down to this, said Vincent DiCaro, vice president of the National Fatherhood Initiative: Deal with absent fathers, and the rest follows.

So what does he want to do about it? His web site says:

National Fatherhood Initiative focuses on raising awareness about the importance of fathers, producing skill-building resources, and engaging all sectors of society around father involvement. While fathers' legal and custodial rights are important, they are not NFI's main focus. National Fatherhood Initiative does not provide advice on legal matters related to the family court system. ...

National Fatherhood Initiative is supported by a variety of funding sources. Individual donors, corporations, private foundations and government grants support NFI's various efforts.

I hate to say it, but he is only telling part of the story, and just raising awareness will not help much. And I very much doubt that his funding agencies will permit him to tell the whole truth.

Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan once privately told this joke:

Two Irish ladies were at the wake for their dear friend. "Poor Mollie," said the first woman, looking down at the body, "she had such a hard life. First she married Mike, who gave her five crying children in six years. He beat her and never worked a day in his life. Then Mike up and died, and she married Johnny, who was even worse, giving her seven more children and not a penny of support. He was drunk all the time until he died, too. And now Mollie is gone, worked to death taking care of those 12 kids."

"Well, at least they are together at last," replied the second woman.

"You mean together in Heaven?" asked the first woman. "But is Mollie together with Mike or with Johnny?"

"I was referring to her legs."

Testing for violence gene

My local newspaper has editorialized:

But that controversy overshadows another point regarding the Newtown gunman and so many others: The pepetrators almost always are males, isolated and withdrawn, harboring sometimes secret, sometimes not, resentments and anger that finally explode in a chilling and violent cataclysm.

A columnist from the nation's heartland, Rekha Basu of the Des Moines Register newspaper, wrote with insight on this topic in an essay published this week: "It's stunning when it hits you: Mass murderers are almost always male.

"It's also a loaded topic, which explains why we almost never call attention to it. How do you do that constructively without seeming to hold an entire gender responsible for the crimes committed by a few?

"What made it particularly difficult was a friend's insistence that biology -- rather than culture -- is to blame. Testosterone, she argued, makes men innately more violent. If we just blame DNA for men's violence, I retorted, then we are submitting it can't be overcome. But culture can be.

"Whatever the reasons, the facts speak for themselves. It's hard to find a female name among perpetrators on the Wall Street Journal's list of the deadliest mass shootings in the world ...

Well, duhh. This has been noticed before, and taken to the next step.

Leftist evolutionist PZ Myers writes:

Scientists intend to sequence Adam Lanza’s DNA. They’re looking for genetic markers for mass murder. Why? Because some scientists are stupid. ...

I would ask whether there is any reason to assume that this behavior is a heritable trait. ...

I can predict exactly what will be found when they look at Adam Lanza’s DNA. It will be human.

I know what you are thinking. If Lanza has the Asperger-violence gene combo, then some future Orwellian law could pre-emptively test everyone's DNA and possibly extinguish their gun rights. And parental rights also. And for my readers who don't like me, they can hope that I would test positive for those genes, so my unfitness can be proved scientifically once and for all.

I think that it is funny how leftists desperately want everyone to believe that homosexuality is inborn, but they do not want to even research the possibility that criminal violence could be inborn.

I hope they look at Lanza's genes, as well as all the other possible causes. I hope they also scrutinize his mom, the judge who gave her sole custody, and the psychiatrist who misdiagnosed him.

The paper's lede page 1 story was:

The Santa Cruz City Schools board is expected to consider a resolution next month calling for stricter national gun control laws and improved mental health services ...

In response to the Dec. 14 school shooting in Connecticut that left 20 first-graders dead, school board Vice President Cynthia Hawthorne is drafting a symbolic statement that will call for banning assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines nationwide, as well as greater state and federal investment in mental health care and early-childhood education on conflict resolution.

"We are just having a call for sanity," said Hawthorne, who added that the National Rifle Association's recommendation last week to arm guards on campuses contradicts the notion of security. "A safe schools policy implies that there are to be no guns on campus by anybody."

We already have those bans in California. Most of these mass shootings have been disturbed kids on psychotropic prescription drugs who went to a gun-free zone and then killed themselves when police showed up.

It would be a gross denial of our civil rights if we had to pass a genetic fitness test to become a parent or own a gun. But it would be better than the present system where such rights can be taken away on the whim of a bigoted judge.

Lanza not a poster boy

The San Jose Mercury News reports:

Like millions of people, Paul Bondonno searched in vain for an explanation for the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But when early reports noted the gunman had Asperger's syndrome, the 34-year-old bolted into hyper-driven self-defense, and he hasn't stopped since.

"We don't want Adam Lanza to be our poster boy," Bondonno said at the Coffee Society in Campbell.

The cafe is usually busy on weekends, but a pelting rain Sunday morning kept the crowd and noise down, a perfect setting for separating the facts of a mysterious disorder from the debate over guns, massacres and mental illness. A 13-year-old girl with Asperger's, Puja Uppalapati, and her father, joined the conversation as well.

"It irritated me," Puja said about the initial Lanza-Asperger's connection. "I was like, why are you saying this? Is this what people will think of us?"

Medical records have not confirmed it, but the possibility that Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman, had Asperger's has got people such as Puja and Bondonno worried that any association with Lanza, true or false, will create a runaway stereotype of them as murderous madmen waiting to explode.

Considered a form of high-functioning autism, Asperger's is a neurological disorder generally characterized by difficulties with social interaction and communication with others.

Children who have autism may have more severe tantrums and meltdowns than other youths, but the disorder is not typically linked to violence, said Mohan Krishnan, a clinical neuropsychologist who works with children and adults who have Asperger's at Hope Network Behavioral Health Services in Grand Rapids, Mich.

"In adulthood, planned acts of violence are not associated with people with Asperger's," Krishnan said.

I would have said that this is ridiculous, except that Judge Heather Morse ruled against me by saying that she suspected me of Aspergers, even tho four psychologists testified that I did not have it or any other mental disorder. Even if I did have it, it has no obvious relevance to the family court. As the article explains, Asperger syndrome is not associated with violence or any other bad behavior. Since then, the Asperger diagnosis has been dropped from the DSM-5.

Some day the history of Asperger syndrome will be written, and Judge Morse will be written up as one of the great bigots of this generation.

For your reference, I found this free summary of the DSM-IV-TR, including diagnostic criteria for Asperger.

Cutting the Baby in Half

The Hawaiian libertarian writes:

"50-50 custody by default should be the norm."

The preceding quote was made by a commenter in response to Bill Price's article at The Spearhead yesterday, in which Price made the point that the current child support system is essentially a tax to encourage single mother hood.

Price is 100% correct! The State actively promotes single mother hood as the justification to grow the vast leviathan of bureaucratic Government to achieve the total enslavement of the citizenry. That IS the primary purpose for creating the system as it currently operates. ...

Fighting for 50/50 custody default is NOT a desirable result to fight for. If this is what a Men's Rights Movement decides to fight for, good luck with that gentlemen. You are merely fighting for the right to dictate the terms of your enslavement.

What does a 50/50 default custody truly represent? A three way parenting model. The Ex-Husband, the Ex-Wife and THE STATE being the final arbiter and decision maker in child raising decisions.

In other words, we'll call it 50/50 default custody, but what it will be in practice is 25/25/50 custody. 25% for Mom, 25% for Dad, and 50% THE STATE.

The guy has a point. I have been pushing for 50-50 child custody, and parenting groups have promoted laws making 50-50 custody the default. But the truth of the matter is that true 50-50 custody has not been implemented anywhere, and it is not likely to be.

Another blogger has assembled enough posts to make a book on The Philosophy of Men Going Their Own Way. You cannot go your own way as long as the state is running your life.

Here is a man going his own way:

Dear Annie: "Looking for a Relationship, Too" wants to know where the men are. I'll tell you where we are. We are in hiding. We left the dating pool because there are too many sharks. We are tired of sorting out the gold diggers, scheming manipulators, entitlement princesses, Toxic Thelmas and serial divorcees from the good women who are fewer and farther between.

It is now a dangerous occupation to be a husband and father, so we no longer want long-term intimate relationships with women. — A Good Man Gone Celibate

Dear Celibate: You sound like someone who's had a bitter experience, and it soured you on all relationships. And while you probably speak for many men, we also wonder whether you are subconsciously attracted to women who come with trouble attached. It is often easier to blame the other party than examine your own issues too closely.

Yes, such men will be subject to such psychobabble criticism.

Portrait of dad and daughter

Here is a drawing of me with my daughter. Just kidding. It was drawn by some French artist named Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, who died in 1867.

Merry Christmas to all.

Famous early feminist play

Another Christmas play is A Doll's House from Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen in 1879. The feminist pro-divorce narcissist plot is explained here:

The contentment of this Christmas Eve is soon shattered. Nora learns that an employee from the bank is preparing to blackmail them. Years before, Nora had, without her husband’s knowledge, taken out a loan from the employee, ...

“I shall never get to know myself — I shall never learn to face reality — unless I stand alone. So I can’t stay with you any longer,” Nora tells Torvald.

A few minutes later, Torvald responds:

Helmer: “It’s inconceivable! Don’t you realize you’d be betraying your most sacred duty?

Nora: “What do you consider that to be?”

Helmer: “Your duty towards your husband and your children — I surely don’t have to tell you that!

Nora: I’ve another duty just as sacred.”

Helmer: “Nonsense! What duty do you mean?”

Nora: “My duty towards myself.”

In this moment, Nora’s cruelty to her children is breathtaking — a fact that was acknowledged by some viewers when the play first come out but is rarely, if ever, noted today.

The wife could get to know herself within the marriage. This is just feminist drivel.

Santa accuses a malicious contemptible fraud

The TV is showing Miracle on 34th Street, and it is one of the great movies against forensic psychiatry. In one scene, Santa tells off the company shrink:

KRIS: I have great respect for psychiatry… and great contempt for meddling amateurs who go around practicing it. You have no more right to analyze Alfred… than a dentist has to remove a gallbladder!

SAWYER: I beg your pardon.

KRIS: Your job here, I understand, is to give intelligence tests. Pressing yourself off as a psychologist. You ought to be horsewhipped… taking a normal, impressionable boy like Alfred… and filling him up with complexes and phobias.

SAWYER: I think I’m better equipped to judge that than you are.

KRIS: Just because the boy wants to be kind to children… you tell him he has a guilt complex.

SAWYER: Sharing his delusion, you couldn’t possibly understand. The boy is definitely maladjusted, and I’m helping.

KRIS: Maladjusted?! You talk about maladjusted. It seems to me the patient is running the clinic here.

SAWYER: I won’t stand… Leave this office immediately.

KRIS: Now either you stop analyzing Alfred… or I go straight to Mr. Macy… and tell him what a malicious contemptible fraud you are.

SAWYER: Leave or I’ll have you thrown out.

KRIS: There’s only one way to handle a man like you. You won’t listen to reason. You’re heartless. You have no humanity.

Kris (Santa Claus) is extremely nice to everyone else in the movie. His putdowns are entirely appropriate for the forensic psychologists. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Free speech upheld against LGBT censors

I posted before on that the California Law infringes psychologist free speech, and now the federal appeals court agrees:

Today, Dec. 21, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the California ban on change therapy from going into effect, because it granted an injunction pending the appeal in Pickup v. Brown, according to Liberty Counsel. The law was originally set take effect on Jan. 1, 2013, and was designed to ban any counseling of minors seeking to deal with same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and/or identity.

The banning of any counseling of minors for this issue, would have kept children from receiving counseling at the request of parents that may steer their child away from a homosexual lifestyle. But, since the court granted the injunction pending the appeal, the practice of change therapy will still be allowed for now.

We can thank a conservative pro-family group:

Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver, whose Christian legal aide group is representing reparative therapy practitioners and recipients in a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law, applauded the court's decision to grant his request to delay its implementation.

"This law is politically motivated to interfere with counselors and clients. Liberty Counsel is thankful that the 9th Circuit blocked the law from going into effect," Staver said. "This law is an astounding overreach by the government into the realm of counseling and would have caused irreparable harm."

Staver is right. The corrupt psychology profession has acquiesced to LGBT pressure to prohibit telling the truth to kids who desperately need it.

It is primarily the left that wants to censor other points of view. The gay shrinks claim that the banned therapy is ineffective and harmful, but there is no published evidence that it is any less effective or more harmful than any other form of therapy.

You may think that homosexualtiy is inborn, but scientists have found no proof of that, despite a huge amount of research looking for a gay gene. Whether it is or not, a parent might well think that a 15-year-old boy or girl has some unhealthy or perverted sexual inclinations, and seek professional help. Under this California law, a psychotherapist will lose her license if she says or does anything to "reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."

This law would not have passed if prominent psychiatrists or psychologists had objected. Their support for this law is proof that you cannot trust your child to one of these shrinks. She will encourage him to engage in homosexual behavior against your wishes, and cite confidentiality to refuse to tell you what she is doing.

Criminal charges belong in criminal court

Law professor Sherry F. Colb writes:

My view is that we have a great deal more to worry about from stranger-rape victims who inadvertently misidentify their assailants than we do from acquaintance-rape victims who invent a rape that did not take place. One’s view on the risks of believing the sworn testimony of an accuser over that of an accused will depend on how frequently one thinks that such false claims of rape are made. If, as Lord Matthew Hale believed, “rape…is an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved, and harder to be defended by the party accused, tho never so innocent,” then we would want to be very cautious about allowing any serious consequences (such as the loss of parental rights or of liberty) to turn on a so-called “swearing contest” between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. ...

Furthermore, it seems fanciful to imagine that many mothers will falsely accuse the fathers of their children of rape simply to avoid the prospect of paternal visitation. And to the extent that some mothers actually do so, placing a burden on the woman’s side of the case to prove the rape by a preponderance of the evidence will permit the fact-finder to reach the more-likely-than-not correct resolution to the custody and visitation questions.

What she is trying to say is that moms should be able to win sole custody by making a rape claim to a family court judge years later.

Politicians get in trouble for saying this, but pregnancy rarely results from a genuine rape. The woman reports it promptly to police, gets a medical exam, and gets treatment to make pregnancy impossible.

Regardless, criminal accusations do not belong in family court. There is a reason that criminal and civil courts are separate. If someone wants to make a charge of domestic violence, rape, or any other crime, let her make it in criminal court where the object is guilt or innocence.

The trouble with family court judges is that they have no idea whether the accusations are true or false, but give child custody to the mom as being prudent in case they are true. The women thus has a big incentive to make false accusations, and she almost never suffers even if she is proved wrong. I have seen women benefit again and again from ridiculously implausible accusations with no evidence.

Colb says "fanciful to imagine"! She should just drop into her local family court where moms make false accusations to win custody every day.

No parental rights in Sweden

I sometimes get a suggestion to move to a more enlightened country. Unfortunately, the other countries are worse, as far as I know. Consider this story:

First the Swedish government took their son away. Now an appeals court has terminated their parental rights -- all because they homeschooled their son.

Dominic Johannson has been in state custody since 2009.

In June, he and his family experienced a glimmer of hope when a district court ruled the Johannsons could retain their parental rights. Now an appeals court has reversed that decision.

CBN News Repoter Dale Hurd has been following this story from the beginning. He recently spoke with the family's former attorney about it.

"The laws concerning the taking of children in their care are like a rubber band," Ruby Harrold-Claesson, with the Nordic Committee on Human Rights, told CBN News. "You can stretch it in any direction and the social workers never do wrong. They always have the backing of the administrative courts."

"One social worker said to me, the administrative courts, they're our courts. You know the courts are supposed to be for the people," she said.

Claesson said this is a problem in all the Nordic countries. She's filing reports on human rights violations against all "child protection systems" there.

I guess the Nordic countries do not have any parental rights or due process.

Chasing Mavericks

I just watch the movie Chasing Mavericks:

The inspirational true story of real life surfing phenom Jay Moriarty. When 15 year old Jay discovers that the mythic Mavericks surf break, one of the biggest waves on Earth, is not only real, but exists just miles from his Santa Cruz home, he enlists the help of local legend Frosty Hesson to train him to survive it. As Jay and Frosty embark on their quest to accomplish the impossible, they form a unique friendship that transforms both their lives, and their quest to tame Mavericks becomes about far more than surfing.

I liked it because it had an authentic view of Santa Cruz, of surfing, of the local high school scene, and of a fatherless boy who finds a father substitute who teaches him how to surf. It had many scenes about how the boy misses his dad, how he needs his dad, and how he lost communication with his dad. The real-life characters were credited with being consultants on the movie.

Then I read the Wikipedia article on Jay Moriarity:

Born in Georgia in 1978, Jay Moriarity and his family moved to Santa Cruz, California, soon after his birth. His father was a Green Beret parachutist and a surfer, who introduced his son to surfing when he was 9 years old. He immediately took to surfing and quickly became a respected surfer in Santa Cruz.

His dad taught him to surf!

I have been fooled by a Hollywood "true story" again. When will I learn? I consider myself pretty cynical, but I guess I am not cynical enough. I should have guessed that they would take a perfectly good story about a boy and twist it to make it appear that his dad abandoned him.

High court hears custody case

The US Supreme Court is hearing a child custody case tomorrow:

The case of Chafin v. Chafin will be heard by the justices on Wednesday and an eventual ruling could establish an important precedent on the discretion of American courts to decide where children caught in parental fights should stay.

In the middle is Eris, the girl who lives in Scotland with her mother. Her dad is an Army sergeant based at Ft. Stewart, Georgia.

A federal court said under international treaty, Eris should remain overseas since it was her "habitual residence." That court also said the custody issue was moot since the girl was already overseas.

Jeff Chafin eventually asked the justices to intervene on his behalf.

"I don't believe that (the current legal fight) is in the best interest of the child as it's going to go on for years and years to come," Lynne Chafin told CNN.

The problem here is that a federal judge let the mom take the girl to Scotland, where the couple has never lived. I don't know how the habitual residence can be Scotland, if they never lived there.

The dad's problem is that he has been moved around with his military obligations, so the mom is seen as the primary parent. However, I think that it is wrong to hold that against him, and say that he will have little or no contact with his daughter because he is an army sergeant.

The federal courts hate these family court issues, and is hearing this only because it interprets an international treaty. However these child custody issues involve much more important and fundamental rights than same-sex marriage. There is some evidence that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was caused in part by a crazy mom getting child custody, a house, and alimony in a divorce. Adam Lanza desperately needed a dad, but a bad family court decision blocked him from his dad.

Harmful changes in DSM-5

The DSM-5 will soon be the bible of psychological disorders, but it has critics. Psychiatrist Allen Frances was chairman of the DSM-IV Task Force and he writes:

This is the saddest moment in my 45 year career of studying, practicing, and teaching psychiatry. The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association has given its final approval to a deeply flawed DSM 5 containing many changes that seem clearly unsafe and scientifically unsound. ...

So, here is my list of DSM 5's ten most potentially harmful changes. ...

1) Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder: DSM 5 will turn temper tantrums into a mental disorder
2) Normal grief will become Major Depressive Disorder
3) The everyday forgetting characteristic of old age will now be misdiagnosed as Minor Neurocognitive Disorder
4) DSM 5 will likely trigger a fad of Adult Attention Deficit Disorder leading to widespread misuse of stimulant drugs
5) Excessive eating 12 times in 3 months is no longer just a manifestation of gluttony and the easy availability of really great tasting food.
6) The changes in the DSM 5 definition of Autism will result in lowered rates - 10% according to estimates by the DSM 5 work group, perhaps 50% according to outside research groups.
8) DSM 5 has created a slippery slope by introducing the concept of Behavioral Addictions
9) DSM 5 obscures the already fuzzy boundary been Generalized Anxiety Disorder and the worries of everyday life.
10) DSM 5 has opened the gate even further to the already existing problem of misdiagnosis of PTSD in forensic settings. ...

Except for autism, all the DSM 5 changes loosen diagnosis and threaten to turn our current diagnostic inflation into diagnostic hyperinflation. ...

DSM 5 violates the most sacred (and most frequently ignored) tenet in medicine- First Do No Harm! That's why this is such a sad moment.

Most or all of these changes can be explain by serving the convenience of the profession. For example, the psychiatrists want to be able to prescribe anti-depressant drugs to those experiencing the normal grief of a death in the family.

Natural News goes further, and tries to explain how modern psychiatry really works:

The new, upcoming DSM-5 "psychiatry bible," expected to be released in a few months, has transformed itself from a medical reference manual to a testament to the insanity of the industry itself.

"Mental disorders" named in the DSM-5 include "General Anxiety Disorder" or GAD for short. GAD can be diagnosed in a person who feels a little anxious doing something like, say, talking to a psychiatrist. Thus, the mere act of a psychiatrist engaging in the possibility of making a diagnoses causes the "symptoms" of that diagnoses to magically appear.

This is called quack science and circular reasoning, yet it's indicative of the entire industry of psychiatry which has become such a laughing stock among scientific circles that even the science skeptics are starting to turn their backs in disgust. Psychiatry is no more "scientific" than astrology or palm reading, yet its practitioners call themselves "doctors" of psychiatry in order to try to make quackery sound credible.

Get rid of Asperger diagnosis

I posted the news that DSM-5 drops Asperger syndrome, but the controversy about this may continue for years. Some Asperger kids will qualify for an Autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. For others, they have added a new disorder:

And then there are parents who are justifiably worried that the changes will result in the exclusion of children who would have met Aspergers or PDD-NOS diagnoses under DSM-IV. Studies suggest that the new criteria might exclude anywhere from 10 to 55% of this population. The intention of the committee, or at least one of the stated intentions, was that those who didn’t fall under the autism umbrella might fit with the newly introduced “social communication disorder.” The only problem? A study with DSM-V architect Catherine Lord as senior author seems to have found that children diagnosed with PDD-NOS who didn’t meet the new autism criteria often didn’t have social communication problems. If they don’t have these issues, how will these once-PDD-NOS folk who no longer fit autism criteria fit the criteria for social communication disorder? The social communication disorder diagnosis, by the way, currently carries no infrastructure in the education or services system that would trigger support or resources for someone who has it. Only time will tell whether or not the changes will bear out these concerns in practice.

California has laws and policies that get special education money for Asperger kids. Less money is available for autism, or so I am told, and no money is allocated for social communication disorder. The word is already out to parents group to fight against any diagnosis for social communication disorder, because it will lock the kid out of any special benefits.

Here is the UN WHO ICD-10 definition:

F84.5 Asperger syndrome
A disorder of uncertain nosological validity, characterized by the same type of qualitative abnormalities of reciprocal social interaction that typify autism, together with a restricted, stereotyped, repetitive repertoire of interests and activities. It differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development. This disorder is often associated with marked clumsiness. There is a strong tendency for the abnormalities to persist into adolescence and adult life. Psychotic episodes occasionally occur in early adult life.

The ICD-10 codes are commonly used for insurance and other purposes, and given standard definitions of various physical and mental ailments.

Isn't it obvious that this definition is ridiculous? The word "nosological" means having to do with the classification of diseases, so I guess they are admitting that the definition is dubious.

The term "qualitative abnormalities of reciprocal social interaction" just means that the kid is a social outcast. A social outcast is not necessarily disordered. Maybe something is wrong with the others. By this criterion, there is something wrong with any kid who is bullied.

The next symptom is a stereotyped repertoire of interests and activities. The Wikipedia page on Asperger syndrome show a picture of a boy fascinated with molecular structure. So I guess the boy has a disorder because his interests match the stereotype of a boy with a disorder.

The main problem here is that Psychotherapy has been feminized and corrupted. Effeminate psychologists pathologize boys with masculine interests, and they are willing to rewrite their diagnoses to get state benefits. There is nothing wrong with a boy who wants to go his own way and pursue his own interests. The psychologists are bigots.

Shooter was autistic kid

The NY Times gives this advice about the Connecticut school shooting:

Listen to their fears. Dispel rumors. And be honest, sharing as much detail as a child is able to handle.

Therapists who treat childhood trauma said on Friday that parents talking to their children about the mass shooting should address the news directly and soon, allowing the child to lead with questions and concerns. Parents can no longer control what their children know by simply turning off the television. Many children will know what is happening from mobile devices and social media; now is the time to turn those devices off, these experts said.

The finger pointing has begun, and the public may expect psychologists to identify people for reduced civil rights. FoxNews reports:

Ryan Lanza, 24, brother of gunman Adam Lanza, 20, tells authorities that his younger brother is autistic, or has Asperger syndrome and a “personality disorder.” Neighbors described the younger man to ABC as “odd” and displaying characteristics associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Some people used to claim that autism in kids is caused by parents not teaching them to have empathy. That theory has been rejected, and the experts do not know how to teach empathy to kids. The NY Times reports:

How do children develop prosocial behavior, and is there in fact any way to encourage it? If you do, will you eventually get altruistic adults, the sort who buy shoes for a homeless man on a freezing night, or rush to lift a commuter pushed onto the subway tracks as the train nears?

Nancy Eisenberg, a professor of psychology at Arizona State University, is an expert on the development in children of prosocial behavior, “voluntary behavior intended to benefit another.” Such behavior is often examined through the child’s ability to perceive and react to someone else’s distress. Attempts at concern and reassurance can be seen in children as young as 1.

Dr. Eisenberg draws a distinction between empathy and sympathy: “Empathy, at least the way I break it out, is experiencing the same emotion or highly similar emotion to what the other person is feeling,” she said. “Sympathy is feeling concern or sorrow for the other person.” While that may be based in part on empathy, she said, or on memory, “it’s not feeling the same emotion.”

By itself, intense empathy — really feeling someone else’s pain — can backfire, causing so much personal distress that the end result is a desire to avoid the source of the pain, researchers have found. The ingredients of prosocial behavior, from kindness to philanthropy, are more complex and varied.

They include the ability to perceive others’ distress, the sense of self that helps sort out your own identity and feelings, the regulatory skills that prevent distress so severe it turns to aversion, and the cognitive and emotional understanding of the value of helping.

Twin studies have suggested that there is some genetic component to prosocial tendencies. When reacting to an adult who is pretending to be distressed, for example, identical twins behave more like each other than do fraternal twins. And as children grow up, these early manifestations of sympathy and empathy become part of complex decision-making and personal morality.

“There is some degree of heritability,” said Carolyn Zahn-Waxler, a senior research scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who has done some of these twin studies. But she notes that the effect is small: “There is no gene for empathy, there is no gene for altruism. What’s heritable may be some personality characteristics.”

The experts do not seem to know more that what you could figure out yourself with a little common sense.

Update: A comment points out that I failed to connect the dots. Research has shown that women are more empathic than men, and, somewhat paradoxically, that kids gain empathy when the dad is involved. He gives this explanation: "Since men have more emotional boundaries, being around them forces you to respect them and develop empathy." The rise of single moms has been a disaster in many ways.

Update: A reader sends a USA Today story with more divorce details:

NEWTOWN, Conn. — When Nancy and Peter Lanza divorced three years ago, Nancy Lanza got more than $200,000 a year in alimony and primary custody of the teenage son who last week committed one of the most gruesome crimes in U.S. history. ...

Nancy Lanza, 52, filed for divorce Dec. 9, 2008, in Stamford, Conn., saying "the marriage has broken down irretrievably and there is no possibility of getting back together." The couple had already separated and Peter Lanza was living in an apartment in downtown Stamford. ...

In the divorce, Nancy Lanza asked for a fair division of property, alimony, child support, support for the boys' college education and joint legal custody. The divorce became final on Sept. 23, 2009.

Peter Lanza, 54, is tax director and vice president for taxes at GE Energy Financial Services in Stamford, according to his Linked-In profile. He previously worked as a senior tax manager at Ernst & Young.

He has since married a university librarian and lives in Stamford.

The couple agreed that Adam Lanza, then 16, would live primarily with his mother, but that his father would have "liberal visitation and vacations." Court papers indicate Adam had lived in Sandy Hook since birth.

At the time, Peter Lanza earned $8,556 a week. Lanza agreed to pay annual alimony in 2010 of $240,000 with increases each year. In 2012, Lanza paid his ex-wife $289,800. After 2016, Nancy Lanza would get annual cost-of-living increases based on the 2015 alimony payment of $298,000 a year until Peter Lanza retires.

Peter Lanza agreed to pay the entire cost of his sons' college and graduate school education. In addition to college expenses, Peter Lanza also agreed to provide a car for Adam. Nancy Lanza would cover insurance and maintenance.

So she filed for divorce, and got the house and $240k a year. Sweet deal, except for making a fatherless boy who later murdered her.

More on the end of men

The new Hanna Rosin book, The End of Men: And the Rise of Women, has gotten a lot of publicity. I mentioned it in September, and my readers got the scoop back in 2010.

James Taranto of the WSJ has useful links and insightful analysis, and concludes:

So today's would-be Lysistratas need to develop ways of stigmatizing young women who too readily say yes to sex, just as unions do to scabs and strikebreakers. What a feminist triumph that would be.

The core problem here is that as feminists have encouraged girls into sexual promiscuity and non-family careers, they are finding more and more that they are competing with other women, especially for the affections of men.

For a feminist view, check out this Jezebel rant against men's rights activists. It is just man-hating nonsense. There is not much of a men's movement, but it is kept alive by stories like this:

For nearly seven weeks, John Waldorf has been in the county jail on a “non-support” charge for allegedly failing to pay alimony.

He claims he is a victim of New Jersey’s "antiquated" alimony system and many people agree with him. In late October a small protest was held
outside the courthouse.

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director, of DADS (Dads Against Discrimination) is hoping to garner support for Waldorf on Friday, Dec. 7 when a judge will again hold a hearing to determine how much Waldorf must pay to be released.

Waldorf, who divorced his wife of 11 years in 2011, was ordered to pay $2,000 a week in alimony to his ex. That amounts to $104,000 a year. In addition he was ordered to pay $3,300 in child support. The problem is that Waldorf has only been taking home about $90,000 a year on average, according to Eden. Eden said he has Waldorf’s tax returns dating back to 2000. The highest income reported by Waldorf during the marriage was $147,000 before taxes according to Eden. In most years Waldorf made $90,000 to $120,000 before taxes. His average take home pay has been about $90,000 a year.

The alimony payments are in addition to about $100,000 in legal fees incurred during the divorce process.

It now also appears Waldorf has lost his job because of his jailing. Meanwhile, Waldorf’s ex-wife, who is disabled, has been getting nothing, all while taxpayers are footing the bill to feed and house him as long as he remains in jail.

Dr. Mohammad makes fortune from state prisons

I have complained about overpaid shrinks, but this is extreme. Bloomberg reports:

Mohammad Safi, a graduate of a medical school in Afghanistan, began working as a psychiatrist at a California mental hospital in 2006, making $90,682 in his first six months. Last year, he took home $822,302, all of it paid by taxpayers.

Safi benefited from what amounted to a bidding war after a federal court forced the state to improve inmate care. The prisons raised pay to lure psychiatrists, the mental health department followed suit to keep employees, and costs soared. Last year, 16 California psychiatrists, including Safi, made more than $400,000, while only one did in the other 11 most populous states, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. ...

Safi’s compensation was almost five times as much as Governor Jerry Brown’s last year. The psychiatrist was paid for an average of almost 17 hours each day, including on-call time, Saturdays and Sundays, ... “I made so much because I work a lot,” Safi said in a bri ef interview at his Newark, California, home.

Maybe he overdid it:

After raking in half a million dollars for being "on call," California's top paid public employee of 2011 -- a prison psychiatrist from Newark -- has been suspended with pay for allegedly falsifying time records, officials said Tuesday.

As usual, there are many things wrong with this story. First, don't we have enough Jews to do this work, instead of importing Afghan shrinks? Second, why do we need Bloomberg to blow the whistle on this? Third, I doubt that the Afghan medical schools even teach the quack psychiatry we have in the USA. Okay, maybe that is an advantage. Fourth, federal judges should not be telling California how to run prisons. Fifth, how is having an Afghan shrink on call to a prison going to do anyone any good?

If the federal judges really want to do something about civil rights in California, they should start with the law-abiding dads who are being punished by not seeing their kids. Maybe the feds could send us some Afghan shrinks to do some family court evaluations, and order all the moms to shut up and wear hijabs and burqas. It probably wouldn't be any worse than the Jewish, gay, and female shrinks we have now.

Update: Here is more from Bloomberg.

Most pressing civil rights issue

The lede paragraph in my Saturday newspaper was:

When gay rights advocates slipped into the San Francisco federal courthouse in early 2009 and challenged California's then-new same-sex marriage ban, their goal was to force the U.S. Supreme Court to address the most pressing civil rights issue of this era.

I fail to see how this is a civil rights issue. Blacks particularly hate it when gays make analogies to civil rights for blacks. As far as I can see, gays make lots of money and do whatever they want, without any interference from anyone. The area I live is so liberal that being LGBT is probably an advantage when running for political office.

A law blog posts:

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now. Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks. The government’s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound. So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.

This is crazy. I hope the US Supreme Court dismisses the Prop. 8 case for lack of standing, because the LGBT plaintiffs failed to alleged any damages at all. They did not lose money or have to pay more taxes. They did not lose their jobs or health insurance or voting rights or child custody or anything like that. They were completely free to have a church wedding and share a household and commit sodomy.

Meanwhile, millions of kids are being forced to grow up without dads because of discrimination in the family court. As far as I can tell, the LGBT lobby is all in favor of this discrimination. I even had a gay psychologist do a child custody evaluation, and he was one of the most bigoted men I have ever met.

For the most part, gay men do not want to get married, and do not see the problems of the family court. The lesbians are getting the same-sex marriages, and they like the anti-male bias of the family court because they can use it to get child custody and support payments.

A Prop. 8 brief said:

Many voices argued for Proposition 8 on the grounds that same-sex marriage would sever the link between marriage and children.3 Even more significantly, many gay marriage advocates agree, concluding that the redefinition of marriage would it will radically transform marriage as we know it.

For example, journalist E.J. Graff argues, approvingly, that "Same-sex marriage is a breathtakingly subversive idea. ... If same-sex marriage becomes legal, that venerable institution will ever after stand for sexual choice, for cutting the link between sex and diapers." E.J. Graff, Retying the Knot, The Nation 12 (June 24, 1996) (DIX1445).

Graff is a lesbian activist who also wants to cut off dads from their kids. To her, sexual choice means that dads do not get child custody.

NPR radio reports:

Not so fast, says the Rev. Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest at All Saints Church in Pasadena, Calif. She takes her cues from Jesus.

"Jesus never said a single word about anything even remotely connected to homosexuality," she says.

Jesus does say the most important commandments are "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Given that, Russell believes if Jesus were here today, he would celebrate committed, same-sex relationships.

It is a sad day that you could join an Episcopal church and have to listen to a woman priest recite this sort of nonsense.

What would Jesus say about judges taking kids away from parents? That's what I want to know, so I can take my cues from Jesus also.

Orthodox Jewish therapist convicted

I mentioned before the Orthodox Jewish leader goes on trial, and now we have a verdict:

But on Monday, a State Supreme Court jury in Brooklyn delivered a stunning victory to prosecutors and victims’ advocates, convicting a 54-year-old unlicensed therapist who is a prominent member of the Satmar Hasidic community of Williamsburg of repeatedly sexually abusing a young girl who had been sent to him for help. ...

The trial of Mr. Weberman, which began on Nov. 26, was a difficult one because there was no physical evidence; the trial hinged on the credibility of Mr. Weberman, who is well connected and powerful in his community, and that of a young woman who had been shunned for being a rebellious teen. The girl said Mr. Weberman had abused her for three years, starting when she was 12, groping her and forcing her to perform oral sex. He denied he had ever touched her.

The jury believed the young woman and convicted Mr. Weberman of all 59 counts against him.

I am not sure what to think of this. I certainly do not approve of a therapist molesting his teenaged patient, or of his fellow Jews covering up for his crimes.

But the prosecution seems fishy to me. Why do they just have the testimony of one troubled teenager who is supposed to have remembered what happened 6 years ago? Why no physical evidence? Why no other victims? Why waasn't this reported and prosecuted 5 years ago? Why did the community have such confidence in Weberman?

I get the impression that the prosecutors were more interested in busting up an Orthodox code of silence than anything else.

In another story, a man was convicted and sentenced to life for a 1957 crime. Some woman picked his picture out of a lineup in 2010. It would take a lot to convince me if I were on the jury. These juries seem gullible to me.

Attacks on free speech

Here is a video report on a recent Toronto university protest against Warren Farrell speaking on problems facing boys. There is more video of the protest here (annotated).

The protesters seems confused. Farrell is not a right-winger, and he actively supports about 90% of the goals of feminism. Most of his work involves helping men and women in relationships. In particular, he helps men understand female views, needs, and feelings.

Some of what he says draws attention to differences between male and female thinking. I guess that upsets some radical feminists who refuse to accept any male-female differences.

He has also published summaries of research showing that joint custody and shared parenting works best for kids. This has alienated some feminists who believe in mother custody.

I am watching some court cases that will affect free speech. California has a new law restricting psychologists from telling the truth about gays, and federal law restricts drug companies from telling the truth about off-label uses. There is a Virginia lawsuit over negative reviews in Yelp, and a woman has been ordered to delete some accusations. Some states try to ban recording govt officials. I have had to remove some testimony and report quotes from this blog, because I was threatened with jail for contempt of court.

Do not journal divorce feelings

ScienceDaily reports:

Following a divorce or separation, many people are encouraged by loved ones or health-care professionals to keep journals about their feelings. But for some, writing in-depth about those feelings immediately after a split may do more harm than good, according to new research.

In a study of 90 recently divorced or separated individuals, psychological scientist David Sbarra of the University of Arizona and colleagues found that writing about one's feelings can actually leave some people feeling more emotionally distraught months down the line, particularly those individuals who are prone to seeking a deeper meaning for their failed marriage.

The findings, forthcoming in Clinical Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, came as a surprise to Sbarra, who initially set out to compare the effectiveness of two different styles of expressive writing on the emotional healing of recently separated or divorced individuals.

That is why I do not write in-depth about my divorce feelings on this blog.

As usual, those who listen to advice from shrinks end up worse off.

Right to record public officials

National Review reports:

More often than not, the ACLU is totally wrong. Exhibit A: its opposition to voter ID. But the ACLU is firmly on the side of the angels when it comes to transparency of police conduct.

Thus, we should applaud the Supreme Court, which today declined the chance to review Alvarez v. ACLU of Illinois, a Seventh Circuit case. The Circuit Court had blocked an Illinois statute that makes it a felony to record audio of a police officer’s “performing duties as a law enforcement officer.”

The statute in question, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-2(a)(1), forbade recording a conversation without the consent of all parties — regardless of whether the conversation was private or public. In an odd twist, since it only prohibits audio recordings, you aren’t violating the law if you make a silent video of a police officer making a public arrest. But if you add audio to the recording, you face four to fifteen years in jail!

The law was passed in 1961 to prevent unauthorized wiretapping. But as the Seventh Circuit said, Illinois “criminalized the nonconsensual recording of most any oral communication, including recordings of public officials doing the public’s business in public and regardless of whether the recording is open or surreptitious.”

The idea that recording a police officer making an arrest in public should subject an individual to jail time is obnoxious and a fundamental violation of basic First Amendment rights. According to the Seventh Circuit, the Illinois law “restricts a medium of expression commonly used for the preservation and communication of information and ideas, thus triggering First Amendment” protection. Illinois’s law is also bad public policy, since it limits transparency of the conduct of public officials. Such transparency is desperately needed in Illinois, with its long history of public corruption.

The ACLU was right to challenge this law, and the Seventh Circuit was right to enjoin the statute, and the Supreme Court was right to deny certiorari of the lower court’s decision. Illinois should never have put this law on the books, and it should not have pursued this case all the way to the Supreme Court.

So it should be that there is a constitutional right to record public officials doing their public duties. Here is a summary of the law. But some cops don't like it:

A California man was jailed for four days for attempting to record police officers on a public street.

Daniel J. Saulmon was charged with resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer but the video shows he was standing well out the way of a traffic stop and was only arrested when he failed to produce identification to an approaching officer.

And there is no law in California that requires citizens to produce identification. And even if there was, it would require the officer to have a reasonable suspicion that he was committing a crime.

But prosecutors have already dropped the charge against Saulmon as well as a few other minor citations relating to his bicycle such as not have proper reflectors on the pedals.

And they most likely knew who he was considering he won a $25,000 settlement from the same police department after they unlawfully arrested him on eavesdropping/wiretapping charges in 2005.

This time, it appears the Hawthorne Police Department will be dishing out much more, thanks to officer Gabriel Lira’s abuse of authority.

“They knew exactly who I was,” Saulmon said in a telephone interview with Photography is Not a Crime Saturday, adding that he has recorded them on a regular basis since the 2005 arrest when he was jailed after attempting to file a complaint inside the police station.

“They always address me as ‘Mr. Saulmon’,” he said.

No, it is not a crime to record cops, and it was police harassment to arrest this guy.

Dad wants baby his wife sold

There has been a huge public controversy over a Utah child custody case. It is quite clear to me that the dad is in the right. Dads have no rights at all, if a wife can sell their baby without his consent. The NY Daily News reports:

A South Carolina man whose wife put their baby up for adoption without his knowledge or consent will be reunited with his daughter after a nearly two-year legal battle, a Utah court ruled.

A Provo judge ruled he was “astonished and deeply troubled" by an adoption agency’s deliberate efforts to circumvent the legal rights of father Terry Achane, who was serving as an Army drill instructor when his child was adopted without his knowledge.

Judge Darold McDade gave the adoption agency and the adoptive parents, Jared and Kristi Frei, 60 days to return Achane’s daughter, Teleah, now 21 months old.

I don't know why people are donating to the Freis, because I see no merit to their position. They already have 5 kids of their own, plus another adopted kid. The Freis are white. They tried to buy two black babies from an adoption agency, for $25k apiece.

It sometimes happens that a single mom gives a kid up for adoption, and claims that she does not know who or where the dad is. That can be a problem. But in this case, the mom was married to the dad, and he was serving in the Army. There could be no doubt that there was a legal and biological dad available, and it was easy to find him.

The judge ruled the agency knowingly and deliberately ignored Achane’s parental rights.

“The right of a fit, competent parent to raise the parent’s child without undue government interference is a fundamental liberty interest that has long been protected by the laws and constitution of this state of the United States, and is a fundamental public policy of this state," he said.

The judge blames the adoption agency, and it does deserve blame, but the real blame should be on the Utah family court that ordered this adoption against the wishes of the dad, required him to litigate the case for 2 years, and is still forcing him to wait 60 days for his child.

Usually it is the leftists and LGBT activists who are trying to redefine marriage. But this is Utah, a Republican state. Apparently the Mormons do not have much respect for dad's rights either.

What does marriage mean, if a man cannot stop his wife from selling their baby? It is taking him 3 years to get his baby back. And he still may not, as the Freis say that they are refusing to comply, and are raising money on their blog to finance an appeal.

Meanwhile, there more anti-dad propaganda in my local newspaper advice column. Here is a Wed. letter:

Dear Annie: I am perplexed as to what to do. I'm positive that my wife was a victim of incest, but I don't know how to broach the subject or how to help her.

Her sister manifests similar problems that I've heard are caused by rape by one's father. But I don't have any hard evidence, only a hunch. What can I do? How do you open such a discussion? — G.

This shows that even men have absurd anti-father prejudices. The guy has probably learned some supposed symptons from bogus pop psychologists like Dr. Phil or Dr. Drew. There are no such symptoms, and there are about 100 more commons reasons for crazy behavior in women. This is really sick that the public has been so brainwashed that a man comes to this conclusion about his own wife.

Here is a Thurs. letter:

Dear Annie: My incredible husband of two years has a 4-year-old daughter with his ex-wife. I have actively helped raise "Christie" since she was barely a year.

We haven't communicated with the mother since the time we took her to court for refusing visitation, ...

But lately, Christie has been questioning my relationship with her father, saying the reason her mommy and daddy are not together is because of me. When I ask her to do something she doesn't want to do, she says her mommy says she doesn't have to listen to me because I am not her mother. Even worse, she's been told that when my husband and I have a baby of our own, Daddy won't love her as much as the new baby. ...

Dear Stepmom: Many courts now recognize parental alienation. Suggest that your husband speak to his lawyer about this possibility.

No, this is not parental alienation. It is step-parent alienation. The court will not do anything.

The dad is just getting "visitation". If he has a baby with his new wife, and he is a real dad to that new baby, instead of being just a visitor to Christie, then he is probably going to love the new baby more than Christie. It is just human nature. The family court and the ex-wife have set out to screw up Christie, so having a new baby is his best chance for a normal child.

Law infringes psychologist free speech

I mentioned before that California was banning certain psychotherapies, with the ban being challenged in court. Now AP reports:

SAN FRANCISCO—Two federal judges in California have arrived at opposite conclusions on whether the state's first-of-its-kind law prohibiting licensed psychotherapists from trying to change the sexual orientations of gay minors violates the Constitution. The measure remains clear to take effect on Jan.1.

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller on Tuesday refused to block the law after concluding that opponents who have sued in her Sacramento court to overturn it were unlikely to prove the ban on "conversion" therapy unfairly tramples on their civil rights.

The opponents argued the law would make them liable for discipline if they merely recommended the therapy to patients or discuss it with them. Mueller said they didn't demonstrate that they were likely to win, so she wouldn't block the law.

Mueller issued her decision in a lawsuit filed by four counselors, two families, a professional organization for practitioners and a Christian therapists group. It came half a day after her colleague, U.S. District Judge William Shubb, handed down a somewhat competing ruling in a similar, but separate lawsuit.

Saying he found the First Amendment issues presented by the ban to be compelling, Shubb late Monday ordered the state to temporarily exempt three people named in the case before him—two mental health providers and a former patient who is studying to practice sexual orientation change therapy.

You can get the court rulings here.

I have no personal opinion about the safety or efficacy of this therapy. Nearly all psychotherapies do very poorly in clinical studies, and I accept that the studies say here. The APA is politically trying to ban gay therapies, and its task force said this pdf:

sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) ... involve some risk of harm ...

In all, we obtained and reviewed original publications of 83 studies. ... few studies on SOCE produced over the past 50 years of research rise to current scientific standards for demonstrating the efficacy of psychological interventions ... We thus concluded that there is little in the way of credible evidence that could clarify whether SOCE does or does not work in changing same-sex sexual attractions.

The APA also admits that all the other psychotherapies involve risk of harm, so there is no real evidence that SOCE is any worse than any other psychotherapy.

The underlying political issue is that leftists have decided that people would be more tolerant of homosexuality if they are persuauded that it is a response to an inborn unchangeable animalistic genetic craving.

Anyway, I hope these cases generate more discussion of quack psychotherapies. If all unscientific practices were banned, then child custody evaluations would also be banned. Psychologist Ken Perlmutter admitted under oath that he has no evidence that any of his 700 evaluations did any good.

Pothead mom has pothead child

An Oregon newspaper reports:

Mykayla Comstock's family says marijuana helps her fight an especially aggressive form of leukemia, keeps infection at bay and lifts her weary spirit. Twice a day she swallows a potent capsule form of the drug. Some days, when she can't sleep or eat, she snacks on a gingersnap or brownie baked with marijuana-laced butter.

Mykayla is one of 2,201 cancer patients authorized by the state of Oregon to use medical marijuana.

She is 7. ...

Mykayla's father, who is divorced from the girl's mother, was so disturbed by his daughter's marijuana use that he contacted child welfare officials, police and her oncologist. Jesse Comstock said his concerns were prompted by a visit with Mykayla in August.

"She was stoned out of her mind," said Comstock, 26. "All she wanted to do was lay on the bed and play video games." ...

Immediately, Purchase, who is divorced from Mykayla's father and has sole custody, faced decisions about her daughter's treatment.

With chemotherapy, doctors put Mykayla's odds of survival at 76.9 percent and her chance of relapse at 7 percent, Purchase said. Purchase accepted the chemo as part of her daughter's treatment, although she takes a generally dim view of the pharmaceutical industry, is skeptical of childhood vaccines, rejects genetically modified foods and avoids products made with high-fructose corn syrup.

What Purchase believes, emphatically, is that cannabis heals.

Purchase said her stepfather's topical application of cannabis oil cured his skin cancer. She said an acquaintance's lung cancer went into remission after he used pot.

And Purchase herself consumes marijuana daily.

She said she became an Oregon medical marijuana patient in 2010 to treat vomiting from a metabolic problem and from her pregnancy with her second child. She is so convinced of the drug's safety that she consumed it during the pregnancy and while breastfeeding.

She was certain of one thing when Mykayla was diagnosed: The child would use marijuana to defeat cancer.

There are many things wrong with this. How does a dopehead mom get sole custody?

I usually support parental authority in making medical decisions, but the sensible parent has been cut out of the picture.

DSM-5 drops Asperger syndrome

The shrinks are busy voting on diagnostic definitions for the DSM-5, and here is the latest:

CHICAGO (AP) - The now familiar term "Asperger's disorder" is being dropped. And abnormally bad and frequent temper tantrums will be given a scientific-sounding diagnosis called DMDD. But "dyslexia" and other learning disorders remain.

The revisions come in the first major rewrite in nearly 20 years of the diagnostic guide used by the nation's psychiatrists. Changes were approved Saturday.

Full details of all the revisions will come next May when the American Psychiatric Association's new diagnostic manual is published, but the impact will be huge, affecting millions of children and adults worldwide. The manual also is important for the insurance industry in deciding what treatment to pay for, and it helps schools decide how to allot special education.

In case you think that they have become more enlightened about pathologizing normal behavior, that is not what happened. It is just a scheme to get more funding.

And some Asperger's families opposed any change, fearing their kids would lose a diagnosis and no longer be eligible for special services.

But the revision will not affect their education services, experts say.

The new manual adds the term "autism spectrum disorder," which already is used by many experts in the field. Asperger's disorder will be dropped and incorporated under that umbrella diagnosis. The new category will include kids with severe autism, who often don't talk or interact, as well as those with milder forms.

That's right, they just change the labels to get more govt money. It is just the vote of 20 guys looking to get more business for the profession.

Other changes include:

-A new diagnosis for severe recurrent temper tantrums - disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. Critics say it will medicalize kids' who have normal tantrums. Supporters say it will address concerns about too many kids being misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with powerful psychiatric drugs. Bipolar disorder involves sharp mood swings and affected children are sometimes very irritable or have explosive tantrums.

-Eliminating the term "gender identity disorder." It has been used for children or adults who strongly believe that they were born the wrong gender. But many activists believe the condition isn't a disorder and say calling it one is stigmatizing. The term would be replaced with "gender dysphoria," which means emotional distress over one's gender. Supporters equated the change with removing homosexuality as a mental illness in the diagnostic manual, which happened decades ago.

Again, this is mainly politics, and not science. Parents want to blame something for the tantrums, and they do not want to admit bad parenting. If a boy thinks that he is a girl, that seems like a disorder to me. But I guess the LGBT crowd does not like that.

The NY Times Sunday Magazine just had a long article on The Autism Advantage. It says that autistic workers can excel at jobs that are suited to their talents, but they often get tripped up by unwritten and unpredictable office rules of behavior. No mention of the term Asperger Syndrome.

Supreme court child custody case

The federal courts hate child custody cases, and will do anything to get rid of them. The US Supreme Court is going to hear Chafin v. Chafin tomorrow:

Issue: Whether an appeal of a district court's ruling on a Petition for Return of Children pursuant to the International Child Abduction Remedies Act and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction becomes moot after the child at issue returns to his or her country of habitual residence, as in the Eleventh Circuit's Bekier v. Bekier case, leaving the United States court system lacking any power or jurisdiction to affect any further issue in the matter, or should the United States courts retain power over their own appellate process, as in the Fourth Circuit's Fawcett v. McRoberts case, and maintain jurisdiction throughout the appellate process giving the concerned party an opportunity for proper redress.

So this is a child custody case, but the court will probably just rule on obscure jurisdictional issues. All of the news media attention is the same-sex marriage cases that the court is expected to hear, with an announcement probably today. I happen to think that child custody is a lot more important than same-sex marriage, but the liberal LGBT lobby has somehow convinced the media that they have a grievance.

NFL opens its own private court

Family court for years have been jumping into petty disputes, and sending the parties off to therapy or anger management class. Now the NFL is getting into the act! The NY Times reports:

Unruly, violent fans at N.F.L. games have been a problem for years. It got so bad at one point that officials in Philadelphia added an improvised courtroom in the bowels of Veterans Stadium during Eagles games to process offenders more efficiently.

The N.F.L. and its teams have recently embraced a new and perhaps more forgiving approach toward misbehaving fans. Fans ejected from games are strongly encouraged to complete a four-hour online course in anger management before they are allowed to return to see a game.

The N.F.L. also directs fans to a particular doctor to tackle their issues: Ari Novick of Laguna Beach, Calif. ...

An examination of Novick’s practice, however, shows that his claims about his professional credentials — membership in the American Psychological Association and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy — are either false or out of date, according to officials with the organizations.

In addition, part of Novick’s online operation offers a monetary commission to companies and individuals for referring clients to his anger management courses, a practice that may violate the ethics codes and regulations of the psychological association and the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, which governs licensed marriage and family therapists in the state.

Considerable portions of Novick’s online fan anger management course that is recommended by the N.F.L. have been lifted from other publications or Web sites without citation.

And a spokeswoman for Pepperdine University, where Novick until recently asserted he was an adjunct professor of psychology, said Novick had not taught at the university since 2007.

The real reason the psychologists are agitated is that they are pushing a 52-week anger management course, as that is what the California courts commonly order. Some shrinks are making a lot of money on those courses, even tho the scientific studies show that 6-week courses work just as well. They will be really upset if it turns out that a 4-hour online class also works just as well.

This is a good experiment, because it is like a private sector family court. The NFL has no interest in feminist propaganda or catering to crooked psychologists or chasing money. It just wants to run a business, and that business is football. And maybe selling beer at games. When disputes arise, the business just wants to resolve it and move on.

Maybe the family court can learn some lessons from the NFL. My family court case dragged on for 9 years so far, and there is no end in sight. I am still operating under a temporary order.

Suit claims payment for useless therapy

The NY Times reports:

Gay “conversion therapy,” which claims to help men overcome unwanted same-sex attractions but has been widely attacked as unscientific and harmful, is facing its first tests in the courtroom.

In New Jersey on Tuesday, four gay men who tried the therapy filed a civil suit against a prominent counseling group, charging it with deceptive practices under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act. ...

In California, so-called ex-gay therapists have gone to court to argue for the other side. They are seeking to block a new state law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in September and celebrated as a milestone by advocates for gay rights, that bans conversion therapy for minors.

In Sacramento on Friday, a federal judge will hear the first of two legal challenges brought by conservative law groups claiming that the ban is an unconstitutional infringement on speech, religion and privacy.

Since the 1970s, when mainstream mental health associations stopped branding homosexuality as a disorder, a small network of renegade therapists, conservative religious leaders and self-identified “life coaches” has continued to argue that it is not inborn, but an aberration rooted in childhood trauma. Homosexuality is caused, these therapists say, by a stifling of normal masculine development, often by distant fathers and overbearing mothers or by early sexual abuse. ...

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a rights group based in Montgomery, Ala., is bringing the suit on behalf of four former patients and two of their mothers, who say they paid thousands of dollars not only for useless therapy for their sons but also for more counseling to undo the damage.

“The defendants peddled antigay pseudoscience, defaming gay people as loathsome and deranged,” said Sam Wolfe, a lawyer with the group. ...

“It becomes fraudulent, even cruel,” he said in an interview. “To say that if you really want to change you could — that’s an awful thing to tell somebody.”

The SPLC is a racist hate group that likes to file lawsuits to push its leftist anti-white-Christian agenda.

There are millions of Americans who have been succkered into paying thousands of dollars for useless therapy. I am all for holding therapists accountable, but why just these? What does this have to do with Southern poverty?

Why is it such an awful thing to tell someone that he can change if he really wants to? Telling people that they can change has been a constructive and inspiring message for millennia.

Meanwhile, the SPLC and other leftist groups are silent about the psychologists who peddle anti-father and anti-Christian pseudoscience, such Ken B. Perlmutter, Bret K. Johnson, and Faren R. Akins. At least the conversion therapists are trying to help people, while the family court psychologists are maliciously trying to destroy families.

Shrinks cannot define personality disorder

The NY Times has some psychology articles that I will post over the next few days. First is controversy over the new DSM-5 that will dominate diagnoses for years to come. The NY Times reports:

This weekend the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association will vote on whether to adopt a new diagnostic system for some of the most serious, and striking, syndromes in medicine: personality disorders.

Personality disorders occupy a troublesome niche in psychiatry. The 10 recognized syndromes are fairly well represented on the self-help shelves of bookstores and include such well-known types as narcissistic personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, as well as dependent and histrionic personalities.

But when full-blown, the disorders are difficult to characterize and treat, and doctors seldom do careful evaluations, missing or downplaying behavior patterns that underlie problems like depression and anxiety in millions of people. ...

The entire exercise has forced psychiatrists to confront one of the field’s most elementary, yet still unresolved, questions: What, exactly, is a personality problem? ...

The most central, memorable, and knowable element of any person — personality — still defies any consensus.

A team of experts appointed by the psychiatric association has worked for more than five years to find some unifying system of diagnosis for personality problems.

The panel proposed a system based in part on a failure to “develop a coherent sense of self or identity.” Not good enough, some psychiatric theorists said.

Later, the experts tied elements of the disorders to distortions in basic traits.

For example, an interim proposal for narcissistic personality disorder involved rating a person on four traits, including “manipulativeness,” “histrionism,” and “callousness,” and the final proposal relied on just two, “grandiosity” and “attention-seeking.” The current definition includes nine possible elements. ...

“You simply don’t have adequate coverage of personality disorders with just a few traits,” said Thomas Widiger, a professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky.

Dr. Widiger compares the process of reaching a consensus on personality to the parable of the six blind men from Hindustan, each touching different parts of the elephant. “Everyone’s working independently, and each has their perspective, their own theory,” he said. “It’s a mess.”

“It’s embarrassing to see where we’re at. We’ve been caught up in digression after digression, and nobody can agree,” Dr. Millon said. “It’s time to go back to the beginning, to Darwin, and build a logical structure based on universal principles of evolution.”

This isn't science. They are just listing personality traits that they don't like.

I got sent out by the family court 8 times to see if I had any of these disorders, and every one of the experts said that I did not. They could not find any fault in anything I did. But the judges just ignored the reports anyway.

Illegal to ride a manatee

The LA Times reports:

A St. Petersburg, Fla., woman was arrested on a misdemeanor warrant Saturday after being photographed two months ago riding a manatee.

Florida's Manatee Sanctuary Act protects the endangered sea mammal and says in part, “It is unlawful for any person at any time, by any means, or in any manner intentionally or negligently to annoy, molest, harass, or disturb or attempt to molest, harass, or disturb any manatee.”

Ana Gloria Garcia Gutierrez, 53, was taken into custody without incident at a Sears department store where she works, according to the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

The incident first came to the public's attention when Sheriff Bob Gualtieri held a news conference on Oct. 2 and asked for help in identifying the woman photographed riding the manatee at nearby Fort De Soto Park in late September.

Gutierrez has admitted touching the endangered sea mammal, the sheriff's office said. She told deputies that she was new to the area at the time and didn't know it was illegal to touch a manatee. The manatee was not hurt.

The maximum penalty is a $500 fine and six months in jail. Gutierrez was released on $1,500 bail, the Associated Press reported.

Welcome to the Big Brother society. You could be having a harmless and fun day at the park, but someone could take a picture, post it on the internet, and the local cops could spends months tracking you down for some obscure offense that hurt no person or even an animal or plant.

Courts can issue restraining orders against harassment, but there is a lot of confusion about what that is. Harassment means continued, repeated, annoying behavior that has no legitimate purpose.

What this woman did was not harassment. It was not repeated, it was not annoying, and it did have a legitimate purpose. If a park ranger had warned her that she was annoying the manatee, then it might be harassment if she did it again to spite the ranger. But all they have is a picture of one incident.

I have no idea whether the tourists are harmful to the manatees, but if they want to prevent visitors from touching manatees then the law should say that no touching is allowed, and the park signs should say so also.