"In the Best Interest of the Child" 

by Richard Cohen

If I had a euro for every time I heard that phrase in the last month, I’d be sunning myself in Rome by now. It has been invoked promiscuously in reference to Elian Gonzalez but it comes up so often elsewhere, and always with an air of dead certainty, that it is worth considering all by itself. It should be stricken from the English language.

In the first place, no one ever knows for sure what precisely are the best interests of a child. Psychologists and other experts will chime in, but while their manner is confident, their knowledge ain’t all that great.

In the case of Elian, experts have been employed by everyone to suit their own purposes. ABC had one on hand when it interviewed the boy. The U.S. government chose its own panel of mental health experts, and even Fidel Castro wanted to send a psychologist to accompany Elian’s father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, to this country. No doubt he would have found that the best interest of the child lay in Cuba.

DANGEROUS EXPERTISE
Not only don’t the experts often know what’s in the best interest of the child, the concept itself is a dangerous and slippery one. Of course, Elian’s own interest may be best served by staying in America. He would grow up in a free, affluent society, reaping all its benefits. When it’s looked at that way, Cuba would be the absolute worst choice.

But by applying the best interest of the child in that way you absolutely trample on the rights of the parents. Why stop at Elian? Go into the ghetto, find some hapless single mother and take her kid from her. It would be in the child’s best interest, after all. Take the children of the Amish who are deprived of creature comforts, and of Christian Scientists before they get sick. The pious would add atheists to the list, homophobes would suggest homosexuals and, by acclamation, Woody Allen would be childless forever.

SELF-INTEREST 

When we use the phrase "the best interest of the child" we are really referring to interests that coincide with our own. Middle-class people think a middle-class lifestyle is preferable to one steeped in poverty. Poorer people, however, might quibble, saying there is more to life than material goods. Americans think their democracy and free enterprise system provide the perfect environment in which to raise a child. But here too some people might quibble: Who are you to say that socialism is not in the best interest of a child?

EXPRESSION OF ARROGANCE
The term "best interest of the child" can sometimes be nothing more than an expression of arrogance: My way is the best way. My country is the best country. My religion is the true religion.

Those sentiments are exactly what is being expressed in the Elian case. From the psychologists who think they know the kid after a very short time with him, to the zealots in the Cuban American community, to American politicians, everyone is so sure of the best interest of the child they concluded the father’s interest did not matter at all. He could be brushed aside, not because he was a bad father but because he lived in the wrong country under the wrong political system.

HAVE SOME HUMILITY
In their newspaper column, Cokie and Steven V. Roberts concluded, after having spoken with ABC in-house shrink Dr. Gunther Perdigao, that Elian should stay in this country. Perdigao noticed that when Elian "got a little anxious" he would reach out to his cousin, Marisleysis. How telling! If the kid reached out to his teddy bear would he be sent to the zoo?

A little humility is in order, a bit of deference to the institution of the family. It has served us long and well and leads me, for one, to conclude that Elian belongs with his father. That, I think, is in everyone’s best interest.

British False Memory Society

4/4/00

Extracts from their Journal

The Director - Madeline Greenhalgh

The climate of fear that childhood sexual abuse is rife throughout society generates an ugly and recurring presumption. It is, that in order to protect children, the freedom of innocent people might be justifiably sacrificed, rather than to allow one guilty person to go free.

What has happened to common sense?

False accusations of childhood sexual abuse can endanger rather than safeguard the nation's children. A false accusation can no more protect children than the wrong diagnosis protects patients.

The Waterhouse Report investigated widespread childhood sexual abuse claims in care homes in North Wales. The report highlighted the reliance placed upon professionals and institutions to care for and protect children from abusive situations, and there have been some serious failings. But how reliable are these findings over all?

In the relentless trawl of the culprits of real, or imagined, crimes, any innocent person caught in the net becomes tainted. We are reverting to the thinking prevalent at the height of the witch craze when James I pronounced that, where proof his hard to come by, an allegation alone might suffice for conviction!

What progress has society made?

In this context it is hardly surprising that psychotherapist, Valerie Sinason, should be given free rein to her belief in Satanic ritual abuse on the flagship news programmes of BBC Radio 4,where she recently informed the listener that her "clinical evidence" confirms its existence.

Within this grey landscape though, things are changing. More front-line professionals are recognising the serious implications of false allegations, combining care with commonsense. This week we learned of an accused father who, when fearing arrest, was instead sent a copy of the Frequently Asked Questions BFMS booklet by the investigating policeman.

No charges were brought against him, and he is now back in contact with his daughter and the family is reconciled. The booklet is available to police, social services, mental health professionals and hospital trusts, for use as an information and training resource.

The fact is that many of the attributes of false allegations by ex-care home residents are not unique, just as is the case with true ones.

Methods of police investigation in retrospective organised abuse inquiries that trawl potential victims have been influenced by presumption of abuse having taken place, with even 'reluctant' witnesses said to be in 'denial'.

The 'potential' victim may also be comforted to learn that all his woes, including drug and alcohol abuse, failed relationships and criminal convictions, may be attributed to the trauma caused by the particular suspect the investigator has in mind.

The difference between 'unburdening' and actually confabulating, in this context, may be scant. And with the comforting reassurances of the investigator ringing true, any accusation, with repetition, can be made to seem true.

The incentives are also substantial compensation awards within a disaffected, deprived and habitually dishonest subgroup and this acts as an explosive catalyst, with the consequent and  inevitable bandwagon effect.

But compensation claims also attend domestic allegations. Siblings of accusers with problems or grudges become convinced, or convincing witnesses, of their own alleged abuse. And even where false claims are honestly believed, many become facile liars in their determination to interpret the facts in a way that fits in with the 'light' of abuse.

From the BFMS News Forum

Smear Campaign Book Withdrawn.

A book alleging that the British False Memory Society, as well as any critics of false accusations, are part of a conspiracy to prevent child abuse cases being prosecuted, was withdrawn the day before publication, following threatened legal action by a psychiatrist

Stolen Voices, apparently 'an exposure of the campaign to discredit childhood testimony' was written by journalist Beatrix Campbell and childcare consultant Judith Jones. Both women have been prominent over the last decade in their support of recovered memory and ritual abuse claims. Judith Jones was a social worker at the centre of the Nottingham Satanic abuse fiasco in 1989, while Campbell's support dates back to coverage of the Cleveland scandal in 1987.

Stolen Voices received poor reviews prior to its withdrawal in October last year, with Professor Jean Lafontaine stating: "The authors use personal attack to advance their views. The main target is the British False Memory Society, a support group for parents accused of sexual abuse by their mainly adult children, usually after some form of therapy. It is represented as an organisation that protects paedophiles by discrediting young children's allegations. I am another target, as are journalists, social workers and academics who are said to form the backlash. The use of innuendo is distasteful and, where I can judge them, the 'facts', simply, are not true. There is no new information and there are no new ideas on what can be done to protect children. Stolen Voices is a political document, long on rhetoric and short on fact; it fails to convince because it is misleading, thin and curiously dated.

The publishers circulated a letter of apology to those in receipt of pre-publication copies, agreeing to remove the defamatory material and paying the costs.

It is understood that the publishers have received numerous complaints about factual inaccuracies and defamatory references and Women's Press stated that they have no plans at present to republish the book.

Inquiry into the Canadian Abuse Compensation Scandal

An independent inquiry into retrospective abuse allegations has been ordered in Nova Scotia, Canada, following mass compensation payouts for alleged abuse on demand (New York Times 27 January 2000).

One retrospective abuse conviction of a reform school employee in Shelburne, in 1993, became a tinderbox for compensation claims when the provincial government put up a $28 million compensation fund boosted by an additional $8 million when the fund became exhausted.

The convicted man died in prison last year, but mass publicity at the time of the trial led to a rush of allegations by former inmates against other employees.

Once the government had panicked into putting up a no-questions-asked fund, allegations stretching back 50 years or more rocketed to an estimated 14,500 by 1400 accusers, with 363 former employees accused. A five-year police investigation has so far failed to result in any charges with 403 recipients signing waivers to preclude criminal investigation into their accusations. Notices of the awards ranging from $3500 for physical assault to $85,000 for sexual abuse were widely advertised in the media and posted up by lawyers in prisons. The compensation programme is said to employ 144 lawyers. Nearly every legal practice in the province is said to be involved in some capacity, prompting the state to hire a retired judge from Quebec to head the inquiry.

"It was like going to buy the lottery ticket when you already know the numbers," said Cameron McKinnon, a lawyer for 85 of the accused, many of whom have not see the evidence against them.

Media reports have been scathing with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation calling the fund "too bad to be true" while a Toronto Globe and Mail columnist commented: "The real victims of the Shelburne scandal ... are the vast majority of employees who dedicated their lives to helping troubled kids, and are now seeing their names, reputations and life work smeared forever by allegations of hideous crimes they never committed."

Books

Mind Games that Turn us all into Victims - by Tana Dineen.

Tana Dineen is a top psychologist. She attacks the excesses of her own profession.

Psychology presents itself as a concerned and caring profession working for the good of its clients. But in its wake lie damaged people, divided families, distorted justice, destroyed companies and a weakened society. Behind a benevolent facade is a voracious, self-serving industry that profits from 'facts' which are often confounded, provides 'therapy' which can be damaging, and exerts influence which is having devastating effects on the social fabric.

The foundation of modern psychology has been largely abandoned in favour of power and profit. What seemed once a responsible profession is now a big business whose success is related to how many people become hooked on its appeal.

Over the years, I have met some very disturbed people who needed help and protection. But, more recently, most of the patients who have come to my office, I would refuse to categorise in this way.

People who are mildly anxious or slightly unhappy are turning to psychology relief. They do this through weekly appointments of seminars and workshops, or by buying books on 'abuse', 'trauma' and 'stress'; all in the pursuit of an elusive experience held out, like a pot of gold, by the psychology industry.

It is not news to say that society is becoming filled with people who consider themselves victims. What is news is that psychology itself is manufacturing most of these victims, the motives having to do with power and profit. While people have become used to hearing about all sorts of victims - from those of sexual harassment to those of divorce and even holiday cancellation - they have not yet paid attention to the techniques that are being used to create and cater to these victims. Nor have they noticed the psychologists themselves who are benefiting from this victim making.

For the patient, there are many incentives for acquiring victim status and, in the short-term, there are payoffs. The tragedies, health problems and disappointments of life become explained, relieving people of completely natural burdens and relieving them of their responsibilities for them.

New psychological technologies promise relief from these and give those with dull lives a thread of meaning and something to talk about. Victim stories become the excuses for the embarrassment of their own failures. For some, victim status itself, being a 'survivor', is the only credential which qualifies them as a 'psychologist'. And being a victim can open many doors to a successful career, if not as a therapist of some kind, then as a media personality with a victim story to sell.

Here's her book. 

Manufacturing Victims 

Though written for the layperson and for the lawyers who have to deal with such cases,  psychologists should also read this book.

The BFMS website.

WORKING WITH VIOLENT WOMEN

BY ERIN PIZZEY

The potential for terrorism may rest dormant for many years, emerging in its full might only under certain circumstances. I found that in many cases it is the dissolution, or threatened dissolution, of the family that calls to the fore the terrorist's destructiveness. It is essential to understand that prior to dissolution, the potential terrorist plays a role in the family that is by no means passive. The terrorist is the family member whose moods reign supreme in the family, whose whims and actions determine the emotional climate of the household. In this setting, the terrorist could be described as the family tyrant, for within the family, this individual maintains the control and power over the other members' emotions. The family well may be characterized as violent, incestuous, dysfunctional, and unhappy, but it is the terrorist or tyrant who is primarily responsible for initiating conflict, imposing histrionic outbursts upon otherwise calm situations, or (more subtly and invisibly) quietly manipulating other family members into uproar through guilt, cunning taunts, and barely perceptive provocations. ( The quiet manipulative terrorist usually is the most undetected terrorist. Through the subtle creation of perpetual turmoil, this terrorist may virtually drive other family members to alcoholism, to drug-addiction, to explosive behavior, to suicide. The other family members, therefore, are often misperceived as the 'family problem' and the hidden terrorist as the saintly woman who 'puts up with it all.')

While the family remains together, however miserable that 'togetherness' might be, the terrorist maintains her power. However, it is often the separation of the family that promises to rend the terrorist's domain and consequently to lessen her power. Family dissolution, therefore, often is the time when the terrorist feels most threatened and most alone, and, because of that, most dangerous.

In this position of fear, the family terrorist sets out to achieve a specific goal. There are many possible goals for the terrorist, including: reuniting the family once again, or ensuring that the children (if there are children in the relationship) remain under the terrorist's control, or actively destroying the terrorist's spouse (or ex-spouse) emotionally, physically, and financially. When it was evident to Adolph Hitler that winning the War was an absolute impossibility, he ordered his remaining troops to destroy Berlin: If he no longer could rule, then he felt it best for his empire to share in his own personal destruction. Similarly, the family terrorist, losing or having lost supremacy, may endeavor to bring about the ruin (and, in some extreme cases, the death) of other family members.

The family terrorist, like the political terrorist, is motivated by the pursuit of a goal. In attempting to 'disarm' the family terrorist, it is vital that the practitioner begin intervention by trying to recognize and understand the terrorist's goal.

The source of the terrorist's goal as in the case of the political terrorist, usually can be understood to spring from some 'legitimate' grievance. The grievance's legitimacy may be regarded in terms of justified feeling of outrage in response to an actual injustice or injury, or the legitimacy may exist solely in the mind of the terrorist. Whether this legitimacy be real or imagined, the grievance starts as the impetus for the terrorist's motivation. One hallmark of an emotional terrorist is that this motivation tends to be obsessional by nature.

Whence this obsession? Why this overwhelmingly powerful drive? In many cases, that which the terrorist believes to be the grievance against the spouse actually has very little to do with the spouse. Although the terrorist may be consciously aware only of the spouse's alleged offense, the pain of this offense (real or imagined) is invariably an echo of the past, a mirrored recreation of some painful situation in the terrorist's childhood.

I will not describe here in any detail the types of childhood that tend to create the subsequent terrorist. I will say, however, that invariably the terrorist's childhood, once understood, can be seen as violent (emotionally and/or physically). Also invariably, the terrorist can be regarded as a 'violence prone' individual. I define a 'violence prone' woman as a woman who, while complaining that she is the innocent victim of the malice and aggression of all other relationships in her life, is in fact a victim of her own violence and aggression. A violent and painful childhood tends to create in the child an addiction to violence and to pain (an addiction on all levels: the emotional, the physical, the intellectual, the neurochemical), an addiction that then compels the individual to recreate situations and relationships characterized by further violence, further danger, further suffering, further pain. Thus, it is primarily the residual pain from childhood-and only secondarily the pain of the terrorist's current familial situation-that serves as the terrorist's motivating impetus. There is something pathological about the terrorist's motivation, for it is based not so much on reality as on a twisting, a distortion, a reshaping of reality.

Because the emotional terrorist is a violence-prone individual, addicted to violence, the terrorist's actions must be understood as the actions of an addict. When the family was together, the terrorist found fulfillment for any number of unhealthy appetites and addictions. When that family then dissolves, the terrorist behaves with all the desperation, all the obsession, all the single-minded determination of any addict facing or suffering withdrawal.

The single-mindedness, the one-sidedness of feeling, is perhaps the most important shibboleth of the emotional terrorist. Furthermore, the extent of this one-sidedness is, for the practitioner, perhaps the greatest measure and indicator of how extreme the terrorist's actions are capable of becoming.

Any person suffering an unhappy family situation, or the dissolution of a marriage or relationship, will feel some pain and desperation. A relatively well-balanced person, however, will be not only aware of their own distress but also sensitive, in some degree, to the suffering of the other family members. (For example, reasonably well-balanced parents, when facing divorce, will be most concerned with their children's emotional well-being, even beyond their own grief.) Not so the emotional terrorist. To the family terrorist, there is only one wronged, one sufferer, only one person in pain, and this person is the terrorist herself. The terrorist has no empathy and feels only her own pain. In this manner, the terrorist's capacity for feeling is narcissistic, solipsistic, and in fact pathological.

Again, I will not attempt here to detail the factors in childhood that lead to the creation of an emotional terrorist. What is, however, evident, in the terrorist's limited or non- existent ability to recognize other people's feelings, is that the terrorist's emotions and awareness, at crucial stages of childhood development, were stunted from reaching beyond the boundaries of self, due to a multiplicity of reasons. Later, the adult terrorist went on to make a relationship that was, on some level, no true relationship, but a re-enactment of childhood pains, scenarios, situations, and 'scripts.' Throughout the relationship, the solipsistic terrorist did not behave genuinely in response to the emotions of other family members but self-servingly used them as props for the recreation of the terrorist's programme. And when that relationship finally faces dissolution, the terrorist is aware only of her own pain and outrage and, feeling no empathy for other family members, will proceed single-mindedly in pursuit of her goal, whether that goal is reunion, ruin, or revenge. The terrorist's perspective is tempered by little or no objectivity. Instead the terrorist lives in a self-contained world of purely subjective pain and anger.

Because conscience consists so largely of the awareness of other people's feelings as well as of one's own, the emotional terrorist's behavior often can be described to be virtually without conscience. In this lack of conscience lies the dangerous potential of the true terrorist, and again the degree of conscience in evidence is a useful measure in my work to anticipate the terrorist's destructiveness.

An additional factor, making the terrorist so dangerous, is the fact that the terrorist, while in positively monomaniacal pursuit of her goal, feels fueled by a sense of omnipotence. Perhaps it is true that one imagines oneself omnipotent when, in truth, one is in a position of impotence (as in the case of losing one's familial control through dissolution). Whatever the source of the sensation of omnipotence, the terrorist believes herself to be unstoppable, and unbound by the constraints or conscience or empathy, believes that no cost (cost, either to the terrorist or to other family members) is too great to pay toward the achievement of the goal.

The terrorist, and the terrorist's actions, know no bounds. (The estimation of the extent of the terrorist's 'boundlessness' presents the greatest challenge to my work). Intent only to achieve the goal (perhaps 'hell-bent' is the most accurate descriptive phrase) the terrorist will take such measures as: stalking a spouse or ex-spouse, physically assaulting the spouse or the spouse's new partners, telephoning all mutual friends and business associates of the spouse in an effort to ruin the spouse's reputation, pressing fabricated criminal charges against the spouse (including alleged battery and child molestation), staging intentionally unsuccessful suicide attempts for the purpose of manipulation, snatching children from the spouse's care and custody, vandalizing the spouse's property, murdering the spouse and/or the children as an act of revenge. In my experience both men and women are equally guilty of the above behavior, but on the whole, because it is men's dysfunctional behavior that is studied and reported upon, people do not realize that to the same extent women are equally guilty of this type of violent behavior.

My working definition, then, of a 'family terrorist' or an 'emotional terrorist' is: a woman or a man (but for the purposes of this work, I refer only to women) who, pathologically motivated (by unresolved tendencies from a problematical childhood), and pathologically insensitive to the feelings of other family members, obsessionally seeks through unbounded action to achieve a destructive (and, therefore, pathological) goal with regard to other family members.

Of course, this defining profile pertains to individuals in differing degrees. Many people, unhappy within a relationship or made unhappy by the dissolution of a relationship, may lapse into periods of 'irrational' behavior. What characterizes the terrorist, however, is that the vindictive and destructive behaviors are consistent; the moments of calm and periods of lucidity are the lapses, temporary lulls in the storm.

Also, there are women who, suffering chagrin and misery during or after the life-span of a relationship, appear far more self-destructive than destructive to anyone else. For the other partner, contemplating leaving this kind of individual, the very thought of leaving such a person is made difficult and untenable by such frequently uttered protestations as 'I cannot live without you,' and 'Without you, I might as well be dead.' To be sure, many women exist, extremely dependent within their relationships, who, probably having suffered severe emotional betrayal during their childhood, genuinely feel that their life outside a relationship would be so lonely as to be unbearable. It is difficult to leave such a woman, and the man attempting to leave may well feel that, by leaving, he would be responsible for delivering a mortal blow to an already pathetic wretch. Men also, are often kept in their relationships, which can only be likened to 'personal concentration camps,' by the fact that they feel a genuine feeling of 'chivalry' towards their partner. Women tend to put so much more of themselves into their relationships and therefore suffer when these relationships fall apart.

There is a valid question as to whether or not this sort of suicidally-inclined individual may be deemed a terrorist. (To many minds, this kind of individual, no doubt, would seem to fall more within the category of 'emotional black-mailer.') I believe that, sadly, there are people, deeply damaged by their childhood, who genuinely cannot face life by themselves. When dealing with such potential cases, however, I try to make the leaving partner understand that the suicidal inclinations predate the relationship by many years, and that, however tragic the situation, one person simply cannot be held responsible for keeping another person alive. In some individuals, the authentic (though unhealthy) longing for death is a longing planted within them since early childhood, and there is very little a partner can do to alter the apparently inevitable course of that longing.

Among true terrorists, however, threats of suicide can be seen to serve a largely manipulative role. In short, the terrorist says, 'If you can't do as I tell you, I will kill myself.' Whether suicide remains only a threat or is realized, the true terrorist uses suicide not so much as an expression of desperate grief but as a weapon to be wielded against others.

In working with clients struggling either in relationships or with the dissolution of a relationship, I am faced with many questions, all relevant to gauging the woman's terrorist potential: 'Will the woman persevere in her efforts to financially ruin her partner?' 'Is she sincere when she promises to kill her partner, or have him killed, should he ever become involved in a new relationship? Are the threats of suicide genuine or manipulative?' 'Will she carry out the promises of using the law to 'kidnap' the children in order to hurt the ex-partner?' 'Will she brain-wash the children to such an extent that her ex-partner dare not form a new relationship?'

Emotional terrorism is by no means confined to the family context. I know an extremely successful woman in the world of fine arts. This woman has been haunted by a former assistant who, vicariously imagining herself to the writer herself, dresses like her, stalks her, and issues public statements that it was she, not the writer, who created the works of art for which the writer is internationally famous. If the writer is to ensure her own safety, then very definite steps must be taken.

In situations of emotional and family terrorism, there are two areas of work to be done: practical measures of protection ('strategies for survival') on the part of family members, and therapeutic work with the terrorist himself or herself. I must reiterate at this stage, that both men and women are capable of terrorist tactics but men tend to behave in a more physically violent manner within the family. Women, as I have shown use far more subtle tactics i.e. that of the terrorist as opposed to outright war.

The first step, on the part of other family members, toward limiting the terrorist's destructive potential is to understand the terrorist to be a terrorist. In a recent case, a Mr. Roberts described to me how, during his marriage, he and his children faced a daily onslaught of verbal abuse from his wife. Mrs. Roberts was also physically violent to the children. Now that he has asked for a divorce, she is making use of every weapon in her arsenal. In the children's presence, she has used drugs and drunk alcohol to the point of extreme intoxication. She has staged several unsuccessful suicide attempts in front of the children, threatened over the telephone to 'do something stupid,' promised to kill Mr. Roberts new partner, and assured Mr. Roberts that when she has finished with him he will not have a penny to his name. To Mr. Roberts, all of this behavior seemed perfectly usual. After all, he had witnessed this sort of commotion for thirteen years of their marriage. When I suggested to him, 'What you endured is emotional terrorism, he suddenly and for the first time was able to see his situation clearly. Now, he realized, his wife's behavior was neither appropriate nor acceptable. No, this was not the treatment that every man should expect from his wife, either in or out of marriage. No, he does not want his children to be subjected to such extreme behavior any longer. The fact of recognizing a terrorist is the essential first step.

Then, because a terrorist is fueled by a feeling of omnipotence and is prepared to behave without bounds, (usually encouraged by feminist therapists who insist that their clients suffer from 'low self esteem'), pragmatic measures must be taken to define clearly the boundaries of behavior. It is unfortunate that the legal situation which many divorce agreements mandate is open-ended. Certainly, when both parties to a divorce are reasonably well-balanced, it is entirely fitting for the settlement to be flexible enough to incorporate changing financial circumstances, child-care capabilities, and visitation rights. When, however, one party to the divorce is an emotional terrorist, then both the confrontational divorce procedure and the resultant open-ended divorce settlement provide infinite opportunity for the courts, lawyers, and the entire battery of psychologists called in for evaluations, to be used a the terrorist's weapons. In these cases, the court and the divorce procedure provide no boundaries for the terrorist; instead they allow the terrorist to continue to behave boundlessly.

For this reason, when dealing with a terrorist, it is best for the divorce procedure and final decree to be as swift, as final, as absolute, as unequivocal as possible. Every practitioner or attorney handling divorces is familiar with clients described as 'litigious.' Only when 'litigiousness' is seen as a manifestation of terrorism can the course to swift and precise legal settlement be steered.

To limit the terrorist's feelings of omnipotence, there are many effective measures. The guiding principle, as in the handling of political terrorists, must be 'There is no negotiating with terrorists.' Endless telephone calls, conversations, confrontation, trial 'get-back-togethers,' correspondence, visitations, gestures of appeasement, and efforts to placate the terrorist's demands, all serve to reinforce the terrorist's belief that she is accomplishing something. Only determined resolution in the face of terrorism shows the terrorist that her power is limited.

Furthermore, for anyone dealing directly with the terrorist, reassurances, 'ego boosts,' 'positive strokes,' and consolations are lamentably counter- productive. Mrs. Roberts soon found for herself a feminist therapist staunchly supporting the erroneous belief 'All feelings (and therefore behaviors) are valid.' Mrs. Roberts is told by this therapist that she has a right to feel and to behave in any manner she chooses, in callous disregard for the devastation inflicted upon the children. Such reassurances serve only to fortify the terrorist's already pathological, solipsistic, and eternally self-justifying perspective.

If wishing to undertake the second sphere of disarming a terrorist - personal intervention with the terrorist herself - the therapist must be prepared to be straight, honest and very direct. In my own dealings with women as terrorists, I have found on occasion that one quite simply can point out to the terrorist, 'You are behaving like a terrorist. This is what you are doing. This is how you are being destructive. This is the destruction you are heading towards,' and the terrorist, seeing themselves clearly for the first time, might be encouraged to reconsider their behavior. More commonly, however, extremely deep therapy is required. For the terrorist's behavior to change, there must first be a solid and fundamental change within the terrorist's physiological constitution. Usually it is only by an in-depth excavation and resolution of early childhood pain that the terrorist can begin to gain a real, true, and level-headed perception of her own current situation.

Direct intervention with a terrorist-like all forms of therapeutic intervention-can hope to achieve change only if the individual concerned wishes to change and possesses that vital yet ineffable quality: the will to health. When the will to health is lacking, there can be no change. If the terrorist cannot or will not change, one can only help the other family members to be resolute, be strong, and, whenever possible, be distant."