Report a problem
Judy's Book takes violations of our Terms of Use very seriously. We encourage
you to read through our
Terms of Use
before filling report with us.
After careful review, we may remove content or replace a content warning page before
viewing content deemed offensive, harmful, or dangerous.
Additionally, we are aware that there may be content on Judy's Book that is personal
in nature or feels invasive. Please note that Judy's Book is a provider of content
creation tools, not a mediator of content. We allow our users express their opinions,
but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. We strongly believe
in freedom of expression, even if a review contains unappealing or distasteful
content or present negative viewpoints. We realize that this may be frustrating,
and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information
for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this
person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court
order:
Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Political or social commentary
Distasteful imagery or language
If we've read the Terms of Use and believe that this review below violates our Terms
of Use, please complete the following short form.
|
Businiess name:
Kosseff & Kosseff: Kosseff Peter J PHD
|
|
Review by:
citysearch c.
|
|
Review content:
Dr. Peter Kosseff along with other mercenary psychologist paid for by court contract or via exploitative court orders that require parents to pay exorbitant private fees (such as Dr. Parson, Dr. Hayden, Dr. Lubiner, Dr. Oppenheimer and others at the various hospitals around the state) use a very dangerous practice of deprogramming. Often called threat therapy by the kids. VIsit the Leadership Council website at for more information on this topic. Specialists in childhood trauma and therapy from the Leadership Council have grave concerns about the ethics of deprogramming treatment described in a recent article published in the Globe and Mail (see: Judge Blocks Sending Teen for Deprogramming Treatment, Feb 7, 2009).
We support the decision of the judge who refused to court-order deprogramming treatment (sometime called Reuni?cation Therapy) overturning a 2008 arbitrator’s order that the 14-year- old boy be coercively treated. The controversial treatment is designed to “deprogram” children who are “alienated” from one of their parents during divorce.
Various forms of this type of “treatment” have sprung up over the last decade. The therapy usually involves con?ning the child in a location away from home, and isolating the child from!the parent to whom the child is most attached. The attachment to the favored parent is challenged, while encouraging the child with intensive sessions to re-accept the rejected parent.
Some children have reported receiving treatment involving threats and coercion. The child may be told that he or she may not return home until they have accepted a more favorable view of the
denigrated parent.!One child the LC has interviewed described recurrent nightmares of the de-programming episodes that were used on him. In addition, there have been several lawsuits
related to this type of approach.
This so-called “therapy”!is reminiscent of the kind of brainwashing techniques used in prison camps where deprivation and isolation are used to coerce false confessions and to force ideological!changes in captives.!! While these techniques can produce changes in belief and in behavior,!we are concerned that these techniques!are harmful to the mental health of children.
We are also concerned that!deprogramming treatments may violate basic ethical principles that guide practice. According to the American Psychological Association’s ethical standards, the
goals of psychologists are the welfare and protection of individuals. We question whether deprogramming treatment protects the welfare of the!children involved. We have listed some of our concerns at the end of this release. (see: Concerns)
Deprogramming treatment raises philosophical and legal questions which remain unresolved in our approach to children. Are children simply the property of adults whose legal interests can control what children think and believe? In what sense does the child’s intellectual and emotional freedom have precedence over these legal interests? While these complex issues are not yet resolved, the controversial nature of this deprogramming treatment!would argue for caution in safeguarding the mental health of children while we wrestle with these complex questions.
|
Reasons for reporting (512 characters left):
|
|
Reasons are required.
|
|
or
Cancel
|