“There is absolutely no scientific evidence that a child can make up a false allegation and believe it based on an alliance subconsciously with someone. That’s just not in the literature. That’s just not how children behave. There’s no evidence they behave that way.” – Dr. Joyanna Silberg
“Court Evaluators are given the power that probably they shouldn’t be given.” – Dr. Joyanna Silberg
WTF is Dr. Joyanna Silber talking about?
I noticed that Dr. Joyanna Silberg Ph.D. was listed as an Expert Witness on Defense List for Genevieve Kelley Criminal Trial. As expected in these protective parent trials, I figured there would be some expert witnesses from some of the more extremist child protection groups such as: The Leadership Council Advisory Board, the APSAC Board or this group. In past trials, the testimony of some of these witnesses have been bizarre, mystifying to out right perjury.
Over the years, Dr. Joyanna Silberg Ph.D. has had ties to the protective parent cause. And if you see in the above video, she completely ignores The Sam Stone Study on the suggestibility of young children. Furthermore, it appears that Silberg does not believe in the Family Court Evaluator process. I could only imagine that the systems she wants to replace it with is one of maternal custody. So despite the court deciding that Genevieve Kelley can’t use the affirmative defense, I am wondering what Dr. Silberg is testifying about.
The more important issue is that Silberg appears to be speaking to these custodial-embattled mothers before they go into hiding at these conferences. We’ve seen protective parent attorney Alan Rosenfeld of Colorado at the same conferences and now Silberg appears on the expert witness list for the criminal trial. One could arrive at the conclusion that both Silberg and Rosenfeld are involved at both ends of the Protective Parent Legal Food Chain.
Whatever may be the case, Dr. Joyanna Silberg Ph.D. may be testifying at the criminal trial and will no doubt be providing one-side testimony that the jury will be forced to hear. At that time, everyone especially the media will have an opportunity to categorize it for themselves.
Other Joyanna Silberg quotes in the media:
Family Abduction Watch 
I see that Dr. Silberg is among the experts on Mom’s witness list in the upcoming Tsimhoni custody trial. Presumably she has been enlisted for the Daubert hearing to take place prior to the trial–where the admissibility of evidence regarding alienation–or other attachment disorders (as Dr. Childress is listed on Dad’s witness list) will be determined. Pro-Mom FB sites are still bleating that “parental alienation has been widely debunked as it was invented by a pedophile and not listed in the DSM . . .” Somehow the widespread repetition of such memes is not only annoying, but also stands as a living example of how easily people may be convinced of the truth of things that are demonstrably false.
Joyanna Silberg PhD has been a long-time supporter of the protective parent group. These professionals like Silberg and other members of the Leadership Council http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/us/bios.html are those that will testify for the protective parent movement. There are many that consider their views extremist and not supported by widely accepted research.
Yes–I have seen these groups popping up. Very discouraging to see highly educated folks shilling for such wrong-headed notions–essentially giving mothers not only custodial preference, but also a pass when it comes to mothers as individuals being accused of harming children.
Paul Fink, past President of the Leadership Council: “I do not deny that parental alienation occurs and that a lot of people are hurt when there is an alienator”
Howie, that is an interesting quote on PAS from a long-time protective parent proclaimed expert witness. I recollect Paul Fink was active with APSAC, a supporter of the protective parent movement in the ’90s. Perhaps the argument about PAS not being officially listed in the DSM is more political than scientific.
This blog (HT to Howie’s FB page) provides a very interesting summation of recent discussions in London. https://karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/london-recognises-parental-alienation-update-from-the-debate/
The author also discusses why PA is not a gender issue–although it has been hijacked by so-called women’s rights and father’s rights groups. It is a child protection issue. Also interesting that they use language referring to the the “alienated voices” of children–clearly making a distinction between what alienated children have been led to believe and their more unadulterated observations and preferences following a period of therapy. Would be interested in hearing more about the state of the art in therapy across the pond.
In a high-conflict child custody case in N. Virginia, I assisted a family law attorney impeach Dr. Silberg during her voir dire and the Judge excused her from the witness stand as she never met the legal muster requirement under Rule 702 and Daubert as an Expert Witness. She testified to an ideological area of “science” called victimology and that was her downfall. Bottom line – She didn’t tender so she couldn’t testify.
Thank you Dean. I understand this doesn’t happen that often. Great job!