Lynn Steinberg’s Testimony: Maya and Sebastian Laing
These are the actual transcripts from Lynn Steinberg’s testimony in the Laing case (Santa Cruz County, California) on October 20, 2022. This testimony is from an emergency hearing that resulted in Judge Rebecca Connolly issuing a ruling that forced two children into the unregulated, unsound “industry” of reunification camps.
After two days of testimony where the court (who declared this situation as emergent) heard from Lynn Steinberg and the transporters from Assisted Interventions, Inc., the transporters were given authority to immediately take the children into their custody.
As knowledgeable as I am on this movement, to read these transcripts is unsettling and infuriating. I will share my thoughts and comments after the transcripts:
If you are not familiar with the history of "parental alienation syndrome" which has morphed into the very lucrative present day alienation movement, click to read a comprehensive overview from National Safe Parents Organization.
Reunification camps are likened to the "troubled teen industry," which have been exposed due to the efforts of nonprofit organization, Breaking Code Silence and advocate Paris Hilton. Concerns about the safety of the Laing children have spread internationally as the video of their violent removal has been viewed over 10 million times. These were not troubled children, or trouble teenagers, these are children who were thriving in every aspect of their lives. These are brilliant, articulate children who attempted to have a voice in the family court system, who were seen as a threat and who have now been silenced. It has been almost a month since the children have been heard from.
Comments on Lynn Steinberg's testimony:
Lynn Steinberg attended an unaccredited graduate program, has no scholarly track record and her dissertation was on mother-daughter incestuous relationships.
Her goal in reunification camp on day one is to disempower children, and give power to the person they claim abused them. Her goal in day two is to rewrite the children’s truth and gaslight them. She plays memory games with them to make them doubt themselves. She then discusses a court order with them when she would reprimand an "alienating" parent for talking to children about adult topics.
She learned from the "masters "in the alienation movement from the 1980s, and cites Linda Gottlieb and Randy Rand as her mentors, both who are under fire for their practices, have been under investigation or are currently under investigation. One of these individuals so far, has lost his license to practice.
Anyone who has watched the video of Assisted Interventions, Inc. "building rapport" with the children, would question her definition of building rapport.
She is an expert in child sexual abuse yet she previously recounted a situation where her client told her that he could not have molested his daughter because he was diabetic and could not get an erection, and she believed him because everyone knows that pedophiles are very honest individuals.
She has never reached the conclusion that an abuse allegation is true.
When she has had cases where alienation has been alleged, she believes abuse allegations are untrue.
When asked, "who recognizes alienation," the only organization that she could come up with was AFCC - one of the most disturbing, controversial organizations that I know of.
Incorrect statement from Judge Connolly who believes the term “alienation” is in the DSM 5 (it is not).
She believes that removing a child from their preferred parent for 90 days is in their best interest which contradicts the entire premise that she is operating from, that children need two parents or they will be damaged and irreparably harmed.
She sets the stage for the reality of what this truly is, children do not return after 90 days. In fact, the team that she describes being put in place and the scrutiny that the preferred parent is under (hoops created that are impossible to jump through and vague instructions that are impossible to clarify let alone complete) gives this team full authority to keep the children from their preferred parent for extended periods of time, often years.
Her self-reported 100% success rate is determined by whether the children are speaking to their allegedly abusive parent at the one-year mark which, she testifies that she maintains control for that year so how would the children have a choice in whether or not they are speaking to this so-called "alienated" parent?
Taken from Lynn Steinberg’s website:
Reunification Therapy for Alienated Parents and Children
(credit: www.lynnsteinberg.com)
Day 1: Review of family history
The goal is to reconnect the child(ren) emotionally and remember the history between Alienated Parent and Child by reviewing photographs and mementos, etc. that depicted the positive relationship that existed between the parent and child(ren) preceding the Alienation. (This occurs remarkably quickly due to the child’s instinctive loving feelings for the parent).
Day 2 and 3: Correcting the child’s revisionist history
Correcting misinformation and false allegations against the Alienated Parent through a frank and factual discussion is essential to the healing process, and vital to the mental health of the child(ren). The child will be supported in expressing his/her own genuine feelings for and beliefs about the alienated parent.
During this time the family will partake in meals and activities, organized and supervised by the parent. In addition, the Alienated Parent’s extended and nuclear family is most likely also alienated and will be invited to participate in Day 3.
Day 4: Family activity
(to be scheduled during the 3 days)
The family is encouraged to take a trip together or have an activity planned. At the end of the activity, we will reconvene and process the experience and shore up any gaps in the reunification between the Parent and Child(ren).
###
Let me provide my own translation of how I perceive this four-day camp to go - speaking in general terms and not related to this specific case:
Day 1: the goal is to show the children photographs – let’s be realistic: photographs are never taken when a child is being abused, manipulated or during difficult times. Many parents who fall into the category of “abusive” utilize photos to create an image motivated by self interest or personal gain. Children are not able to articulate the cognitive dissonance that would be caused by professionals utilizing photographs to paint a picture that is not in alignment with their truth. This is organized, professional gaslighting.
Day 2 & 3: the goal is to create a false narrative, continue to re-create history and gaslight the children. During this time, the family will partake in meals and activities which are organized and supervised by the parent that they allege abused them. On day three, additional family members who support the allegedly abusive parents are invited to gang up on the children and make them feel out numbered.
Day 4: the goal is to partake in an activity or a vacation where we can snap photographs for purposes of litigation and at this point, the child is overwhelmed, confused and hopeless, finding that compliance is the only way out.
There is nothing about this that sounds safe or, in the best interest of a child.
