Family Court Values

Parental Alienation on the Joy Behar Show

2011-02-05T10:58:00.000-08:00

My friend Amy Baker, PHD was on the Joy Behar Show yesterday, and spoke about Parental Alienation Syndrome. Good for you Amy.

Joy Behar show Feb 2011 from Amy Baker on Vimeo.

Parental Alienation by Joel R. Brandes

2010-08-26T22:00:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL, March 26, 2000

"PARENTAL ALIENATION"

by Joel R. Brandes

Parental Alienation was recently described as a situation where one parent intentionally attempts to alienate his or her child from the other parent, by poisoning his mind, and usually succeeds.(1) Parental Alienation Syndrome ("PAS") is a disorder that usually arises in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's unjustified campaign of denigration against a parent. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the parent.

Where the child's animosity may be justified, such as in a case where there is true parental abuse or neglect, the Parental Alienation Syndrome explanation for the child's hostility is not applicable. The term is applicable only when the target parent has not exhibited anything close to the degree of alienating behavior that might warrant the campaign of vilification exhibited by the child. In typical cases, the victimized parent would be considered by most examiners to have provided normal, loving parenting or, at worst, exhibited minimal impairments in parental capacity. The hallmark of PAS is the exaggeration of minor weaknesses and deficiencies.(2) The parent who programs the child brings about the destruction of the bond between the other parent and the child which, unfortunately, is likely to be lifelong in duration.(3)

We believe that inducing parental alienation in a child is a form of child abuse, which should be punishable as abuse under the Family Court Act. Moreover, a parent who alienates a child against the other parent should be denied visitation with all of his or her children until the child is no longer alienated against the target parent.

Parental alienation has been recognized in New York custody cases since the 1980s, when it was held that a custodial parent's interference with the relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent is "an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to per se raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent."(4)

In Matter of Karen B. v. Clyde M.,(5) the parties originally had a joint and split custodial arrangement and a comprehensive visitation arrangement. In September 1990, the mother filed a petition to modify, requesting that she "retain all custody and visitation to be supervised, if at all." She alleged a change of circumstances, in that "Mandi had disclosed sexual advances and behavior problems because of concerns. Also it is not good for her physical, emotional and social well being to go back and forth between parents. Social Services is currently investigating." As a result of her allegations, the court entered a temporary order requiring the father's visitations with Mandi to be supervised.

According to the mother, in September 1990 Mandi disclosed to her certain sexual abuse perpetrated on Mandi by her father. He allegedly put his finger in her "peer." When she said that it hurt, he told her that he could do what he wanted. She also claimed that her Daddy's "dinkie" got bigger and "stuff came out." The mother reported this to a friend of hers, employed by Community Maternity Services, who went to her home and investigated. The child and mother were interviewed by a child sexual abuse therapist specializing in victims of ages 2-1/2 to 18 years. The mother repeated all of the allegations to the therapist, and additionally stated that on Sept. 9, Mandi had told her that the respondent has put his "peer" on her "peer" and that he had put his hand under the covers of the bed and touched her buns stating, "You know, like you take your temperature." The expert observed no outward signs of emotion when the mother spoke to her and found that the mother seemed to be repeating the story by rote, and that she couldn't respond to questions without starting from the beginning and completing the entire story. The expert concluded that there was no information that would indicate that Mandi had been sexually abused by her father.

The court held that a parent who denigrates the other by casting the false aspersion of child sex abuse, and involving the child as an instrument to achieve his or her selfish purpose, is not fit to continue in the role of a parent. It found that it would be in Mandi's best interests that her custody be awarded to her father. It stated "As the court has no assurance that the mother will not continue to 'brainwash' or 'program' Mandi, petitioner shall have no visitation nor contact with her daughter."

The Third Department affirmed.(6) It noted that the Family Court found that petitioner had programmed Mandi to make the sexual abuse allegations in order to obtain sole custody and deny access to respondent. It held that the fact that Family Court made reference to a book regarding parental alienation syndrome, which was neither entered into evidence nor referred to by any witness, was not a ground for reversal, especially in light of all the testimony elicited at the hearing.

In RB v. SB,(7) the trial court found that prior to their separation in October 1994, the father (R.B.) and son (A.B.) had an extremely close relationship. They spent time together playing basketball and working on A.B.'s homework. R.B. walked A.B. to school in the mornings and regularly attended school functions. In August 1994, R.B.'s relationship with A.B. deteriorated substantially. The record was replete with numerous examples of the mother's (S.B.) campaign to poison A.B.'s relationship with his father. R.B. repeatedly asked S.B. to refrain from speaking to A.B. about these issues until after A.B.'s bar mitzvah the following Sunday. In response, S.B. reiterated her threats involving A.B. The court concluded that A.B.'s four-year estrangement from R.B. was the result of S.B.'s vindictive and relentless decision to alienate A.B. from his father. The court found that beginning in August 1994, S.B. engaged in a campaign to poison the relationship between A.B. and R.B. and effectively alienated A.B. from R.B. for approximately four years. During the four years when A.B. would neither see nor speak to his father, S.B. repeatedly referred to R.B. in front of A.B. as "evil," a "thief," an "embezzler" and a "liar." She told R.B. he would never see his son without her supervision, and attempted to condition visitation upon increased support. She told R.B. she wanted A.B. to "hate his f--guts."

The court held that S.B.'s intentional interference in R.B.'s relationship with his son, to the point where A.B. refused to see or speak to R.B. for nearly four years, was an appropriate factor for the court to consider pursuant to D.R.L. 236(B)(6)(11) in setting maintenance. It found that S.B. permanently damaged R.B.'s relationship with A.B. The court refused to order support to S.B. so that she could maintain her prior standard of living. Instead, it directed that R.B. pay to S.B. only those amounts S.B. reasonably needed to meet her daily living expenses so as not to diminish A.B.'s lifestyle. The award of maintenance and child support was contingent upon S.B. ensuring that the visitation schedule established by the court at the conclusion of the trial was adhered to. The court directed that it would entertain a motion by R.B. to terminate maintenance and decrease or terminate child support upon a showing that S.B. interfered with the visitation established by the court in any manner.

First New York Court

In Matter of JF v. LF, (8) the Family Court became the first New York court to discuss PAS at length in a custody decision. It pointed out that the theory is controversial, and noted that according to one of the expert witnesses who testified, the syndrome is not approved as a term by the American Psychiatric Society, and it is not in DSM-IV as a psychiatric diagnosis.

Parenthetically, we note that the DSM-IV,(9) which was published in 1994, cautions that "DSM-IV reflects a consensus about the classification and diagnosis of mental disorders derived at the time of its initial publication. New knowledge will undoubtedly lead to the identification of new disorders."

The Family Court acknowledged that New York cases have not discussed PAS as a theory, but have discussed the issue in terms of whether the child has been programmed to disfavor the noncustodial parent, thus warranting a change in custody.

The court observed the children and found them to be both highly intelligent and articulate. Yet, when discussing their father and his family, they presented themselves "at times in a surreal way with a pseudo-maturity which is unnatural and, even, strange." They seemed like "little adults." The court found that the children's opinions about their father were unrealistic and cruel. They spoke about and to him in a way which seemed to be malicious. Both children used identical language in dismissing the happy times they spent with their father as evidenced in a videotape and picture album as "Kodak moments." They denied anything positive in their relationship with their father to an unnatural extreme. The court concluded that nothing in the father's behavior warranted that treatment.

Three expert witnesses testified that the children were aligned in an unhealthy manner with the mother and her family. One expert testified that the "...[M]other has clearly won the war over the children's minds and hearts and the father is generally helpless to offset that. Children, likewise, are deeply attached in a symbiotic fashion with their mother ... Father is painted in a highly derogatory and negative fashion, way out of proportion to any possible deficiencies that he may have. This is clearly a borderline mental device within the mother's psychology which has been clearly duplicated in the children. The overall prognosis for any major change in their attitude would appear to be quite limited at this time, even with expert psychiatric assistance."

The court-appointed psychologist concluded that the PAS was "clear" and "definite" with both children.

The father's expert submitted a report to the court in which he stated that the alienation from the father was probably the most severe case of alienation he had ever witnessed as a child psychiatrist.

The court accepted the testimony of the mental health professionals to the extent that they indicated that the mother alienated the children from the father. It found that the children would have no relationship with the father if left in the custody of their mother, and that they would continue to be psychologically damaged if they remained living with her. Their negative view of their father was out of all proportion to reality. The court found that the mother had succeeded in causing parental alienation of the children from their father, such that they not only wished to cease having frequent and regular visitation, but actually desired to have nothing to do with him. It awarded sole custody to him and suspended her right to visitation.

The court did not specifically base its decision on a finding of PAS. Instead, it relied on the case law, which requires the custodial parent to nurture the child's relationship with the noncustodial parent, and ensures access by the noncustodial parent,(10) pointing out that interfering with the child's "relationship with the noncustodial parent, has been said to be so inconsistent with the child's best interest as to per se raise a strong probability of unfitness."(11)

1. R.B. v. S.B., New York Law Journal, 3-31-99, page 29, col. 5, Sup. Ct., NY Co. (Silberman, J),

2. Gardner, R.A., The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition (1998)

3. See Gardner, R.A., The Parental Alienation Syndrome (2d Edition) Addendum I (1999)

4. Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-5.

5. Karen B. v. Clyde M., 151 Misc2d 794, aff'd, 197 A.D.2d 753 (3d Dept, 1999).

6. Id.

7. See note 1, supra

8. 694 NYS2d 592, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99408

9. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, 1994 at p. xxiii.

10. Daghir v. Daghir, 82 AD2d 191, aff'd 56 NY2d 938.

11. CITING, INTER ALIA, MALONEY V. MALONEY, 208 AD2D 603, 603-604; YOUNG V. YOUNG, 212 AD2D 114, 115; ENTWISTLE V. ENTWISTLE, SUPRA.

Joel R. Brandes has law offices in Garden City and New York City. He co-authored the nine-volume Law and the Family New York and Law and the Family New York Forms.

3/28/2000 NYLJ 3, (col. 1)

"Parental Alienation" - Joel R. Brandes.

Parental Alienation Syndrome: A 'Hidden' Facet of Custody Disputes

2010-08-14T18:10:00.000-07:00

Parental Alienation Syndrome:
A 'Hidden' Facet of Custody Disputes
by Lisa Cook

...extending through the years of childhood and adolescence in his [or her] relations with both parents, [a child] builds up working models of how attachment figures are likely to behave towards him in any variety of situations; and on those models are based all his expectations, and therefore all his plans, for the rest of his life.

John Bowlby, Separation, Anxiety, and Anger

Introduction

Custody determinations are not simple. In fact, there are often complications which are not readily discernible to judges, lawyers, counsellors, or even the parents and children. Such a "complication" occurs when a divorcing parent or parents attempt to brainwash or program their children during a custody dispute. This issue has not been given frank or frequent treatment in either law or psychiatry. However, it has the potential to be the most destructive aspect in custody disputes.

It is apparent, from the limited studies that have been done, that mothers are usually the source of the brainwashing.1 Does this mean that there is a distinct gender differential at play? Two alternate and opposing explanations are available: women simply obtain custody with a greater prevalence this gives the mother the time and physical nexus necessary for successful brainwashing2; or out of a fear of losing sole custody due to the trends of joint custody and reverse discrimination in Family Law, mothers resort to brainwashing tactics.3

Both explanations, however, stem from a common basis: women are generally perceived as the "losers" in a divorce unless they get custody of the children.

Thus, the main catalyst for brainwashing is a combination of fear and loss - because a parent is alienated from the life they knew, they become alienating.4 Consequently, a father can brainwash his children just as easily as a mother provided he finds himself in a vulnerable position.5 The result is that the alienating parent becomes so self-oriented that he consciously or unconsciously detaches himself from the true dynamics of the situation. Tables 1, 2, 3, 5, & 6, in the appendix indicate that parents who brainwash tend to have the following characteristics: Upper-middle class with 2.5 children living in suburbia working in a professional occupation with a fairly high education level. From this one could conclude that brainwashing requires intelligence and skill. However, it may be that parents in a higher social class perceive their children as being another possession they could lose in the divorce. On a related note, they may be trying to keep up appearances as the "perfect" parent - having custody is an important part of this "role." But one must not make generalizations.

Lower class, less educated parents do brainwash their children - though less frequently. Whether this is a product of social class or intelligence is uncertain. Perhaps the difference is in the brainwashing techniques - lower class parents may not brainwash with the same kind of formality and structure as the upper class, educated parents. Their techniques may not correspond with Clawar's techniques. This could skew the data. While there is no final explanation for the data, they indicate that brainwashing is not a rare phenomenon. It has also been found that spouses who have a history of physically, socially-psychologically abusing their partner employ brainwashing simply as a new tool of abuse.7 Spousal abuse does not seem to have any social class boundaries. Thus, it is virtually impossible to determine a "brainwasher" profile. The fact is that any divorcing parent involved in a custody dispute - if sufficiently alienated from their own world - could have the potential to become alienating.

Theories

There are multiple theories accounting for brainwashing during custody. However, whether any, all, or a combination of these theories apply to a particular family will depend, to a large extent, on: (1) the distinct personalities of the child and parent and (2) situational factors.8

Parents may brainwash as a result of the typical animosity associated with any custody dispute - as a reaction to situational conflict. However, more sophisticated theories have been devised to explain the phenomenon. Alignment is one such theory.9 It is akin to the recently coined terms Parental Alienation Syndrome (P.A.S.) and the S.A.I.D. (He said, She said, Who said?) syndrome - both of which are similarly defined and had their origins in the United States.10 P.A.S. (or S.A.I.D.) is defined as

...a series of conscious programming techniques such as brainwashing as well as subconscious and unconscious processes by the alienating parent combined with the child's own contribution denigrating the allegedly hated parent [often referred to as the lost, target, or alienated parent].11

P.A.S. manifests itself in several ways.12 The child usually gives frivolous or absurd rationalizations for deprecating the target parent. There is a loss of the ambivalence found in normal human relationships - the target parent is objectified by the alienating parent as an evil entity. In Humphries v. Humphries (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 at 3, the child had to call her natural father "the man" and her stepfather "Mr. Daddy." Children will do what their parents tell them out of fear, to gain respite from their parent's relentless interrogations or as the primary way to please their parents. Consequently,

P.A.S. children 'express themselves like perfect little photocopies of the alienating parent and can see no good in the lost parent and no bad in the loved parent. The process resembles amnesia, wherein the child's good memories appear to be completely destroyed.13

As a counterpart to this, brainwashed children feel little guilt for their actions.14 There are, however, two more serious manifestations-of P.A.S.: refusal of visitation and sexual abuse allegations.

Refusal of visitation is often so multi-determined that it is difficult to link the refusal directly with P.A.S. Johnston indicates that estimating the

...extent to which disengagement results from voluntary withdrawal of the parent or from being pushed out or excluded by the child [is onerous], because the dropping out is likely to be a subtle process of reaction and counteraction to the mutual disappointment inherent in a failed relationship.15

This emphasizes that P.A.S. is primarily a product of the pain associated with divorce. Parents and children become caught in a cycle. For instance, as the frequency of refusals to visit increase, parental disputes heighten, parents become more skeptical of the value of visitation, and the rejected parent engages in counter-rejection.16 It is this spiral effect which complicates the diagnosis of P.A.S. False sex abuse allegations against the target parent entail similar complexities.

Though the allegations may be false, they are usually "based upon a core of reality."17 Normal physical affection or bathing a child can be construed by the alienating parent as having sexual overtones. Nonetheless, unlike refusal of visitation, there appear to be criteria which can be applied in the case of sexual allegations.18 Gardner has a seventy point criteria test [22 criteria for the accused, 21 for the child, and 27 for the accuser].19 As the number of positive indicators increase, the greater the likelihood that the allegation is valid.20 For instance,

The alleged perpetrator's having a large collection of child pornographic materials is a very strong indicator of a true accusation. But a child may say 'My daddy took a big knife and put it into my wee-wee hole and my poo-poo hole. There was a lot of bleeding. My mommy was there and she got very angry at my daddy and she gave him time out.' Such a statement argues strongly for a false accusation.21

This sounds like common sense. In fact, most, of the criteria seem to be based on fairly obvious observations and differences between true and false incest victims can be found in their disclosures. Fakers tend to reveal details of the incest almost spontaneously and there are no significant changes in mood or affect. In addition, fakers often use adult terminology and make few retractions or restatements. Most telling, however, is that a true victim

...will rarely describe the sexual activity in the [abuser's] presence, out of fear and guilt, while the faker will do this if the [alienator] is also present...[the alienator] often control[s] the child by monitoring his or her responses through eye contact and subtle facial expressions.22

Though criteria can be applied, this does not remove all complexity. P. (G.L.) v. P. (J.M.) (1990), 27 R.F.L. (3d) 64 recognized that

The person making the complaint, usually the mother, is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. If the complaint is made for the first time in the course of a custody case, there is a tendency to disbelieve the allegation. If the allegation cannot be proven, the mother is viewed as vicious and destructive. Some judges have suggested that an unwarranted allegation of sexual abuse may be grounds to deny custody. [However, this reasoning is not based on the allegations being viewed as a manifestation of P.A.S.]. On the other hand, if a mother suspects abuse, but does not report or raise the issue, she runs the risk of being branded a poor parent and being subject to C.A.S. supervision.23

An even more problematic issue is that divorcing parents might be using the fact that reporting child abuse is in vogue as an apparently easy means of attacking their ex-spouses. The irony is that though the sex abuse allegations may be false, the children are being abused by becoming the pawn in their parent's "games."24 What is even more frightening is that

The number of virtual allegations of abuse may be expected to increase in the future because of their more subtle nature, the greater difficulty in disproving them, and because judges and lawyers familiar with P.A.S. are becoming increasingly skilled at detecting [its more obvious manifestations such as those illustrated in Table 8A of the appendix].25

Parents also resort to various brainwashing techniques in attempts to "win" their child over so that they can win them at the custody hearing. Clawar lists several techniques which he refers to as syndromes - suggesting that these tactics have a strong psychological component. Parents often use a combination of these techniques.26 An analysis of Table 8C in the appendix suggests that these techniques are not so effective that the children being brainwashed cannot detect them. Why, then, does the brainwashing continue? The children are afraid to confront their parents - without their parents they might not have a home to live in, food to eat, or clothes to wear. The "Who Me", Middleman, and Circumstantial syndromes were most easily detected by children - perhaps because the child is more of a direct participant in these techniques. However, for the most part, the "no" awareness percentages were relatively high - some children may be able to detect the brainwashing but this may depend on age, maturity, and past life experiences.

Clawar also indicates some of the motivational factors connected with brainwashing: revenge, jealousy and self-righteousness; fear of losing the child, one's identity and a sense of history; attempts to maintain the marital relationship through conflict; a desire for emotional and proprietary control and dominance.27 Underlying each of these motivations is an emotional need. This is further supported by the fact that the brainwashing becomes more intense when "situational factors intervene such as changes in location, holidays, court work, or prosperity of the target parent."28 Also, the hostility of the alienating parent never seems to be proportional to the seriousness of the alienated parent's actions.29 Related to this idea of "emotional need" is the proposition that brainwashing could be the result of a mental disorder.

The alienating parent may have a mental disorder which is caused by the emotional turmoil of divorce or the disorder could be inherent - distinguishing between the two is difficult. However, data from the Custody Project at the University of Toronto shows that in 72 percent of the families, at least one parent was psychiatrically disturbed.30 It has also been found that the presence of a mental disorder is connected to the propagation of a false sex abuse accusation.31 Nonetheless, there are no straightforward answers despite apparent linkages. This is evidenced in Lapierre v. Lapierre (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129 at 145:

I do not know if this action on her part was the act of a person filled with hatred, or if it was an act of gross bad judgment, or if this evidence was the evidence of-a mentally ill person...

There is also the added confusion of whether pre-divorce influences on children can be separated from the impact of brainwashing:

There are now a number of studies which show that long before parents separate, there are differences in the behaviour of their children as compared with those in other marriages where a divorce does not take place.32

These studies are prospective - before it is known there will be a divorce - so they are not biased by hindsight. Children with a deceased parent do not seem to be as adversely affected as those with separated or divorced parents. But there is variation among individual children.33 Thus, no definitive conclusions can be drawn although the effects on children - of either the brainwashing or the divorce or separation itself - are definite. P.A.S. children exhibit the same kinds of symptoms as abused children - depression, acting-out behaviours, fear of social situations. Basically, they are maladjusted.

There seems to be an overlap between several of these theories. For instance, minus a pre-existing mental disorder, can all of the "theories" be partially explained as being a reaction to the legal process?

There is ample reason to believe that much of the anger and disarray that accompany divorces are not so much a product of grief over the failed relationship as they are the result of what spouses perceive the other doing as part of the legal process.34

Since the legal process is both adversarial and often procedurally convoluted, there are several detrimental reactions which parties to a divorce may experience. The justice system is often wrongly idealized:

Children often invest hope in the judicial process; they fantasize that the judge can put a stop to the brainwashing.35

Clients [parents] become ever more dependent on the judgments made by their lawyers and less able to take initiative on their own.36

This relates to the decision-oriented nature of the legal process - even in custody disputes there is an implicit attempt to distinguish guilt from innocence.37 As a result, the positions of the parties harden to the point where the truth becomes no more than a paradigm for courtroom success. But what about the fact that between 97 to 99 percent of all divorces are settled prior to trial.38 Does this not obviate some of the negativity associated with the adversarial process?

Part of the routine is the use of the impending trial to generate anxiety in the clients that causes them to make the concessions necessary to compromise and settle the case.39

This suggests that even if a case is settled, it is generally a forced settlement - out of fear that a trial would be "unsuccessful." But what is success? According to Margulies, a successful divorce is one in which "all farnily members are thriving five years after the divorce."40 However, this definition is not obvious to most lawyers or clients - they want immediate success. Due to this mind-set, it is not surprising that parents resort to brainwashing - it becomes just another "legal" tactic.

Legal Implications

Gardner believes that the more recent judicial preference for joint custody has contributed to P.A.S.'s prevalence: the alienating parent fears either that shared parenting will be too difficult or that joint custody will keep past conflicts alive. The latter point is paradoxical since brainwashing - as a solution to parental fear - does not prevent conflicts, it merely produces new ones. Nevertheless, the answer is not to return to a sole custody system - children need both parents - but for the court to recognize P.A.S. Other than in Quebec, the Canadian legal system has not explicitly recognized an identifiable syndrome such as P.A.S. An article in the Montreal Gazette (November 30, 1992) entitled "Dirty Tricks penalized in Custody Battles: Courts frown on parents who turn kids against spouses" indicates how the legal system in Quebec is aware of the severe implications of P.A.S. for children. In R..M. v. B. R.. [Unreported, 1994] Quebec C.A., the court made three important pronouncements regarding P.A.S.: (1) P.A.S. is neither purely objective and scientific nor purely legal; (2) the court must examine the parent's conduct in the context of the child's interest; and (3) expert evidence on P.A.S. should be given extensive weight. It is also significant that most of the Quebec P.A.S. cases went to the Court of Appeal.41 This emphasizes the initial "doubt" surrounding the validity of P.A.S. Nonetheless, the penalty imposed upon alienating parents has been severe - loss of custody. It seems as though Quebec children's-rights advocates have been the main source of getting P.A.S. recognized in As well, in Sherbrooke, Quebec there is a group called PAIN - Parental Alienation Information Network. The ACAB group in St. John's, Newfoundland seems to be following this model, though on a lesser scale.

Nonetheless, there have been some advances in the Common Law provinces. In Rutherford v. Rutherford (1986), 4 R.F.L. (3d) at 459 the court did show insight into the rationale underlying P.A.S.:

The process [of brainwashing] may be so subtle and so slow that it escapes notice until too late...I hope the parties will take a step back and examine their own actions and motives rather than simply the actions and motives they perceive in the other...

Other courts have taken different attitudes. Some courts have simply labelled a parent's brainwashing behaviour as peculiar. "This foolish man did so much in such a diabolical fashion that it all becomes almost unbelievable."42 Other courts seem to be making excuses for a parent's behaviour: "...neither party is without imperfections."43 In Humphries v. Humphries (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 at 6 there was a sense of flitility:

I cannot by order change Mrs. H.'s attitude nor has time. I cannot by order prevent her from communicating in many indirect ways the negative feeling she has about Mr. Humphries to her daughter. I conclude that I must sacrifice Rhiannon's long term gain from access to her father to her current emotional health.

Instead, the judge is sacrificing Rhiannon to the mental tortures imposed by Mrs. H.'s brainwashing. Lapierre v. Lapierre (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129 at 156 similarly held: "I am not here to solve the problems of P., however caused. I am here to stand as parens patriae to the children." Though it is positive that the court emphasized the child's interests, the child's interests will not be adequately addressed as long as the court fails to address P.A.S.

At times, the courts appear to be so innovative that the real issue -- the brainwashing -- is either ignored or treated as a secondary problem which will somehow resolve itself:

...there will be less reason for conflict between their parents [if decisions regarding visitations are left to the children]. A great deal of the trouble in the past has been caused by the rigid timetable...I have more confidence in them to behave reasonably than I have in their parents...44

Similarly, the courts turn away from P.A.S. for it does not seem to fit conveniently into a legal framework:

While there is no denying that courts have a difficult job at best, on balance it would appear that the prevailing tendency has been toward delaying judgment in the hope that the problem will go away, solve itself, or at the very least prove that no judgment is preferable to a wrong judgment.45

But the role of the court in cases of P.A.S. must go beyond simply determining who gets custody and when P.A.S. must be given direct consideration. Judges must not only specifically refer to it in their decisions - P.A.S. should be the basis for a major portion of their ratio:

...the precedent of clear, forceful judgment may deter some parents from beginning the alienation of their children.46

If parents who engage in P.A.S. know that aware judges may give custody to the innocent parent, and perhaps even apply sanctions against parents who use a child to prevent the other parent's access to the child, the P.A.S., which is itself a form of child abuse, may suffer a fatal and well-deserved setback.47

Currently, however, this is not the trend. In fact, the judge in Humphries v. Humphries (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 at 5 would not order access "merely to ensure that intransigent behaviour in other parents is discouraged." It is not surprising that deterrence is not a priority given that the seriousness of P.A.S. has not been judicially recognized.

In the United States, the courts are taking more steps towards acknowledging P.A.S.48 In Laurel Schutz v. Richard Schutz (1985), Judge Feder used strong, though somewhat metaphorical, language regarding P.A.S.:

The court has no doubt that the cause of the blind, brainwashed, bigoted, belligerence of the children toward the father grew from the soil nurtured, watered and tilled by the mother. The court is thoroughly convinced that the mother breached every duty she owed as the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent of instilling love, respect and feeling in the children for their father. Worse, she slowly dripped poison into the minds of these children, maybe even beyond the power of this court to find the antidote.49

Judge Feder's emphasis on a parent's "duty" is significant. From this perspective, P.A.S. is not just misbehaviour - it is the breach of a legal duty. By placing P.A.S. in a legal context, the American courts appear to have generated some sort of respect for P.A.S.

This is only a first step, however - the legal system must interface with the field of psychiatry and related fields so that conflicting assumptions and practices can be reconciled. Otherwise, the ratio of the dissent in Schutz or the Canadian ambivalence will continue to prevail:

Judge Hendry's opinion [dissent in Schutz] was that the trial court's order went beyond the mother's legal duty to encourage legal visitation by requiring her to express opinions she does not hold and thus infringing on her rights of free speech.50

It is paradoxical that the court speaks of a violation of the parent's rights when the child's rights are being equally affected. This kind of judgment makes P.A.S. seem like a figment of the imagination. The judge appears to be condoning brainwashing by framing it as a "right of free speech." Though this is an extreme example of judicial ignorance, it is not far from the more common judicial mistakes regarding P.A.S. In fact, reducing P.A.S. to pure legality - as in the majority in Schutz - is not ideal. The focus must not be on pure legality.

In general, the legal system appears to de-emphasize the distinction between physical access and social-psychological access - permission to love and identify with the other parent. Even when the court does highlight this distinction, it does not place it directly in the context of P.A.S. For instance, in Smith v. Smith (1991), 34 R.F.L. 367 at 369 the court referred to the "psychological safety of the children" and that the parents "manipulated the children to the point where they constantly live on an emotional roller-coaster." Once again, the court uses metaphors instead of applying P.A.S.

Any argument that the law is normative should not dissuade proponents of P.A.S.:

...'normative' in law seems to mean very little other than a specific preference, often in turn based on individualistic value judgments.51

Essentially, judicial interpretation of the law seems to be given priority over judicial interpretation of the facts in conjunction with informational authority on P.A.S. from the social sciences. Consequently, the court seems to be hiding from the evidentiary problems associated with P.A.S. cases.

Evidentiary Dilemmas

Evidentiary issues relating to custody disputes become even more intricate when P.A.S. enters the scene. Interviews with children may reveal verbal compliance but it must be t'evaluated against a behavioral context and with a full understanding of the development of the child's assertions."52 Brainwashed children tend to mimic what the alienating parent has told them. Even if a parent is not detected as being responsible for the child's attitudes, parents often engage surrogate programrners as a means to avoid detection - usually members of the extended family, a new spouse or new in-laws.53 In addition, detection itself is not an elementary task. This can be illustrated by specific examples of statements made by brainwashed children accompanied by a detection commentary. It should be noted that there is a great deal of overlap between the various commentaries and that any differences are the product of subtle psychological analysis.54 Table 7 in the appendix indicates that the methods most capable of detection involved either subtle linguistic or factual turns - contradictory statements, inappropriate or unnecessary information, use of indirect statements - or highly emotional, personalized tactics - character assault, restrictions on permission to be loved, good parent/bad parent, comparative martyr role, anxiety arousal. Thus, in this context, knowledge and love are no longer parental virtues - they are distorted into brainwashing mechanisms.

Thus, detection is not a matter that can be left solely to a judge or lawyer. In fact, sometimes lawyers act in a collusive nature - whether knowingly or unknowingly: (1) to unscrupulously extend the litigation and their profits rather than resolve the conflict and P.A.S. or (2) due to their ignorance of P.A.S., they misinterpret the evidence and their client's motivations. As well, children often act in a collusive nature as a consequence of being brainwashed:

Children suffering with P.A.S. may present the judge with a convincing picture.. these children have a way of 'snow balling' even experienced psychologists and psychiatrists.55

Parents who brainwash also tend to do quite well on the witness stand - they have learned how to manipulate others and colour their behaviours in socially acceptable ways. Another related evidentiary complication pertains to the child's experiences with previous interviewers:

The greater the number of previous interviews, the greater the likelihood the child's description will become routinized and will resemble the litany typically provided in early interviews by the child...56

[In Thatcher v. Thatcher (1980), 16 R.F.L. (2d) 263 at 273, there was evidence] that Regan, already having been seen by four psychiatrists, had become quite experienced and sophisticated in these interviews.

In addition, suggestibility during the interviewing process must be accounted for. It may be difficult to distinguish this suggestibility from the alienating parent's suggestions.

Another detection hurdle is that many alienating parents use a potpourri of techniques to brainwash which do not fall within any identifiable theory. Evidence of this comes from the interviews with ACAB members. One alienating parent used repetition of a single phrase "Daddy wouldn't let this happen to you [the brainwashing], if he loved you." Another parent would get the stepfather to beat up the child so that the alienated father would get mad and call the police. Once the police arrived, the alienated father was the one who was arrested for disturbing the peace - putting his character into jeopardy for any future assessments. Another alienating parent tried to get the alienated parent to sign a t'contract't - with no.lawyer involvement - wherein the alienating parent would ask for no child support or maintenance if the alienated parent would never have anything to do with the child. It is clear that these techniques would not be easily recognized unless the family was under surveillance almost twenty-four hours a day.

There are possible methods to overcome these evidentiary twists. If kept on the witness stand for an extra long period of time, the alienating parent may eventually make inconsistent statements which will reveal their true actions and ultimate goals.57 Similarly, special cross-examination or interviewing techniques may be used. For instance, Gardner has provided a series of explicit questions for judges to use when dealing with children.58 Whether such direct questions will produce genuine answers may depend on the degree of brainwashing present. A more effective method may be the use of corroborating evidence:

[If the parent is] aware that the evaluator would have other sources of information regarding the child - from the other parent, from clinical interviews with the children, and from outside agencies, such as schools, pediatricians, and protective services - [this may limit] an inclination to distort.59

However, the effectiveness of this method may depend on the strength of the alienating parent's conviction. But in Radford v. Cassiano, [Unreported, 1995] Ont.C.J. - Prov. Div., the presence of a psychological assessment resulted in the alienating parent withdrawing her claim to terminate access after the third day of trial.

Specific methods have been illustrated in various cases. In W. (K.M.) v. W. (D.D.), [Unreported, 1993] Ont. C.J. - Prov. Div., the court included questions of an adverse nature and avoided asking leading questions.60 Lawyers must be careful not to use strong language without having any real foundation for it - without making any reference to P.A.S. This happened in R.. v. R..W. [Unreported, 1993] Ont. C.J. - Gen. Div., wherein the judge stated:

The defence is inviting this court to believe that for four days Mrs. W. would have drilled these lies into the child's mind.

If counsel had explained that P.A.S. involves brainwashing that extends beyond four days, perhaps the judge would not have misconstrued counsel's attempt at portraying the truth as an attempt to attack the other party's character or credibility. Lacaille v. Manger, [Unreported, 1994] Ont. C.J. - Prov. Div., stresses that the court must make allowances for the fact that children:

...do not necessarily see the world as adults do...a flaw, such as a contradiction, in a child's testimony should not be given the same effect as a similar flaw in the testimony of an adult.

This makes detecting P.A.S. even less straightforward - is the flaw an indicator of P.A.S. or merely the "slip' of a child probably on the witness stand for the first time?

Two other "methods" are based on the personal interests of children and their parents, respectively. Eighty percent of brainwashed children want the process detected and terminated; 70 percent felt relief when it was discovered. Consequently, 90 percent of these children cooperate in investigations either covertly or overtly. Some children even use secret language to inform others: "Once she starts talking about my dad, she can't seem to stop."61 Some alienated parents have taken a more direct approach to counter P.A.S. MERGE [Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality] suggests codifying the amount of access to which a father is entitled.62 In this way, P.A.S. would not interfere with a father's natural right to have contact with his children. Feminist movements have volleyed for a similar right for alienated mothers.

Given the psychological elements of P.A.S., expert evidence is quite essential to its accurate detection. However, such evidence creates extensive controversy. While the court does encourage the admission of all relevant evidence, expert evidence regarding custody dispute issues has not been held to be definitive:

...psychologists should be clear that their job is to assist in gathering information, not to determine the result of the case...clarification of roles is important...experts should not offer social and moral judgments in the guise of scientific solutions.63

In R.. v. R.. W., [Unreported, 1993] Ont. C.J. - Gen. Div., the trial judge simply rejected the defence's theory that the allegations of sexual abuse were contrived "without relating his findings to the evidence." To make matters worse, he placed the onus upon the alienated parent to satisfy the court that the other parent brainwashed the child to believe that the alienated parent was guilty of sexual abuse. However, Lapierre v. Lapierre (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129 at 138 basically held that expert evidence has validity provided it does not overstep its function:

[Expert evidence is] to be just that, assistance. It is for the court, and the court alone, to determine the matter. Yet, were it not for those professional glimpses through wispy veils, I would have, without hesitation whatsoever, labelled P. as an out and out liar.

Nevertheless, "blind adherence to diagnostic criteria could be as damaging as ignoring these criteria."64 For instance, psychological expertise sometimes becomes psycho-legal expertise wherein

. . .the psychologist [is] cast as the hired gun engaged to put forth to the court the negative opinion of the contesting parent under the guise of an expert.65

It is interesting that expert evidence is questioned because it might be a "guise" when, in fact, the evidence is being tendered to disclose the guise of the alienating parent. Nonetheless, there are situations where expert evidence would not advance a correct assessment of P.A.S. In W. (K.M.) v. W. (D.D.), [Unreported, 1993] Ont. C.J. - Prov. Div., the judge severely criticized a psychologist's assessment and preferred a Children's Aid Society worker's opinion.66 The judge described it as a "'blitzkrieg assessment' conducted in 6 hours on one day." Dr. Albin even admitted that

...he was selective in the information contained in his report.. He disavowed the evidence of other investigators and set himself up as the only viable assessor...

An additional consideration is that no expert is perfect - even the best trained experts will not always reach conclusions of absolute certainty.67

The problem is that the majority of judges do not take the less restrictive view found in Lapierre v. Lapierre (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129. Nanji v. Nanji (1987), 8 R.F.L. (3d) 221 held the court is not to "rubber stamp expert opinion." In itself this is not detrimental but, in practice, judges go further than simply limiting the weight given to expert evidence. They equate their discretion with knowledge of the facts and equate knowledge of the facts with an intimate understanding of the family dynamics. But how can a judge know and understand all of the substantial incidents which have accumulated during critical stages of a child's life? In Thatcher v. Thatcher (1980), 16 R.F.L. (2d) 263 at 271 the judge perceived social status as being synonymous with good parenting:

...one expects from a member of the legislature a greater respect for the law than has been demonstrated by him throughout this conflict. One would expect a father, particularly one of such eminence, to show by example to his sons that the law is to be obeyed and the truth told.

Despite the fact that this reasoning did prevent Mr. Thatcher from getting access,

P.A.S. should have been applied instead. But P.A.S. is neither a legal term nor does it fall within legal precedent. This should not be a determining factor. In Martiniuk v. Martiniuk (1978), 2 R.F.L. (2d) 39 at 47 Hughes J. explained the process behind his reasoning:

No book of knowledge contains clear-cut answers as to whether I have reached a correct 6r incorrect decision. Like so many decisions that have to be made in matrimonial matters, knowledge of the law, limited as it may be, is of a secondary nature and has played little part in the decision arrived at.

I cling to no precedent nor authoritative text as supporting the result I have arrived at. In deciding this problem, it has been a matter, after weighing and considering all of the evidence, of drawing on such experience, reason, and common sense that I have at my command, admittedly limited in each instance.

I am mindful that in light of the evidence of Dr. Shepel and his supporting brief that perhaps there is some risk involved in deciding as I have. On balance, I have concluded that cannot deter me from ordering as I feel I must do, and, of course, responsibility for the decision must rest with me.

Though Hughes J. takes responsibility for his decision and makes legal knowledge subservient to comrnon sense and experience, he does not mention P.A.S. Further, it is unlikely that his experiences - being "admittedly limited" - would include P.A.S.

As long as this cycle continues, P.A.S. will remain an ominous term which seems to have no reality outside a social science textbook. This cycle has another negative implication for P.A.S. progress:

...losing parties in a custody or visitation question have a natural, vested interest in contesting the findings of a psychologist. Because trial courts are ordinarily given wide latitude in making custody determinations, complaints regarding the professional behaviour of practitioners may be one of the few avenues open for appeal to a litigant who has lost an opening legal round over custody.68

If P.A.S. has its foundations in psychology and psychological testimony is either ignored, devalued, or openly criticized, then it would seem that P.A.S. has little chance of survival - let alone initial recognition.

Solutions

"The key to the solution usually lies within the child."69 However, as illustrated by the evidentiary dilemmas, the child's true mental state is often inaccessible. As well, often the brainwashing does not have to continue - eventually, the child internalizes the alienating parent's thoughts and opinions. In the absence of the brainwashing, P.A.S. may appear to be eradicated when it has actually become a permanent state of mind. Thus, as stated above, the child must be the focus of any solution. Gardner's radical treatment - to be used in extreme cases of P.A.S. - seems to reflect this reality. The treatment involves:

...forcibly removing the child from the custody of the [alienating] parent and placing him or her with the 'hated' other parent...with supervised access reinstated gradually.70

But when P.A.S. is placed in a legal context - either in the courtroom or settlement proceedings - Gardner's intervention has resulted in

...the major portion of the blame for the problem being placed upon the parent who is believed to fuel the child's alienation. That is, less attention is being paid to what the child brings to the situation, whereas the hated parent is viewed entirely as the victim.71

Gardner's rationale is that the degree of alienation is directly proportional to the time spent alienating. Thus, removal of the child from the alienator should stop the alienation - but this does not mean that the alienating effects are automatically eliminated. For the most part, however, the courts seem to have moved in Gardner's direction. In Martiniuk v. Martiniuk (1978), 2 R.F.L. (2d) 39 at the court held that

To deny the father his access rights, given the conduct of the mother and her common law husband, would be tantamount to allowing the parties in error to 'beat the system.'

In Herbeniuk v. Herbeniuk (1985), 44 Sask. R. 52 at 60 a similar approach was taken:

I am not, however, satisfied that the expressed concerns justify a complete denial of access. This, in my view, would merely serve to punish the children for their father's indiscretions.

Though these cases do not reflect a willingness to reverse custody - as Gardner suggests - the emphasis on not denying access to the alienated parent appears to be a less radical version of the "radical intervention." Rutherford v. Rutherford (1986), 4 R.R.L. (3d) at 458-459, however, reveals that the more likely -- and disturbing -- scenario is that

...access will be terminated if it proves sufficiently unsettling to the child, even where the problem may be laid squarely at the feet of the custodial parent.

This is an unfortunate product of being unaware of P.A.S.

The Family Systems framework seems to be more preventative than Gardner's intervention solution. This framework is premised on the notion that the family is a dynamic system which requires cohesion and continuity even after a divorce or separation. Its supporters contend that

Through participating in the decision-making process, members of the family are more likely to be supportive of the child custody arrangement - [hence, less conflict and less brainwashing].72

Psychological interventions can also be preventative if instigated early enough. According to Roger Ulrich,

Awareness of our own needs and attitudes is our most effective instrument for maintaining our own integrity and control over our own reactions.73

Alienating parents lack such insight into their behaviour. Thus, eradicating the alienation must also involve environmental modifications and knowledge of the actual brainwashing techniques, the motives behind them and their effects. Consequently,

Talk therapy with no focus, no measurements, and no time line is often a waste of time in [brainwashing] cases...it may be counterproductive because nothing may be discovered when, in fact, there are real social causes of the problems. Also, surfacing issues without an awareness of the causal agents may lead to serious mistakes in diagnosis and recommendations to parents and/or the courts.74

Attribution therapy has also been recommended for P.A.S. situations. If the alienating parent can learn how to make interactive attributions - not blaming a single party or incident -regarding the reasons for the divorce, then it is less likely that they would brainwash.75 However, even this forrn of therapy may not be completely effective:

It is still unclear whether interactive explanations for divorce lead to better post-divorce adjustment or whether people who make interactive attributions in general are just happier, more confident, and more active people, or whether both are true. [Perhaps the outcomes are personality-oriented].76

To further limit the effectiveness of psychological interventions, approximately 15 percent of children felt that mental health experts could not help their situation:

So what can anybody do? This has been going on for years. We've seen more therapists than I can count. Nothing against you, but if you don't agree with my mom [or dad], she'll [or he'll] try to get you fired too!77

Thus, even court ordered changes in therapists may be futile for the alienating parent will simply seek out another therapist who supports his or her position. On rare occasions, the court acts as a kind of therapist. This was evident in Metz v. Metz (1991), 34 R.F.L. 255 at 260:

...the parents must earn their children's affections rather than depend upon the court to order the children to associate with them at certain times.

Nanji v. Nanji (1987), 8 R.F.L. (3d) 221 at 224 corresponds with Metz:

If I have misjudged Mr. Nanji or if there is a change of heart, the appropriate adjustment can be made. I am even hopeful that the parties might work something out between themselves.

Basically, court orders cannot be a substitute for the facilitation of an understanding between the parties - it is the latter process which will eventually break the P.A.S. impasse. However, this attitude does not frequent many ratios and even Metz and Nanji do not incorporate P.A.S. into their reasoning.

Nonetheless, the court is usually guided by the Best Interests Test. While this test is theoretically sound, it is not the best means to deal with P.A.S.78 Many courts have held that "if [the] attitude persists against the non-custodial parent, [then] the child should stay with the custodial [alienating] parent."79 However, this is a superficial application of the Best Interests Test for the child is being forced to stay with an abusive parent simply because brainwashing is not currently within the court's definition of abuse. For instance, assertions about parent-contact preferences must be proven via careful interviewing techniques since 65 percent of children change their assertions immediately when asked the right questions in the right sequence:

Interviewer: If mom said it was okay, would it help you to see dad more often?
Child: She'd never say it, no way.
Interviewer: But if she would?
Child: Yeah, I guess so.80

Most alienating parents try to use the Best Interests Test to their own advantage. This is referred to as the Independent Thinker phenomenon - "I want him to see his father [or mother], but if he doesn't want to, I will fight to ensure that his decision is respected."81

Another discrepancy in the. application of the Best Interests Test is that there is no consistency regarding the age-preference connection. In Lapierre v. Lapierre (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129 the wishes of children aged seven and ten were not considered determinative By contrast, a child of eleven in Metz v. Metz (1991), 34 R.F.L. 255 had his preferences respected even though it was apparent that a parent may have influenced his choice. Smith v. Smith (1991), 34 R.F.L. 367 at 370 takes a more realistic approach than Metz:

Unfortunately, Michael is at an age (12) when he is able to make certain decisions for himself, but is not yet free from the influences of others...

Radford v. Cassiano, [Unreported, 1995] Ont. C.J. - Prov. Div. is perhaps the most extreme application of the Best Interests Test and its approach could be quite damaging where P.A.S. is an issue:

...preferences of children of this age (6 and 7 years old) are generally not determinative of the issue, but when they are so strongly held, apparently arising from their own wishes and being reasonable under the circumstances, they should be taken into consideration...82

However, a P.A.S. child will generally have strong views because of the intensity of the brainwashing and these views may appear reasonable because the alienating parent's aim is to convince others that the other parent is bad. Perhaps if the best interests of the child were considered in the home rather than being placed within the strictures of a legal test, then P.A.S. would not even be an issue.

The Custody Project at the Department of Psychiatry (University of Toronto) has attempted to combine the psychiatric and legal approaches. Custody Project involves a direct link between court-initiated referrals and child psychiatrists. However, there must be consent between all family members to receive counselling. As well, court-initiated referrals usually take place after litigation has begun., It is in this regard that Custody Project is most innovative:

[If initiated once the litigation has begun], it was hypothesized that this would be months at least after the emotional crisis of separation. On the basis that intervention might be more effective much earlier in the separation process, the members agreed to take referrals initiated by lawyers in the hope that these would be prior to litigation.83

Perhaps this kind of referral system would help reduce the percentage of brainwashed children who reach the point of no return to less than its current 5 percent.84

Given the Custody Project's positive outcomes one would assume that mediation would be effective in P.A.S. situations. However, most P.A.S. cases reactivated after an agreement was reached even if legal sanctions such as the guilty party pays legal and therapy fees were attached. Catherine Foster, a mediator at the Unified Family Court in St. John's, emphasized that mediation is not equal to treatment - it is front-end preventative and, in this sense, it is limited. There are three other reasons why mediation generally fails:

(1) The 'day' in court serve[s] as an avenue for the programmers and brainwashers to carry on their crusade to demonstrate the 'truth'...84

(2)...one of the feuding parties is insincere and has little wish to solve the problem. The reason is that insincerity, conscious or unconscious, is one of the hallmarks of the alienating parent.86

(3).. the lack of a swift, forceful court judgment is often perceived by the alienator as denoting approval of the alienating behaviour.87

Mediation's only advantage regarding P.A.S. is that the brainwashing might be insinuated during the mediation process. This insight may assist therapists, lawyers, or judges in their subsequent assessments.

But are any of these solutions feasible? Though each theory has its flaws, at least each theory is, by its very existence, acknowledging that custody disputes are not clear-cut. Even Gardner's theory - which explicitly deals with P.A.S. - is not so encompassing and definitive that it can stand on its own. If the virtues of each of the previously mentioned solutions could be unified into a single theory, perhaps P.A.S. could be controlled, if not countered. However, the direct experiences of alienated parents illustrate how few "solutions" are actually being implemented.

Interviews with some members of the ACAB group underline how the "authorities" appear to be oblivious to finding solutions. They felt that more accountability and less apathy on the part of the police, social services, and the courts is essential. But is this an emotional overreaction or a reaction to a real problem? Would these individuals feel invisible, like non-persons, if they were genuinely receiving help? For instance, Mr. A told of a social worker's naivete or deliberate blindness during a home assessment. His daughter was asleep when the social worker came for the visit. But after a brief discussion the mother brought the social worker to the daughter's room. The daughter immediately showed the worker a doll and how her father touched her. The social worker believed, without doubt, that this was unsolicited. In addition, home assessments are usually conducted over extremely short time periods [1-1/2 to 2 hours] and often the assessor has no real qualifications [in Mr. A.'s case, the assessor only had a Bachelor of Nursing and a Masters of Education - nothing relating to social work or psychology].

As a consequence of like scenarios, many of the ACAB members have resorted to representing themselves -- at least then they can expose the flaws in such "evidence" and raise P.A.S. without having to deal with their lawyer telling them that P.A.S. is fool's gold. Some members have even proposed solutions:

(1) Consistent use of the polygraph on the alienating parent and on the brainwashed children.

(2) Develop a Children's Law which is a distinct branch of Family Law.

(3) Place stricter requirements on the content, timing, and enforcement of court orders. For instance,even when sexual abuse charges are dropped, supervised access is maintained for abnormally long periods of time.

(4) The legal system and the mental health system should not fall into the trap of believing that the child is in a 'stage' and will probably change their mind about the alienated parent when they get older. The courts should be more informed about child development theories.

These solutions, if implemented, could bring P.A.S. to the forefront. However, in the absence of legal authority, it is unlikely that the courts will be quick to adopt the recommendations of a support group - there is the risk of group self-interest. Nonetheless, with time, perhaps such groups as ACAB will gain more respect from the courts. Maybe then, P.A.S. will gain similar respect.

Conclusions

Whether P.A.S. is a new phenomenon or one which has always been present, it deserves more attention. While there is the danger of placing too much authority in a "syndrome," there is the even greater risk of allowing innocent children to be victimized in their own homes by their "caregivers." Children do not choose that their parents divorce -they are victims of circumstance and if that circumstance results in P.A.S. their plight becomes that much worse. Cartwright expresses this idea eloquently:

We often speak of preserving family values, but even disintegrated [divorced] nuclear families have values and rights which must be preserved and respected to prevent further disintegration and total collapse. To do less is to sacrifice entire generations of children on the altar of alienation, condemning them to familial maladjustment and inflicting on them lifelong parental loss.88

This parallels John Bowlby's words quoted from Separation, Anxiety, and Anger at the outset of the essay.

Underlying all of the theories are three fundamental ideas: (1) brainwashing is a complex product of pain, emotional need, and a desire to "win"; (2) the legal context of divorce intensifies the brainwashing; (3) brainwashing can easily be disguised because it is generally founded on a core of reality. P.A.S. will never become more than a theory, however, if its practical, legal implications are not resolved. P.A.S. must be recognized by the legal system yet, at the same time, it must not be transformed into a legal term. If P.A.S. is to make its way into the courtroom it must be shown the way by lawyers and judges. But, once inside, it has to speak for itself. Once P.A.S. has reached this point, evidentiary dilemmas will be less impenetrable - P.A.S. will be open to discussion which will heighten understanding.

Thus, to search for a solution to P.A.S. is illusory. P.A.S. is multi-faceted in terms of its onset, development, and outcomes. At this point, awareness of the existence of P.A.S. should be given optimum importance. Although this awareness may not encourage an immediate awareness in alienating parents, it may eventually create an atmosphere wherein parents will not feel the need to alienate. Perhaps this will happen when the legalities surrounding divorce become less alienating -- when the truth is not being sacrificed for 'justice" in custody battles. Only then can the parameters of P.A.S. be fully explored., Only then will custody battles have a chance of becoming custody evaluations.

APPENDIX

Sample Description:
Children with Programming/Brainwashing Parents

Number (N) 700
Age Range of Children Infancy through twenty years of age

Source: Clawar, Stanley S., et al. Children Held Hostage. Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1991 at 174-180.

TABLE 1
Social-Class Breakdown Using Income, Education, and Occupation as Class Indicators

Class	%	N
Upper-upper	10	70
Middle-upper	10	70
Lower-upper	20	140
Upper-middle	30	210
Middle-middle	20	140
Lower-middle	5	35
Upper-lower	2	14
Middle-lower	2	14
Lower-lower	1	7
Total	100	700

TABLE 2
Occupations of Parents

Occupation	Mothers		Fathers
	%	N	%	N
Professional	15	105	30	210
Business	25	175	40	280
Skilled	20	140	19	133
Semi-skilled	15	105	5	35
Unskilled	15	105	5	35
Unemployed	10	70	1	7
Total	100	100	100	100

TABLE 3
Family Size, by Number of Children

Range	1-6
Median	2.5

TABLE 4
Sex of Children

	%	N
Female	51	357
Male	49	343
Total	100	100

TABLE 5
Educational Levels of Parents

LEVEL	Mothers		Fathers
	%	N	%	N
Middle School	1	4	1	7
High School	14	100	10	70
Some College	40	280	20	140
Four-year college (completed)	30	208	40	280
Advanced Study (beyond four years of college)	16	108	29	203
Total	101	700	100	700

TABLE 6
Urban/Suburban Distribution

	%	N
Urban	15	105
Suburban	80	560
Rural	5	35
Total	100	700

TABLE 7
Most Common Detection Factors Present, by Percentage of Cases

Detection Factors	% of Cases
Contradictory statements	70
Inappropriate and unnecessary information	85
Character assault	60
Collusion or one-sided alliance	50
Child as spy or conduit of information	30
Use of indirect statements	70
Restrictions on permission to be loved	90
Unchildlike statements	30
Good parent v. bad parent	55
Comparative -martyr role	80
Fear of contact with other parent	20
Anxiety arousal	60
Cohort in secret-keeping	30
Child as mirror image of programmer	20
Confusion of birth parent's importance	21
Manifestation of guilt	40
Scripted views	45
unmanageability for no apparent reason	15
Radical changes and dysfunctional behavior manifested in other spheres	44
Nonverbal messages	38
Coaching behavior	28
Brain twirling	15
Children threatens parent	8
Child as parent's best friend	12
Physical survival	10

TABLE 8A
Brainwashing Techniques

(1)	Denial-of-existence syndrome: Never talks about the other parent; desecrate photos of other parent; do not acknowledge child's positive experiences with other parent.
(2)	The 'Who, Me?' syndrome: Parent tries to convince the child that she must be misinterpreting the brainwashing parent - a form of denial.
(3)	Middle-Man syndrome: Speaking to the child about issues that should first have been discussed with the other parent - a form of exclusion.
(4)	Circumstantial syndrome: By manipulating, rearranging, changing and commenting on time, the parent tries to gain dominance in the child's eyes.
(5)	'I don't know what's wrong with him' syndrome: Create and exaggerate differences between themself and the other parent in front of the children.
(6)	The Ally syndrome: Sympathy is the key.
(7)	The Morality syndrome: Attack morality of other parent to elevate own inorality
(8)	'Threat of withdrawal of love' syndrome & 'I'm the only one who really loves you' syndrome: self-explanatory.
(9)	'You're an endangered species' syndrome & Physical Survival syndrome: Judgmental, opinionated, negative commentary about the target parent after the child returns from a visitation.
(10)	Rewriting-reality syndrome: This is basically the intent behind all of the above techniques.

Source: Clawar, Stanley S. Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1991 at 15-36.

TABLE 8B
Percentage of Parents, by Sex, Using Certain Brainwashing Techniques

Techniques		M	F
1.	Denial-of-existence syndrome	5	50
2.	The 'Who me?' syndrome
	a. Extended family	12	40
	b. Career	2	30
	c. Living arrangements and travel	22	60
	d. Activities	15	43
	e. Associates	25	52
3.	Middleman syndrome	20	60
4.	Circumstantial syndrome	12	40
5.	'I don't know what's wrong with him/her' syndrome	11	40
6.	Ally syndrome	16	85
7.	Morality syndrome	10	60
8.	Threat-of-withdrawal-of-love syndrome	5	42
9.	'I'm the only one who really loves you' syndrome	10	60
10.	'You're an endangered species' syndrome	15	39
11.	Rewriting reality syndrome	20	60
12.	Physical survival syndrome	5	4

* Higher for Females, except for Physical survival Syndrome (but only a narrow margin).

TABLE 8C
Percentage of Children Aware of Brainwashing Techniques Employed by Parents

Aware: the children understand that the messages sent were inappropriate attempts to influence their views and behaviors.

Techniques (as in Table 8B)		Awareness
		Yes	No
1.	Denial-of-existence	10	90
2.	"Who Me"
	a. Extended Family	5	95
	b. Career	4	96
	c. Living arrangements and travel	60	40
	d. Activities	70	30
	e. Associates	75	25
3.	Middleman	86	14
4.	Circumstantial	62	38
5.	"I don't know what's wrong with him/her"	48	52
6.	Ally	30	70
7.	Morality	50	50
8.	Threat-of-withdrawal-of-love	9	91
9.	"I'm the only one who really loves you."	5	95
10.	"You're an endangered species"	4	96
11.	Rewriting reality	5	95
12.	Physical survival	10	90

TABLE 9
Percentage of Parents Who Programme/Brainwash, by Intensity Level

Intensity Level (on average)	%
More than once per day	20
About once per day	20
More than once per week	10
Once per week	10
Occasionally	20
No detection of programming/brainwashing	20

TABLE 10
Detection Techniques & Commentaries

Character assault (with moral overtones):
Evaluator/Therapist/Judge: What do you like about being at Mom's? (open-ended and positive question)
Child: Mommy has lots of boyfriends who sleep over. Daddy says she's a whore because the Bible says so.
Commentary: Representative of externally imposed definition with negative moral judgments on the target parent. Note child did not answer the question - a frequent occurrence for programmed children.

Use of indirect statements:
E/T/J: How did this weekend go? Does Mom/Dad have an opinion about the time you spend at Mom's/ Dad's?
Child: When I get home, Mom says things like, 'Too bad you had to go with your dad this weekend -you missed a great ski trip. I bet you only watched TV, as usual.' Mom's right, he's boring.
Commentary: Rather than encouraging a child to enjoy the time spent with a parent, the parent convinces the child that he will experience boredom. He will also be programmed to be thinking about what he's missing, thereby mentally remaining in the mother's home even though he is physically with his father.

Child appears as a mirror image of the programmer:
E/T/J: Why do you think your father is trying so hard to make sure he has more time with you?
Child: Dad doesn't really love me or want me to live with him - he just wants custody to hurt mom.
Commentary: Most children who are aware of their parents' custody conflict do not interpret the legal battles as indicating;that they are not loved or that one parent wants to hurt the other, unless they have been so informed.

Brain Twirling:
E/T/J: On the one hand, you say that the joint custody was good in a lot of ways. On the other hand, you say you don't want it anymore. How come?
Child: I always thought I wanted joint custody (equal time in this case), and it was working in the beginning. But then my dad started so much trouble with Mom, it just isn't worth it anymore.
Commentary: A programmer sends the child confused messages of both support and disdain for the relationship the child is having with the target parent. If both positive and negative messages are sent to the child about the target parent, the child will usually be most influenced by the negative ones. Also, the child needs civility and often creates an alliance with the programmer in an attempt to stop the intrapsychic and social conflict.

Coaching Behavior: E/T/J is at a home visit
Child: [Upon entering her father's home, a four-year-old exclaims this to the evaluators who are present for a home visit]:
E/T/J: How do you know that?
Child: My mommy told me to tell you he did.
Commentary: The repetition of an idea by the programmer is one of the more easily detectable clues. Evaluators often can elicit this programming by asking direct questions, as in this case. However, at other times it is necessary to lead up to the source indirectly. Protectionistic responses by the child include 'I just know, that's all,' or 'It's true.' Pursuing the base of the information - actual observation, parental brainwashing, conjecture, other adults, overhearing a conversation - takes discretion and knowing when to drop a topic and return later. Rapport is often a key element in obtaining full disclosure.

Child threatens parent (reverse situation):
E/T/J: I heard you say that you wanted to tell the judge certain things about your mom. What's the story?
Child: Yeah, I told my Mom she better do what I want, because my dad told me I should tell him whenever Mom does something wrong, because the judge will punish her.
Commentary: Parents can become the powerless ones in custody conflicts. Children move in to fill the "power vacuum" with the help of a brainwashing parent. The target parent walks on eggshells with the child1 fearing that any disciplinary measures will be relayed and misinterpreted to the other parent and/or to the court.

TABLE 11
Gardner's Questions for Judges in Interviewing Children

1. Describe your mother to me.
2. Describe your father to me.
3. What do you think about your father's family?
4. Does your mother interfere with your visiting your father?
5. Why then don't you want to visit with your father?
6. Does your mother harass you?
7. Does your father harass you?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Bala, Nicholas. ICPA Update Vol.5: Child Abuse and the Law.

Clawar, Stanley S., et al. Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children. Chicago: American Bar Association, 1991.

Gardner, Richard A. Family Evaluation in Child Custody: Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation. New Jersey: Creative Therapeutics, 1989.

Gardner, Richard A. The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Proftssionals. New Jersey: Creative Therapeutics, 1992.

Goldwater, A. Developpements recents en droit familial. "Le syndrome d'alienation parentale." Quebec: Les Editions Yvon Blais, 1991.

Johnston, Janet. Non-Residential Parenting: New Vistas in Family Living. California: Sage, 1993.

Langer, Ellen J. The Psychology of Control. California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1983.

Parry, Ruth S., et al. Custody Disputes Evaluation and Intervention. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1986.

Ulrich, Roger, et al. Control of Human Behavior: Expanding the Behavioral Laboratory. Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1966.

INTERVIEWS

Foster, Catherine. Mediator at the Unified Family Court, St. John's, Newfoundland. Feb.22, 1995.

ACAB Group. Support Group for Accused and Abused Parents involved in Custody Disputes, St. John's, Newfoundland. Feb.25, 1995.

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Ash, Peter, et al. "Biased Reporting by Parents Undergoing Child Custody Evaluations." Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry, September 1991, Vol.30(5).

Bertoia, C., et al. "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Contradictions in Rhetoric and Practice." Journal of Family Issues, 1993, Vol.14.

Best, J. "Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody." Social Science Quarterly, 1994, Vol. 75 (1).

Cartwright, Glenn F. "Expanding the Parameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome." The American Journal of Family Therapy, Fall 1993, Vol. 21(3).

Cooke, Gerald, et al. "Dealing with Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Context of Custody Evaluations." American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 1991, Vol.9(3).

Dunne, John, et al. "The Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Analysis of Sixteen Selected Cases." Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 1994, Vol.21(3/4).

Elliot, Jane, et al. "Parental Divorce and the Life Chances of Children." Family Law, November 1991.

Emery, R. E. "Interparental Conflict and the Children of Discord and Divorce." Psychological Bulletin, 1982, Vol.92.

Frost, Abbie K., et al. "The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, October 1990, Vol. 60.

Gardner, Richard A. "Differentiating Between True and False Sex-Abuse Accusations in Child-Custody Disputes." Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 1994, Vol.21(314).

Gardner, Richard A. "Recent Trends in Divorce and Custody Litigation." The Academy Forum, 1985, Vol. 29(2).

Green, Arthur. '1True and False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Child Custody Disputes." Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 1986, Vol. 25(4).

Green, Arthur. "Factors Contributing to False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse in Custody Disputes." Child and Youth Services, 1991, Vol.15(2).

Healy, Joseph, et al. "Children and their Fathers Afier Parental Separation." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, October 1990, Vol.60(4).

Johnston, J. R. "High Conflict Divorce." Future and the Child, Spring 1994, Vol.4(1).

Laurence, Liam. "How Vindictive Mommies Break the Law." Western Report, December 30, 1991.

Levy, D. "Review of Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Professionals." American Journal of Family Therapy, 1992, Vol.20(3).

MacDonald, Peter, et al. "Suffer the Children." Western Report, February 5, 1990.

Margulies, Sam, et al. "Litigation, Mediation and the Psychology of Divorce." The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Winter 1992, Vol.20.

McAnulty, Richard D. "Expert Psychological Testimony in Cases of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse." Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1993, Vol.22(4).

Muchnian, Madelyn S. "Professional Controversies in Child Sexual Abuse Assessment." The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Spring 1992, Vol.20.

Miller, G. "The Psychological Best Interests of the Child." Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 1993, Vol. 19(1/2).

Palmer, Nancy R. "Legal Recognition of the Parental Alienation Syndrome." The American Journal of Family Therapy, 1988, Vol.16(4).

Radovanovic, H., et al. "A Follow-Up of Families Disputing Child Custody Access: Assessment, Settlement, and Family Relationship Outcomes." Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 1994, Vol.12(4).

Rothberg, B. "Joint Custody: Parental Problems and Satisfactions." Multidisciplinary Journal of Family Study Research and Treatment, March 1983, Vol.22(1).

Saunders, Elisabeth B., et al. "Custodial Fathers, Custodial Mothers and their Former Spouses in Protracted Custody Disputes: Clinical Opinions and Data." The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Winter 1987, Vol.15.

Saunders, Richard T. "Some Ethical and Legal Features of Child Custody Disputes: A Case Illustration and Applications." Psychotherapy, Spring 1993, Vol.30(1).

Schudson, Charles. "Antagonistic Parents in Family Courts: False Allegations or False Assumptions About True Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse?" Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 1992, Vol.1(2).

Von Hauff, Donna. "Framing a Father Fails in Court." Western Report, March 4, 1991.

Wall, Jack C., et al. "An Integrated Approach to Child Custody Evaluation: Utilizing the "Best Interest" of the Child and Family Systems Frameworks." Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 1994, Vol.21(3/4).

Warren, Amye, et al. "Inducing Resistance to Suggestibility in Children." Law and Human Behavior, 1991, Vol.15(3).

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Cornacchia, Cheryl. "Dirty Tricks Penalized in Custody Battles." Montreal Gazette, November 30, 1992 at SA.

CASE LAW

Herbeniuk v. Herbeniuk (1985), 44 Sask. R. 52.

Humphries v. Humphries (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1.

Lacaille v. Manger, [1994] O.J. No.2880 North Bay Registry No. FC153/93, Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Division.

Lapierre v. Lapierre (1991), 34 R.F.L. 129. - 7

Martiniuk v. Martiniuk (1978), 2 R.F.L. (2d) 39.

Metz v. Metz (1991), 34 R.F.L. 255.

Nanji v. Nanji (1987), 8 R.F.L. (3d) 221.

Nickerson v. Nickerson (1 991), 34 R.F.L. 341.

P. (G.L.) v.P. (J.M.) (1990), 27 R.F.L. (3d) 64.

Powley v. Wagner and Roy (1987), 62 Sask. R. 222.

Ptashnik v. Ptashnik (1988), 12 R.F.L. (3d) 377.

R. v. R.W., [1993] O.J. No.855 DRS 94-02433, Action No. C7239, Ontario Court of Justice - General Division.

Radford v. Cassiano, [1995] O.J. No.105 Kingston Registry No.460/90, Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Division.

Robinson v. Robinson (1985), 48 R.F.L. (2d) 264.

Rutherford v. Rutherford (1986), 4 R.F.L. (3d) 457.

Smith v. Smith (1991), 34 R.F.L. 367.

Thatcher v. Thatcher (1980), 16 R.F.L. (2d) 263. Voegelin v. Voegelin (1980), 15 R.F.L. (2d) 1.

W.(K.M.) v. W.(D.D.), [1993] O.J. No.1344 DRS 94-00129 Action No. D47/91, Ontario Coiirt of Justice - Provincial Division.

Zilka v. Zilka (1978), 5 Alta. L.R. (2d) 358.

Zivkovic v. Zivkovic, [1994] O.J. No.2958 Toronto Registry No. D1559/90 A3, Ontario Court of Justice - Provincial Division.

Parental Alienation Syndrome:A 'Hidden' Facet of Custody Disputes by L. Cook.

Parental Alienation is Accepted as Real in CA Family Courts

2010-06-08T22:46:00.000-07:00

Parental Alienation is a gender-neutral mental illness, and it's existence is denied only by left-leaning feminist organizations like NOW. Why is this?

In California, PA is recognized as very real by The Family Law Executive Committee of the California State Bar (FLEXCOM) and The California Psychologist Association (CPA).

Parental Alienation And False & Malicious Domestic Violence Allegations

2010-06-01T16:45:00.000-07:00

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a generally recognized platform that may result in child abuse.

This occurs when a custodial parent of a child from a separated family uses deception to deliberately alienate children from their non custodial parent.

Misplaced Domestic Violence Restraining and Protective Orders are an excellent tool to advance the Alienating Parent’s malice! Misguided Protective Orders of a Court based on such false representations may remove the Accused Abuser Parent from the home, bar the Accused Abuser from seeing his/her children and give the Alienating Parent total physical custody of the children.

The Accused Abuser Parent is now effectively “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”.

Once the Alienator obtains a Restraining Order through false domestic violence allegations, the Accused Abuser Parent may find it difficult to defend himself or herself against the false allegations. This sends the implied message to the children that “Daddy/Mommy” is bad or dangerous, stamped by the court.

The Accused Abuser Parent may only see his/her children in a cold and uninviting supervised visitation setting. Supervised Visitation Centers are facilities where a child is taken to meet with the Accused Abuser Parent in a third party monitored location.

A third party observes the Accused Abuser Parent during their visit with their children so that the child is “protected” at all times.

Often the supervised visit is demeaning for the visiting parent in the eyes of his/her child. The impression to the child that “Daddy or Mommy” is dangerous comes across loud and clear since most children only see lock up situations on TV and these people are seriously viewed as being bad.

Many Alienating Parents use this scary situation to encourage their child not to see the Accused Abuser Parent at all. The more time a child is out of contact with the Alienated Parent the deeper the scaring and recovery period for that child.

Dr. Richard A. Gardner coined the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) in 1985. Dr. Gardner found that a child subjected to continual negativity and manipulation by the Custodial Parent over an extended period of time against the other parent would eventually adapt the distorted view presented. At the end of the day, what the Alienating Parent fails to understand is that his/her selfishness makes his/her child the “victim” who pays a hefty price in lost self esteem.

Unfortunately, False Domestic Violence Allegations have become more common in Divorce / Child Custody Proceedings.

Most Judges usually enter a restraining or protective order for the safety of the child and in too many cases an Accused Abuser Parent is guilty until proven innocent!

Tags: alienate children, Alienating Parents, child custody, Child Custody Proceedings, custodial parent, dallas divorce attorney, divorce attorney, Domestic Violence Allegations, Dr. Richard A. Gardner, false allegations, False Domestic Violence Allegations, Misplaced Domestic Violence Restraining, non-custodial parent, parental alienation, parental alienation in texas, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Protective Orders, Restraining Order, Supervised Visitation, Supervised Visitation Centers

This entry was posted on Monday, May 24th, 2010 at 6:07 am and is filed under Divorce & Family Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

More Children Lost to Parental Alienation - A Mom's story

2010-05-18T10:55:00.000-07:00

Little Boys Lost

All Experiences

Next Story for I Lost My Children to Parental Alienation Previous Story for I Lost My Children to Parental Alienation A Story From the Group I Lost My Children to Parental Alienation

Posted by forgotten10

36-40 year old woman
1 story

Hi,my name is shelly. I have been slowly alienated from my boys (age 12 and 9) for 2 years now. I should have seen it coming, it all makes sense now. Speaking negativly about me. My little one was always calling me a sinner followed with "my daddy said". That list goes on and on. I am in a relationship with a female, in which the boys where fine with and loved my partner. But that all changed when daddy and new wife took them to their church to explain my sinful lifestyle. They started making comments about not liking my partner and they gave me hard time whenever it was their days to come home with me. They were even violent at times, They would scream and cry and eventually call dad to come get them. My days became less with me. My ex told me they were afraid of me, that I may kidnap them. We went to court only for him to wind up with full custody, because he had been the custodial parent for so long. Now they live out of state. I skype withthem every sunday, but they still resist talking to me. This has affected my life so bad, I haven't worked in almost a year. I'm an RN who is on ssd. I came here to find others like me, cause I feel very alone.

Vote up! 1

Posted on May 6th, 2010 at 9:01AM

April 25 is Parental Alienation Awareness Day

2010-04-25T17:50:00.000-07:00

Jennifer's Single Parents Blog

By Jennifer Wolf, About.com Guide to Single Parents

Friday April 23, 2010

Sadly, many parents find their relationship with their children changes after a divorce. Most of the time, this is due to the transition your entire family is going through, and after a time, you discover new ways to relate to and enjoy one another.

If you feel that the changes you're seeing are extreme, though, you may suspect Parental Alienation Syndrome. This is when a child who previously enjoyed a warm relationship with both parents begins to reject one parent solely based on strong, negative claims introduced by the other parent.

One indicator that PAS is being taken more seriously is the recognition of Parental Alienation Awareness Day on April 25. If your family has been impacted by PAS, take a moment to leave a comment below in support of Parental Alienation Awareness Day.

Parental Alienation Resources

How To Deal With Parental Alienation: An Interview With PA Expert Dr. Richard Warshak

2010-04-23T11:34:00.000-07:00

Posted by: Matt Allen on Apr 22, 2010

Tagged in: PAS , Parental Alienation Syndrome , Children , alienation

Note: April 25 is the fifth annual Parental Alienation Awareness Day, put together by the Parental Alienation Awareness Organization. To find out how you can help or how to get April 25 recognized in your town, visit the Parental Alienation Awareness Day web site.

Dr. Richard Warshak is the author of Divorce Poison: How to Protect Your Family from Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing, a book that gives parents powerful strategies to preserve and repair loving relationships with their children.

Internationally renowned lecturer and authority on divorce, custody, and the psychology of alienated children, Warshak is a clinical, research, and consulting psychologist and a clinical professor at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

He also wrote the chapter on Parental Alienation Syndrome for the Expert Witness Manual, a guide for attorneys and judges dealing with expert testimony.

Read on for the two-part Q&A with Warshak about parental alienation, the signs of it, how to deal with it, and how to restore your relationship with an alienated child.

DadsDivorce.com: For someone who is entering a divorce or in the throes of it and are concerned about parental alienation happening at some point, how can they prevent it or can they prevent it from happening?

Dr. Richard Warshak: There are certainly things you can do to reduce the likelihood of it occurring. Some of it depends on your spouse but one can certainly maintain regular contact with children and keep arranged schedules of contact consistent. It’s also important to not badmouth the other parents and to not give the kids the third degree.

Don’t overreact, don’t allow your contact to be interrupted, and hang in there. If the child expresses distorted views of you, provide the information to help clarify issues when appropriate. You’ll need to exercise great patience if the other parent is alienating.

Some common mistakes parents make is overreacting, trying to talk the children out of their feelings, withdrawing from the child, and accusing the child of merely parodying the other parent’s complaints.

You don’t want to jump to conclusions and conclude that the other parent is always trying to turn the child against you. Innocent situations may turn out to just be innocent situations. Don’t immediately assume alienation is occurring.

However, if you feel the other parent is intentionally alienating, it’s important to discuss your concerns with them if you’re on civil terms. If you aren’t on that level, you need to seek counseling with a third party.

DD: I’ve heard often from parents who don’t even realize they are a victim of parental alienation. Then when you describe what it is, they suddenly go “that’s exactly what is happening to me.” So is there any way of knowing how prevalent this is?

RW: Many of the readers of my “Divorce Poison” book say they haven’t been aware they were hurting children that they weren’t doing it deliberately. It’s helped them appreciate how damaging it is to badmouth a parent.

Once parents read about it, they came to recognize they and their children are victims of it. There’s no way to know for sure due to the variations of research studies in determining the severity of alienating behavior, but it’s believed there are between 20,000-250,000 new child victims each year.

DD: So we talked about the “before,” and attempts to prevent alienation from happening. What about how to act during this stage when parental alienation is occurring? How should you act if you know your ex is alienating you?

RW: If the purposeful alienation extends to denying contact, it’s very important to get legal assistance so you know what your rights are and how orders can be enforced. You cannot allow your contact with the child to be interrupted. Time and space is the beginning to the end of the relationship.

DD: Say one parent has alienated a child. How can the other parent successfully restore that relationship with the child, or how likely is it that the relationship will ever be restored?

RW: It really depends on the circumstances. If you’re still able to gain contact with the child, you may be able to show your children through your behavior that you aren’t this demon being portrayed. Sometimes children are filled with such distortions that you’ll need professional programs to help children live with parents they claim to dislike and reject as a result of alienation.

When it’s more severe, it’s very important to have some legal intervention because the favored parent will say, “There’s nothing I can do. The child just doesn’t want to see you.”

It’s hard to overturn a child’s attitude, so use the court to enforce contact with the child and get them into counseling with you.

Note: Part 2 of this Q&A will be posted Friday.

[ Back ]

The Evils of Parental Alienation

2010-03-30T16:55:00.000-07:00

I found this great website written by a dad exposing the Evils of Parental Alienation. It is directly to the point. Enjoy.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Jealousy, the root of all Evil

Gentlemen, and I am speaking just to the husbands who have remarried and are victims of an Attack from an ex-wife in the form of Parental Alienation, Stand by and protect your Wife!

It will be very difficult for you to see and understand the events and changes that occur through this ordeal but having said that, one thing is very clear and that is to stand with and defend your new wife. She will be the target of this assault also and suffer greatly because of her new relationship with you. 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. This is a huge problem and your chances of a loving and successful marriage, goes down, not up in your next attempt. Many factors play into this but without a doubt, your ex spouse will play a role in destroying your new relationship also.

Jealousy; Men have those feelings but I contend, and documentation will support, that women are more effected by this emotion that men. This emotion is evil and destructive. It has no place in your world or your mind. If you are harboring such feelings, cut them lose now before it ruins your life. Jealousy is a sin and one that no relationship can survive.

Jealousy is a major role in Parental Alienation. Your ex-spouse may have always felt intimidated by your success, by your friends, by your relationship with your family, and with your relationship with your own children. She most certainly will be jealous if you remarry to a woman that is bright, intelligent and whom people consider a very beautiful lady. If your ex is insecure with their own place in life, it will manifest itself with words and actions that attempt to cast you or your new wife as a failure in some aspect. This is a personality disorder where they cannot elevate themselves so they seek to mitigate and destroy your standing. In their mind, this brings you to their level or elevates them is some way. Again, this is a mental issue and one that WILL lead to PAS as they pursue this conduct with the children. Understand that in my case my ex filed many court declarations over a year’s time and 68 times she mentioned my new wife by name in her statements enraged lies. 179 times my ex referred to a money issue and only 6 times did she have any concern for the boys. Her main concern was with Money and then attacks against Jan. Even the court investigator referenced this in her findings (all public record). The psychologist that saw my ex, documented that she had an extreme anger problem and that the PA she was conducting, was the worse he had seen in his 26 years “over the top bad”! You may have a different view but I believe that this indicates where her mind was and is. Its leans toward evil with money and jealousy at the root and heart of it.

These are reasons you must recognize PA as soon as possible. You must discuss this with your spouse and inform yourselves of all the troubles and issues you will be facing. You as a father will attempt to be a peace maker as PA takes hold between your new wife and your children. Read the information in this blog and many others. Read the books about Divorce Poison and forms of PAS. Speak with your church members together. It is a must for your relationship to get support from friends and to raise your relationship with God. PA was documented in the Bible, read it, see its effects. You must stay united, and for you husband’s that love your children, taking a stand that seems against all you know about your children, will be very difficult!

Understand that they are victims also but you can be no help to them if you can’t maintain your relationship with your wife. Yes, you must understand that Children will also be jealous of the time and affection you show your new wife. Make sure you both spread the love around!

I am very proud of the woman I chose to re-marry to. In most every way, she is very different from my ex. Jan, my sons step mother is a very strong and independent woman that raised her 5 kids on her own with no support from her ex husband or from the state. She worked hard at raising and trading horses. She drove school bus and sold real estate. She opened her home to trouble youth by running a foster home for the most angry children in the system. Her efforts won her many awards for her outstanding service to those young people.

Jan was an exemplary mother figure for my 4 boys and had a huge positive effect on their lives, up until the point that their mother stepped up her Parental Alienation agenda and targeted Jan for her anger and abusive comments. As much personal pain as I felt from the effects of PA, the pain I felt for Jan was greater than my own. To see my ex wife attack Jan in such a way and to use the my own boys as a weapon against my new wife, caused me unbearable pain.

Jan was a very good mother to my sons. She help my youngest to read and grow to really enjoy reading. He became a great reader and a very good student because of Jan and her efforts to help him. She made a huge change in our lives as she showed us all what a loving wife and mother could be. She cared for us with great homemade meals and took the time and effort to make sure the boys learned how to cook and take responsibility to clean up after themselves also. She led the way in manners at the table by playing a game involving table manners at dinner time. She encouraged us all to be respectful and show politeness to adults and the public with her own words and actions. As a former standout sports star, she helped the boys understand the level of commitment and hard work that goes into physical achievement, that it is the effort and not some misguided verbal attacks on coaches or referees that make you a winner.

My new wife came into our marriage with her own savings and invested those moneys into her new family. One of the very 1st things she did was to buy 2 very well bred and very well trained horses for the two youngest boys because she wanted them on safe horses that they would enjoy. Jan bought the boys new bed room sets that they could be proud of before buying anything for herself. She took the boys with her on family visits (many times drove 6 hours one way to get Colton out to the ranch or pick him up) and vacations alone when I could not attend. She was the driving force behind our family camping, hunting and vacations. When I was away for my job, Jan would get up early and take Dakota out to his hunting spot. She even took them snowmobiling by herself when I could not be there. The boys could not have hoped to have a more supporting and involved mother. They benefited greatly with their time with Jan and with luck, they will carry those good memories and lessons with them the rest of their lives.

My sons grew to love and respect Jan very quickly. I believe that my ex became very jealous of this situation. A situation where they were speaking very highly of Jan to their mother and explaining all the new things she did for them. As documented from court declarations, their mother was not supportive of this and considered the boys views of their step mother as a direct threat to her own position as a mother. She began using PA as a weapon as an effort to destroy this growing relationship and therefore protect herself as the only good and true mother.

As a dumbfounded male, I was wondering why we couldn’t all just get along. E-mail after e-mail after e-mail I attempted to work with my sons mother. I asked her to attend the sports programs, to move into the school district, we (jan and I) asked the boys to sit with and speak with her at the games. We both encouraged the boys to be respectful of and mind their mother while at her house. Yet actions speak loader than words as she bought 7 cars, 2 houses, refused to drive the boys to sports practices and would go out partying at night while they were in her care. The boys had to wake up with strangers in the house and witness what their mother wrote to me in an e-mail “I have young men standing in line”. They complained about their clothes smelling like smoke, they were sadden (reported to an investigator) that their mother would go out at night 2-3 times a week while they were at her house (every other week). Perhaps her actions were in part my fault because when I divorced her for sleeping around, I gave her a lot of money, everything I could scrap together at the time. So much, that I was greatly indebt following the divorce but I never wanted anyone or my sons to insinuate that I was not fair in the settlement. I believe that my ex had no idea how to be responsible with those funds (sadly, she now teaches this pattern to the boys). Nightlife, parties and gambling consumed the entire sum and she filed bankruptcy. After that filing is where she started after the boys in earnest. She needed money and if she could get custody, she could live off the child support.

Long here and getting off point.

Gentlemen, all I can say to you is to stand with your woman! As hard as this PAS is on you, understand that she also suffers greatly and that she needs you!

This has grown a little long and has not even touched the extent of my situation but I leave you today with one learned piece of advice. Love your wife, trust her, communicate with her and if forced to make a choice between her and your children that are being alienated, adore and love your wife! There may be nothing you can do right for your children under PSA but you can and must do right by your wife.

Trust in God and follow the word of the Bible. The Bible will give you the strength to deal with the problems and the wisdom to make the correct decisions.

Jan took Dakota and grand kids to the zooBoys having fun with Jans Grand kidsJan and boys at the fishing lake we rode intoJan took the boys for a ranch vacationJan enjoying snowmobling with the boysJan took the boys to a ranch danceJan with the boys Great GrandmotherJan and the boys having a great Colo tripFamily having fun outside in the sunJan, Dakota and Colton having fun riding4 boys having fun with Jan in the snowKaleb, Dakota and Colton having a blast with JanMe, Jan, Kaleb, Mom and Colton

0 comments:

Links to this post

Create a Link

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Canadian TV5 Exposes Cases of Parental Alienation

2010-03-27T20:00:00.000-07:00

Children have always been on the frontlines of divorces. It is just a matter of time before Parental Alienation Syndrome is recognized officially by the APA, and in federal courts. Right now, thousands of case of Parental Alienation have resulted in significant changes in custody and many more are still waiting.

W5 investigates: Children on the frontlines of divorce

CTV News Video

W5: Poisoned Minds, part one

There is nothing pleasant about divorce, but for couples breaking up there is now a whole new battleground -- parental alienation. It is a proxy war that can produce poisoned minds.

W5: Poisoned Minds, part two

Family courts and social workers are grappling with how to make divorcing parents cooperate, and heal the children. Even in a legal system where kids have all the rights, harmony doesn't come easy.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

Font-size: Share Print

Photos

Experts call it parental alienation, when in the midst of a divorce, one parent tries to turn a child against the other parent. It's a mind-warping tactic for the child.

View Larger Image

W5 Staff

Date: Sat. Nov. 7 2009 6:58 PM ET

The world of divorce is scary for any child. Even when spouses split amicably children can be forced to balance their love and time between two parents.

But when a divorce becomes especially toxic children can become the target of an unrelenting crusade by one parent to destroy the child's relationship with the other. Experts call it parental alienation, a persistent campaign by one parent to poison a child's relationship with the other parent.

Typical tactics include lying or making false allegations about the targeted parent, refusing to let the child see the other parent, even punishing the child for showing affection for the other parent. Experts claim, in its more extreme forms, it is child abuse.

Pamela Richardson

For almost 12 years, Pamela Richardson rarely saw her son Dash because of the campaign her ex-husband waged against her.

According to Richardson, after her marriage dissolved her ex-husband, who had custody of the then-four-year-old, did everything he could to alienate Dash from his mother - fabricating illness, booking activities for Dash to prevent visits; he even arranged to have Richardson banned from Dash's school.

"I wouldn't see Dash for, you know, a number of months and not without me trying, not without me doing all the classic things that alienated parents do -- cookies on the doorstop, faxes, phone calls, notes, trying to see him at friends' houses -- everything you possibly can to keep that thread of a relationship alive," said Richardson.

Despite a court order giving her regular visits with Dash, Richardson said her ex-husband did everything he could to keep them apart and to convince their son that she was a bad and uncaring mother.

"There was period of two years, and I added up the hours (with Dash) and it came to 24 - in two years," Richardson lamented.

Richardson said she wasn't the only one suffering as a result of the alienation - Dash was suffering too. Alienated from his mother, the once happy little boy turned into an isolated, depressed and angry teenager.

On January 1, 2001, Dash, then 16, jumped off Vancouver's Granville Street bridge, in the middle of the night, to his death. While Richardson blames her ex-husband, she also blames a court system that she insists did little to intervene and help.

"This is extreme and this was something that was in the courts many, many times...they had an opportunity to do something and they didn't," said Richardson.

Parental Alienation and the Courts

Courts are paying more attention. Family court judges are increasingly considering issues of parental alienation in deciding custody.

Justice Harvey Brownstone is a family court judge in Toronto and the author of a book on the bitter realities of divorce court.

"Parents who are on a campaign to destroy the child's relationship with the other parent could lose custody and, in extreme cases, courts have changed custody to the other parent," said Brownstone.

He encourages divorcing couples to focus on parenting together rather than using children as a tool of revenge, dragging them through protracted, bitter family feuds.

"While there may be some therapeutic benefits to coming to court and venting and telling a judge how much you were hurt by the other parent's infidelities or bad conduct, at the end of the day, we are looking at parenting capacity, parenting skills," he said. "We need to look at how couples are going to reinvent themselves from ex-partners to co-parents."

Co-parenting

The concept of divorced parents co-parenting isn't new for psychologists Peggie Ward and Robin Deutsch. They bring bad-mouthing alienating parents, targeted parents, and their children to a camp in Vermont in an effort to help these broken families learn new ways to properly raise their children

Eight-year-old Tori Cercone knows first hand how it feels to be caught in the middle of a high conflict divorce. "What is so painful is that your mom and dad get separated and they don't like each other but you like both. And it's kind of like a contest who you like better"

Two years ago Tori's parents Fran Beecy and Chris Cercone couldn't stand to be in the same room after Beecy made abuse allegations against her ex-husband.

"Oh my God, he hated me," said Beecy. "I was like the big mother bear guarding the door, not letting my ex-husband near my kids...I just wanted to protect them, to keep them safe. And yet he, on the other hand, was just like 'these are my kids, I want to see them. I have every right to see them.'"

Divorce camp in Vermont changed everything. Today, they visit together, gather for family dinners, and get along.

As Cercone explained, "whichever side you're on, whether you're the alienated or the alienator, you've got to come to grips that it can't be about how I feel or getting back at the other one."

"I think I'm a better mom because I'm happier," said Beecy. "I'm not trying to create any wedges between my kids and their dad."

Parental Alienation Syndrome - from a Woman's Rights Advocate

2010-03-16T04:14:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Parental Alienation Syndrome

As anyone who knows me knows, I am an advocate for the rights of women. I am dedicating my life to empowering women and fighting for the rights of all women, not only in Canada but throughout the world. However, at this time, I want to point out a very serious and detrimental issue affecting children that is only now gaining attention in the court system: Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Unfortunately, this syndrome is difficult to prove in court, but I believe it to be one that is more prevalent than judges even realize. Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises primarily in child-custody or child-access disputes. It results from a parent's repeated denigration of the other parent or "brainwashing" of the child against the other parent (the targeted parent) in an attempt to control child access.

This process may start out as seemingly innocent. For example, a child may have visitation with her father, and the anxious mother may react by calling the child during her visit, and indirectly imply that she is not safe with her father. This may cause the child to become stressed or frustrated, confused or even angry. It is, in essence, a form of emotional abuse.

I know of someone close to me who actually had his ex-wife call up on his Christmas Day visit with his daughter in his home (I will note here that he was only enititled to an hour's visitation before the ex-wife called, threatening to involve the police if the child was not returned immediately). During this phone call, the mother was found to be emotionally unstable, frantically crying on the phone with her child, almost screaming to the child: "Are you ok???" Of course the child was ok. She was more than ok. She was spending time with her daddy opening presents from Santa on Christmas Day! Clearly, this was an attempt to instill fear and confusion into the child, so that the child would no longer feel comfortable visiting with her daddy at his home. This incidence is a perfect example of the alienating parent's blatant attempts to limit child access and denigrate the target parent, the father. Unfortunately, the alienation did not stop there. This father was denied access to his own child for over a year. It was not until he hired a lawyer and took his ex-wife to court that he was able to resume visitation with his own child. Meanwhile, the little girl would telephone her father crying, telling him how much she missed him while the mother just stood over her listening and apparently not caring enough about her child's needs to allow her to see her father. Appalling. Appalling that she would put her selfish needs over her own child's needs (and rights!!!) to have a relationship with her daddy.

I would like the court system to become more actively involved in recognizing these cases when they appear on their dockets. Children have been found to become so depressed and anxious over the constant attacks on the other parent, and new family situation if there is one, that some have found that the only way out is suicide.

Emotional abuse of children is not given the same attention as physical abuse of children, which is indeed a very sad reflection of how our society regards children and their rights. Denying a child the right to have a happy, healthy relationship with his or her other parent violates that child in a despicable way. When one's own angry and vindictive desire to regain power and control in a relationship that is now over begins to negatively affect the children of that relationship, it is the responsibility of the courts to determine who should have custody of the children. Surely a parent who continually puts down the other parent, or makes false allegations against that parent and his/her ability to care for the children deserves to have rights as custodial parent revoked.

Posted by Tanya Thibodeau at 10:49 AM

Jessica Click-Hill and Dalton Lucas: two case studies in parental kidnapping

2010-03-15T13:30:00.000-07:00

Jessica Click-Hill and Dalton Lucas: two case studies in parental kidnapping

March 14, 2010 · Filed under Adam Haseeb Memorial Pages, Anniversary of disappearance, Cold Cases, Family Abductions

Dalton Lucas and Jessica Click-Hill are both parentally abducted children that were found many years later. Both were abducted by their mothers, both at nearly identical ages (Jessica was eight and Dalton was seven), both who have fathers who were looking for them.

The biggest difference in the cases, however, is that of the outcome. By the outcome I do not mean legally, as in both cases the mothers have been arrested. The outcome in these cases I am referring to is that of the relationship with the left-behind parent. News stories about Dalton’s case say that his father drove straight from Virginia to Texas to retrieve his son, and the comments on the stories indicate that Dalton introduced his friends and others to his dad before going back with him. It will not be easy for him to readjust under any circumstances, but he seems pleased to see his dad again. Jessica, on the other hand, is indicated by news stories to have no wish to have contact with her father. She was abducted for five years more than Dalton, but since four of those years she was over eighteen it’s possible that she did not live with her mother for all of those.

So what accounts for the difference? Perhaps Dalton’s mother did not try to alienate her son from his father, although this is unlikely. Alienation is almost universal in parental kidnapping cases. Richard Warshak, an expert on parental alienation, has stated that some children are just more resilient to alienation. There are documented cases of parentally abducted children where the child later reports attempted alienation but does not succumb to its influence. Dalton’s mother could have used the classic “your father died” excuse which seems to produce less hostility towards the left-behind parent. Even that is not set in stone, of course: in the well known case of Steven Fagan he told his daughters their mother was dead and when he was arrested he admitted to the lie but then claimed she was an alcoholic. The mother had never been arrested or even accused of wrongdoing on the part of the children, but they still refused to see her or try to maintain any sort of relationship. (I mention the last to try to silence the “if the kid refuses to see a ~~father~~ parent they must have a good reason” crowd, but I doubt it will.) It could have something to do with the level of alienation involved – telling the child their other parent is a drug addict or alcoholic is one level, but telling them the other parent is a sadistic phyical and sexual abuser is quite another.

There’s no way to find out directly what is responsible, of course. But perhaps in both cases there is something to be learned about the detrimental effects of parental kidnapping on a child.

Understanding Parental Alienation

2010-03-03T15:30:00.000-08:00

Another blogger has started an online posting of days of alienation by his ex and the brainwashing of his children.

Understanding Parental Alienation

Oldest Son Josh on the left and youngest, Colton on the right. We were at Dakotas Basket Ball game.

Parental Alienation #2. Understanding

American Journal of Family Law. Vol. 10. 121-133 (1996)

Understanding and Collaboratively Treating Parental Alienation Syndrome

Kenneth H. Waldron, Ph.D. and David E. Joanis, J.D.Madison, Wisconsin

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a special case of postdivorce conflict in which one parent appears to go to great lengths, at times including making fictitious allegations of physical and/or sexual abuse, to turn a child(1) against the other parent. Dr. Richard Gardner first described PAS in an article and then later in a book and portions of another.(2) Earlier researchers had rioted similar processes in families (for example, the "medea complex" described by Wallerstein and Kelly in the late 1970s), and professionals working with divorcing families easily recognized the syndrome, sometimes described as brainwashing, presented by Gardner. That his "syndrome" was so readily adopted is less a testament to Dr. Gardner's "discovery" than to his conceptualizing a familiar type of high-conflict divorcing family problem that is complex, perplexing, very resistant to change; and sometimes tragic.

Gardner's conceptualization of the problem and the dynamics underlying the problem proved at best incomplete, if not simplistic and erroneous. He portrays the alienating parent as virtually solely responsible for the dynamic, turning the vulnerable child against the innocent target parent.
Contextual factors can be used to detect the presence or absence of PAS. These factors fall on a continuum in the normal curve in all families. The factors that make up PAS may exist in many divorcing families to varying degrees, but they come together and pass a fulcrum point in a few. When PAS becomes the dominant family process, children reject a parent outright and the stage is set for gut-wrenching allegations, extreme resistance, threatened "move-aways," and often a great deal of litigation.

ACTORS IN THE FAMILY DRAMA

In most instances, all of the family members play a role for PAS to take hold. There is an easy temptation to place all of the responsibility for the process on the alienating parent, whose maneuvering is the most obvious and appears the most self-serving and malevolent. Gardner points out that even the child usually has some motive for enlisting in the process, although the child's motives may be vague and more defensive than malevolent. The child must play the part, however. The authors have seen instances where both parents appear to be playing their roles in the alienation process, but the child simply won't join in and is able to disengage from the parental battle and maintain independent relationships with each of the parents.
Exceptions exist, however. In some instances, the alienating parent's efforts at alienating the child will be so ruthless, sophisticated, pervasive, and persistent, playing heavily on the loyalties, fears, and even trust of the child, that the child's ability to maintain an independent relationship with the target parent will slowly be crushed. If the child continues to see the target parent in these cases, the child will often display a split identity (clinically referred to as vertical splitting). That is, when with the alienating parent, the child will appear thoroughly rejecting of the target parent, but when with the target parent, he or she will display affection, attachment, interest, fun, and freedom from the oppressive alignment with the alienating parent.

The Alienating Parent (AP)

In the typical PAS family drama, the AP has the motive to turn the child against the other parent; develops the content themes of the rejection; designs and employs the techniques of programming the child; and has limited insight into the damage caused but not into the motives or goals, which often include eliminating an unwanted parent. The damage caused is not only to the child and the target parent, but it is usually self-defeating and in some instances self-destructive.

(PAS) is a family dynamic in which all of the family members play a role, have their own motives, and have their own reasons for resisting the efforts of others at correction.
The AP's motives will vary from family to family. In some, revenge for felt injustice or for feelings of rejection will dominate, but in others, the fear of loss of or abandonment by the children will be the driving force. Distrust is so high in some divorces that the AP readily will believe the worst about the target parent (TP), especially if the AP has an early family history of abuse, molestation, or betrayal. The AP usually assumes that the child is fragile or in extreme danger in the care of the TP. These assumptions probably are projections, meaning that at the hub of the AP's personality are primitive feelings of anxious vulnerability. By maintaining proprietary control over the child, onto whom these dangers and vulnerability are projected, the AP is externalizing the defenses. The sometimes improbable and unsubstantiated allegations seen in these cases can reflect the AP's actual experiences or childhood fears.

The Target Parent (TP)

In cases of PAS, the TP may have abandoned or may wish to abandon the child. Despite the angry protests of the TP against the AP, the TP may talk of moving away from the area or may be satisfied with and perhaps desirous of a marginal role in the life of the child. The rejection by the child may be a convenient excuse for this way of thinking on the part of the TP. In some cases, there may be geographic distance between the TP and the child. The TP may have substantial weaknesses in parenting abilities or in the parent-child relationship; may have played the family "parent," with the AP joining the child in rebellion; or may have obvious psychological or emotional problems. The TP may have been violent, may be insensitive to the child, and usually has limited insight into his or her own contributions and role in the PAS (for example, failing to counter the alienation theme, focusing on the AP rather than the needs of the child) but good insight into the techniques and damage caused by the AP.

The Child

Children most vulnerable to PAS, due to several converging developmental issues, are in the 8- to 15-year-old range. Typically, the child adopts the content theme (for example, accusing the TP of being abusive); refuses to confront the AP even in the presence of contradictory evidence; employs the AP's techniques (such as spying); has various levels of insight and "real" cooperation with the AP; and fears the AP. While some children seem completely drawn into the themes of the alienation, seemingly believing every word they say others are very aware of the exaggerations and lies. One of the authors had a case in which two children in their early teens actively participated in the PAS, alleging sexual abuse on the part of their father. Their stories were consistent and believable, and while the father was found not guilty in a criminal trial, due largely to factual inaccuracies in the children's stories, he was nevertheless eliminated from contact with the children. The children refused even supervised contact. The vehemence of the rejection by alienated children is often telling. These children threatened to run away, or worse, "if you make us" even have dinner with their father. Two years later, one of the children surfaced the "lie," which the other child soon admitted. There had been no molestation and no real cause for the rejection. Even then the children had no good explanation as to why they had gone along with the instructions of their mother other than that they were "scared."

In families with multiple children, roles in a PAS drama often are divided up, with the children representing the range of alienation--usually one child completely alienated, one ambivalent, and one still attached to the TP.

The Family System

The PAS is a family system defense mechanism. The function of the defense is not always obvious, but there is often a subtle underlying complicity on the part of the family members in the drama. The research provides clues to some defense functions:

· to protect the AP's self-esteem (for example, when PAS escalates as the TP becomes more "successful" after the separation, including getting on with life and remarriage);

· to help the AP cope with his or her difficulty "letting go" of the marriage (for example, when the AP can't stop thinking about or talking about the other parent; or when PAS escalates around birthdays, holidays, vacations, etc.);

· to maintain the AP's symbiotic dependence on the child (for example, when the AP calls the child every day when he or she is with the TP--one of the authors had a case in which the AP would tell the child that she "couldn't stand to go into your room while you were away, it makes me so sad");

· to deal with anger and revenge (for example, when the AP expresses moral outrage at the exposure of the child to a new romantic partner, when the real issue is anger for an affair, or simply at being so easily replaced);

· to help the AP through what he or she perceives to be a "grown up" version of a childhood experience; and

· to help the family cope with the AP's tendency to turn on the child or anyone else who disagrees, or to abandon the child if there is a change (the child fears having feelings independent of and in opposition to the AP and becoming a target of the rage and rejection he or she has seen the AP direct at others who disagree).

One of the authors has seen other "life and death" causes, such as where the PAS protected a psychologically fragile AP or where the AP was the agent of the AP's family of origin, eliminating the TP from the extended family network. When encountering PAS in a particular family and trying to determine its cause, a good question to ask is what the family would be dealing with if everyone wasn't so preoccupied with the PAS process.

PROGRAMMING STAGES

The programming one sees in situations of PAS is often a longstanding part of the family dynamic that simply escalates after a separation. Although all of the family members play roles, the AP is in charge of the programming of the child, a process that usually follows stages.

Content Theme Identification

The content theme of the alienation is identified early, sometimes by the AP, sometimes by the TP and sometimes accidentally. One of the authors had a case in which there were two dominant themes: abandonment, which had been introduced by the TP through an actual abandonment that lasted about seven months; and, paradoxically, an intense fear of kidnapping by the TP, introduced by the AP. The TP was in a difficult situation where any lack of effort to see the children was viewed as abandonment (that is, proof that she did not care), and any effort to see the children was obstructed and set off a panic that it was an effort to kidnap them. In cases of PAS, the belief in the themes becomes delusional. Though there may be some foundation for the themes in an incident or two, the themes essentially are very unrealistic. In the above case, though the mother had abandoned the children for seven months, she had been consistent in her involvements and interest for the five years prior to the separation and six years since the abandonment. The real threat of a kidnapping of the 12- and 8-year-old children was minimal, especially since the children were so schooled in the threat.

Mood Induction

The next stage is mood induction, during which the AP may employ the following strategies:

· guilt (e.g., "I don't know why your father left us; everything seemed okay");

· intimidation (e.g., "Go to your mother's if you want, but you are not to hug her cute little boyfriend anymore. Do you understand?");

· fear (e.g., "I just want you kids to know that I'11 be here the whole time you are at your dad's and that you can call if you need me");

· playing the victim (or, "poor me") (e.g., "Jeez, your mom is taking me to court again. When is she gonna leave me alone to just spend time with you?");

· sympathy seeking (e.g., "Look kids, you need to know that I just can't afford to take you the places your dad takes you because he has much more money. I know that's not fair to you but it is just the way it is");

· telling the child the "truth" about past events (e.g., "I hid a lot from you before your mom left us because I didn't want you hurt, or for you to hate your mom, but now you deserve an explanation ... ");

· overindulgence and permissiveness (e.g., "Of course it is all right for you to own your own hunting rifle. Your mom just doesn't want us to have fun together"); and/or

· threats (e.g., "So, you had a good time. Maybe you'd like to go and just live there. I just want you to know, if you do, you won't see me again").

The theme, with mood induction, is processed over and over until the AP begins to gain the child's compliance, usually with the TP participating by escalating the emotional battle with the AP rather than working directly with the child. Once the child's compliance is gained, the AP begins to back off, letting the child carry the ball, although often there will be tests of the effectiveness of the program. The most powerful method is to tell the child, "It is your choice." The more the child supports the AP in rejecting the TP, the more emphatically the AP wants people to "just listen to the child." This can reach the point of the AP seeing himself or herself as the champion of the child in a world ignoring the child's feelings. Another common test is that the child will consistently report bad experiences at the home of the TP (whether true or not) that usually reflect the theme chosen by the AP. These reports are often recorded in some way by the AP and may not be used in the judicial system for years.

Reward/Punishment

Once tested, the child's complicity is rewarded and any sign of a breakdown in the child's alignment with the AP is punished, sometimes very directly, or in most instances in a re-escalation of the earlier stages of the programming. There are many patterns in this stage. If the child, for example, reports that "Dad never pays attention to me when I am there," the AP might "make up" for the lack of attention by doing special things with the child after visits if the child reports the visits negatively, if the child reports a positive visit, the AP might be vaguely inattentive or may say overtly "Well, I guess you've had your fun, so now we have to get down to the real business of life." Once the program is in place, generalizing begins to occur, leading the child to a loss of ambivalence and to total rejection of the TP. By this time, everything the TP does will be "wrong."

Unfortunately, these cases often reach professionals at the point where the program has been generalized and simply is being maintained. The AP may be doing very little alienating, since it is already in place as a family dynamic. At this stage, the AP simply will watch for slippage in the child's resolve and shore it up when it happens. The AP role may miss detection at this stage. The AP may say things like, "I tried to encourage the relationship," or, "I really wish he'd visit his father. I could use the break, frankly, but it isn't fair to make him, considering the way he feels," or, "I just can't make her go. I have tried."

TECHNIQUES

The AP's techniques usually are in various combinations:

· Denying the existence of the TP: This can be blatant ("I don't ever want to hear her name in this house") or very subtle (refusing to acknowledge that the child has positive experiences in the other house). In one family, the father would play catch with the children and would not look up when the mother drove in, nor would he stop the game. He held the children's attention until the mother was forced to intrude openly, at which point he would walk away from the children and mother, never acknowledging her presence.

· Pairing good experiences or feelings with bad feelings: This is displayed by not responding to the child's expressions of love or enthusiasm for the other parent, or pairing these good experiences with bad feelings ("Oh, that's nice. I had a terrible weekend without you").

· Constantly attacking the TP's character or lifestyle: Here, the AP creates an illusion of what "might happen." Attacks are on the TP; the TP's extended family ("Your mom can't help the way she is, her parents abused her when she was growing up"); the TP's career, living arrangements, activities, travel, or even religion; and the TP's associates, especially new romantic partners.

· Putting the child in the middle: This technique may involve engaging the child in a "spy game," using the child as the principal communicator between the parents; or giving the child subtle "third degrees" (for example, one of the authors had a case in which the mother could reduce the child to a bundle of nerves by saying, "Let's talk about...."--the child had learned that this was a signal to hate something that the father had said, done, chosen, etc.).

· Generalizing from one or two instances to a global meaning: An AP using this technique might say, "Remember when your mother was screaming after us when we drove away [not mentioning that he closed the window on her when she was trying to kiss the kids goodbye]? That's what I mean when I say that she is, well, out of control. She just doesn't have control over her emotions. That's why I get scared when you are over there."

· Taking normal differences and turning them into good/bad and right/wrong problems: The AP can manipulate circumstances to put the TP into a bad light in the child's eyes or undermine the TP by expressing puzzlement about what is wrong with him or her. "I don't know what's the matter with your father. He knows that kids need to be in bed by eight". The use of this technique can be very subtle (e.g., a shake of the head and a smirk when the child reports an activity with the TP).

· Creating alliance in the parental battle: An obvious use of this technique would be, "Do you think it's fair for your rich father to take your poor mother to court all the time?" A more subtle approach would be, "If you were the mother, what would you do? Would you go to court to try to protect your children?" This can include the powerful tool of the threat of withdrawal of love, or complete abandonment, if the child demonstrates love for or interest in the TP. Another version of this technique is to convince the child that kids need one parent (the primary parent syndrome) or to give the child the illusion that "I am the one who really loves you." The other parent then becomes the threat because "she is trying to take you away from me."

· Portraying the child as fragile and needing the AP's protection: This is very common in PAS. The child convincingly will portray his or her life as fragile, about to fall apart if anyone "makes" him or her have contact with the TP. The AP solidifies the relationship with the child by creating an image for the child that he or she is at great risk out of the control and protection of the AP. A frequent twist of this technique is to portray the AP as fragile to the child, requiring the child's presence to maintain balance.

· Lying: False or highly suspicious allegations of abuse, neglect, or molestation are examples of this. The blatant nature of some of these lies creates an illusion for the child, and many children simply do not have the nerve to confront or contradict the parent.

· Brainwashing: Through a process of rewriting the child's experiences in a way to create reality confusion, the parent incorporates the child into a false view of reality. This can include outright lies ("Your father never enjoyed spending time with you. He complained about that all the time, but not in front of you because he didn't want to hurt your feelings. I wonder why he wants to see you now"), subtly implied rewrites of the child's feelings ("You were scared of her even when you were a baby. You wouldn't even let her hold you"), or implanted memories ("Remember when your father used to hit me, or have you blocked this out of your mind?"). The child resolves the confusion by adopting the AP's view of reality.

UNDERSTANDING PAS DYNAMICS

The motivational factors underlying PAS vary greatly from family to family. In the AP, these can include revenge; self-righteousness; guilt; fear of loss of the child or the role of primary parent; the wish to have proprietary control over the child; jealousy; the desire to obtain sufficient child support; loss of identity; a history with the family of origin of abandonment or alienation; pain avoidance (out of sight/out of mind); self-protection; avoiding scrutiny by pointing the finger; maintaining the marital relationship through conflict, power, and domination; or protecting his or her own precarious self-esteem. The TP's motives may include a desire to abandon, anger at the AP, self-righteousness, a history of problems in the family of origin, stupidity, a personal history of scapegoating, protecting the fragile mental health of the AP, the assumption of a victim stance, or a fear of a relationship with the children. The motivation of the child can include coping with loss, resolving parental conflict for self-preservation, normal developmental pressures, real relational difficulties with the TP, resolution of ambivalence about the AP, or fear of the AP.

As discussed previously, there is also the family system defense. The question has to be asked, "What would happen in this family if the alienation issue was resolved?" Usually there is a very serious underlying family problem needing attention. PAS can serve the function of a lot of smoke, covering up other difficulties that defy identification.

DETECTION OF PAS

Detection, especially in the last stages, may seem difficult. The "truth" of the family becomes very relative. However, typical patterns in PAS allow for detection by a professional familiar with this form of family conflict:

1. Contradictions: This is relevant especially when the child's own statements are contradictory, or they contradict factual history or the perceptions of unbiased individuals;

2. Child has inappropriate and unnecessary information (e.g., "My dad had an affair while my mom was in the hospital having me," or, "My mom wanted me aborted");

3. Child engages in character assault: This can include the use of globally negative descriptions for which the child has trouble coming up with specifics sufficient to justify them;

4. Collusion and one-sided alliance with the AP: This is often given away by the use of blended pronouns (e.g. "When my dad left us ...," or, "We don't have enough money to live on");

5. Child parrots themes of the AP, even using the same words--the child's identity becomes enmeshed with that of the AP;

6. Child reports on the TP, even to professionals, the way a spy would;

7. Child displays a sense of urgency and fragility: Everything seems to have life-and-death importance (e.g., "If you make me have dinner with him, I'll run away or kill myself");

8. Child's affiliations with the TP's associates and family change;

9. Splitting: The child cannot come up with any positives about the TP nor with any negatives about the AP;

10. Marked absence of complex thinking about relationships: Splitting is one example, and simplistic characterizations of the parents (e.g., "My mom is the homebody and my dad is the entertainer") are another;

11. Child demonstrates a feeling of restriction in permission to love or be loved.

PAS IN THE COURTS

PAS must have seemed a boon to lawyers representing fathers (who are most often the target parents) and criminal defense lawyers, since allegations of physical and sexual abuse frequently occur in cases involving PAS. Dr. Richard Gardner has stated:

Fabricating children [in cases of fabricated allegations of sexual abuse] are more likely to exhibit manifestations of the aforementioned parental alienation syndrome. Children with this disorder typically involve themselves in a campaign of vilification of their fathers and idolization of their mothers. They have been programmed by their mothers to hate their fathers and also contribute their own scenarios of hostility. The fabricated sex-abuse allegations may very well be one manifestation of this disorder. Its presence strongly supports the argument that the sex abuse is fabricated. Children who have been genuinely abused do not usually manifest the signs and symptoms of the parental alienation syndrome. Although there are situations in which a child with parental alienation syndrome has suffered genuine sexual abuse, I suspect that this is rare.(4)

Think of the opportunity here. If a lawyer representing an accused child sex abuser can find a mental health professional who will testify that the children are victims of PAS, the same expert can take the next step to say that it would be rare for a child suffering from PAS to suffer genuine sexual abuse. By simply naming the child's antipathy for the parent as PAS, the lawyer has a defense.

Even absent such extreme allegations, lawyers representing men whose children dislike them in divorce actions can, by labeling the hostility PAS, blame the mother for the child's feelings.

These concerns have been collected and published in the Spring 1994 edition of the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review under the title, "Notes and Comments: The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability."(5) The comment argues that evidence of PAS should not be admissible in court because the theory has not gained acceptance among experts in the field. The comment does note the "general acceptance" standard promulgated in Frye v. United States.(6)

The article attacks Dr. Gardner in strong terms. The commentator points out that the PAS theory is built upon criteria that Dr. Gardner invented and included in his widely discredited sex abuse legitimacy scale. It then goes on to argue that testimony regarding PAS should be excluded from the court both under the Daubert test and under the Frye analysis. Under Daubert, the trier of fact must rule on admissibility based on an expert's opinion as to whether the evidence is reliable and thus relevant. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a), the trial judge must make a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid. in other words, the court may consider whether the theory has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, and whether it has attracted widespread acceptance.(7)

PAS must have seemed a boon to lawyers representing fathers (who are most often the target parents) and criminal defense lawyers.

In spite of the commentator's concerns, PAS has not received an enthusiastic acceptance in the courts, as shown in reported cases. The most frequently cited case showing the dangers of PAS is Karen "PP" v. Clyde "OO."(8) In that case, the mother sought a requirement that the father's visits he supervised because of alleged sexual abuse. The experts differed in their opinions as to whether sexual abuse had occurred. In its opinion, the court cited at length from Dr. Gardner's text. It is for this that this decision has been subjected to criticism. However, an examination of the text indicates that the court based its decision on the evidence and the testimony from witnesses rather than Dr. Gardner's theories. In the end, the court transferred custody from the mother to the father and suspended the mother's visitation, with the resumption of contact subject to treatment and monitoring.

In other cases, reviewing courts have similarly made their decisions without making a determination as to whether PAS is a generally accepted diagnostic tool.(9) In T.M.W., a birth father opposed the adoption of his daughter by her stepfather. The court granted an order requiring a psychological evaluation of the child with a view to determining whether PAS was present. The appellate court overturned the order requiring the examination because it failed to meet Florida's technical requirements. It permitted a new order to be issued provided the new order met the requirements of the statute. In this case, the father was contending that the presence of PAS would justify his conceded lack of contact or communication with the child for several years. In a footnote, the reviewing court noted that no determination was made as to the general professional exceptions of PAS as a diagnostic tool and went on further to recite the cautionary words of other commentators:

"When considering the theory of expert testimony discussed in this subsection, it is vitally important to avoid confusion engendered by reference to syndromes.... [A]t the present time experts have not achieved consensus on the existence of a psychological syndrome that can detect a child's sexual abuse. Use of the word syndrome leads only to confusion and to unwarranted and unworkable comparisons to battered child syndrome. The best course is to avoid any mention of syndromes." citing Myers, Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Litigation, 68 Neb. L. Rev. 69 (1989).

In a 1994 Iowa case,(10) the father brought an appeal challenging the trial court's temporary order transferring custody of his children to their mother. The father contended that the trial court placed too much emphasis on the testimony of a psychologist regarding PAS. The father contended that the theory is not accepted in the field of psychology. The trial court made a modification in the effective date of the transfer but otherwise affirmed, saying:

We do not pass upon the issue of whether Parental Alienation Syndrome is a reliable theory. Rather we look at the evidence introduced and draw our own conclusion. Because this is a de novo review, we only look at the evidence we deem admissible. We consider the opinions of all the experts as we do the other testimony. We give opinion testimony the weight we consider it deserves after considering, among other things, the expert's education, experience, familiarity with case; reasons given for the opinion, and interests, if any, in the case.

In a 1992 Ohio case,(11) the appellant's expert witness testified in favor of a change of custody, claiming that one of the children exhibited symptoms of PAS. The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, denying the father's motion for change of custody and stating that the appellant's argument was not persuasive. The court said that while evidence had been presented to show that the child was being pressured to distrust and distance herself from her father and there was testimony from a psychologist as to the existence of PAS, there was also evidence indicating that the mother had encouraged the relationship between the father and the daughter, and another psychologist testified that the mother provided a supportive and caring environment for the daughter. The trial court was therefore affirmed in its decision.

The appellant's expert witness testified in favor of a change of custody, claiming that one of the children exhibited symptoms of PAS.

A Wisconsin case directly comments on PAS.(12) The father had petitioned the trial court for a change of primary placement from the mother. His basis was that the children suffered from PAS, the condition was caused by the mother, and the only cure was to transfer primary placement to the father. The trial court found the children were alienated from the father but concluded that it would not be in the children's best interests to transfer primary placement to him to cure the syndrome. The father's expert testified that both children suffered severely from PAS. The psychologist also stated that he was positive that the mother was the cause of the syndrome and the only remedy was to place the children with the father. The trial court rejected the psychologist's recommendations, pointing out that the psychologist had admitted that transferring primary placement involved certain risks. The trial court acknowledged that the long-range negative effects of the alienation would exist but said it was speculative that the degree of harm described by the psychologist would actually occur. Moreover, the trial court pointed out that the transfer could jeopardize the children's progress in school and their relationships with friends. The expert's testimony itself indicated that the cure was controversial and that there was limited research data to support the success of transferring the children to the "hated" parent. The court concluded that the evidence was not strong that the alienation would be cured by placing the children with the father. The trial court also interviewed the children and found that they did not like their father and did not want to live with him. One child told the judge that her feelings came from her own observations. Because the children were adamantly opposed to living with their father, the trial court stated that the potential risk of harm to the children outweighed the questionable benefits of transferring placement. It then concluded that the cure proposed by the father presented too high a risk for harm.

Even though the psychologist who testified on behalf of the father was the only expert who testified, the appellate court found it reasonable for the trial court to reject that testimony, saying that the expert's "testimony indicated that the cure was controversial, bears limited research data, and there are certain risks. Furthermore, the testimony of both parents and the children was other evidence that the cure ... would not be successful and was not reasonable."

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals took pains to point out in a footnote that the trial court had examined both parents' personalities and roles in the ongoing dispute and that both were blameworthy for the children's alienation. The court disapproved of each party's actions toward the other and of their ongoing tactics to place the children in the middle of their anger toward one another. This footnote was entered so as to stress that the trial court and the appellate court decisions were not to be seen as rewarding one parent over the other.

EFFECTS OF PAS ON THE CHILD

The effect of PAS on the child is never benign; it is malevolent and intense. The degree of severity will depend on the extent of the brainwashing, the amount of time the child spends enmeshed with the AP, the age of the child, the number of healthy support people in the child's life, and the degree to which the child "believes" the delusion. (In many cases of PAS, the child will exhibit all of the signs of absolute rejection of the TP, but in private will disclose that the rejection is just an act.) The effects run across all areas of functioning.

The child's internal psychological and emotional organization becomes centered around the rejection of the TP. The child develops identity and self-concept through a process of identification with both parents, a process that begins very early in the child's life. The rejection of the hated parent becomes an internalized rejection and leads, over time, to self-loathing fears of rejection, depression, and often suicidal ideation. These developments often are a surprise to the AP and others, since at the time of the alienation, the child will often look mature, assertive, and confident. These are facades, however, often reflecting the feelings of power granted the child in cases of PAS, who is given reign to lie, be manipulative, and be as hostile as he or she wishes without reprimand. The child is also internalizing the rage of the AP as part of the self-concept, which often combines with intense guilt over the harm done to the TP to become chronic feeling states. Sadness and longing often accompany these other feelings.

The child ... learns that hostile, obnoxious behavior is acceptable in relationships and that deceit and manipulation are a normal part of relationships.

When the PAS includes grave distortions of reality, the child's reality-testing abilities become compromised, and he or she has permission to distort other aspects of life. For example, the child may develop a fantasy relationship with the TP or even with a fantasy parent and begin to relate to that as though it is real. (Remember, the child is relating to the TP as a hated rejection-worthy parent as though that is real, when it is not.) This approach to relationships often generalizes as the child becomes older and continues to relate to his or her fantasy of others rather than reality.

The child's interpersonal functioning is affected even more directly. Often, the enmeshment with the AP inhibits the development of the child in other spheres of functioning. For example, the child may become socially withdrawn, regress in social situations, or be seen by others as immature. Often these won't show up until the child reaches the final stages of individuation in early adulthood. Unable to make the break from the family of origin, the child persists in adolescent types of relationships and often continues to be enmeshed with the AP. The child also learns that hostile, obnoxious behavior is acceptable in relationships and that deceit and manipulation are a normal part of relationships.

A dominant emotion for the child is loss, though this may not show up right away. Worse yet, the effects of the loss of the parent on other aspects of adjustment are pervasive. Children who are raised by one parent and who lose the other have been found to have lower academic performance; increased chance of psychological disturbance; lower self-esteem; cognitive deficiencies; higher impulse control problems; school adjustment problems; higher fear and anxiety (particularly about abandonment); greater dependency, which interferes with other aspects of development; and impaired sex-role identification.(13) There are generally negative effects on sibling relationships.(14)

Other studies have demonstrated the reverse is true for postdivorce families in which children experience the active involvement of both parents. Children who maintain continuing relationships with both parents have higher satisfaction with their families, better overall adjustment (including higher self-esteem, better sex-role identification, higher IQ scores and academic performance, better adjustment to the divorce, and better adjustment to adolescence), substantially lower levels of fear and anxiety (again, especially of abandonment), and an increased quality of relationship with both parents.(15) No study of which the authors are aware has demonstrated that children are better raised with one parent absent (with the possible exception of cases in which there was severe physical abuse by the absent parent).

FIXING THE PROBLEM

No policy or approach can be applied universally. Each family circumstance, despite the similarities of the symptoms, has its own complex, interacting, underlying dynamics. What can be said about all cases of PAS is that successful intervention requires the collaboration of the professionals involved, particularly between the legal community and the mental health community. There is a danger in PAS cases that the professionals will become as split and contentious as the parents, only further demonstrating to the child the inadequacies and ineptness of the adults in his or her world. Contentious attorneys, battles of the experts, and confused judges will be great obstacles, and perhaps even decisive impediments, to improvement.

Each of the professionals involved can play a constructive role in each family. Each case of suspected PAS must be carefully, thoroughly and collaborativeiy assessed, a plan developed, and interventions enacted.

Role of the Attorney

The attorney likely is the first to come into contact with a case of PAS, in the initial interview with the AP or the TP. The American court system is inherently adversarial, which does not serve the family in conflict well. The adversarial process further alienates and polarizes. Unfortunately, the charges and countercharges inherent in a PAS-involved family fit tongue-and-groove into the adversarial system.

Nevertheless, the attorneys, including an attorney appointed to represent the interests of the child, each can play constructive roles. The question then is, how are those roles played out against the backdrop of PAS given the certainty that extreme adversarial conduct will almost always result in a poor outcome for the parties and the child? Despite the simultaneous demands to represent the client and to intervene constructively in the PAS, it is possible to be an effective advocate and still deal with the short- and long-term implications of PAS.

There is a danger in PAS cases that the professionals will become as split and contentious as the parents, only further demonstrating to the child the inadequacies and ineptness of the adults in his or her world.

A lawyer for either the husband or the wife who recognizes that his or her client is either the AP or the TP should begin by giving as much information as is available to the client regarding PAS. The attorney for the TP will find a more receptive audience than the attorney for the AP. The next step is to identify the alienating behaviors employed by both the TP and the AP and to tell the client to stop the behaviors. While this may sound sophomoric, clients do listen to their attorneys, whom they are likely to assume have their interests at heart. Obtaining the client's agreement to stop engaging in PAS behaviors is somewhat like obtaining an alcoholic's agreement to stop drinking, since, like drinking, engaging in PAS behavior is ultimately self-defeating for the client. The decision to stop is the first step. Although this may not "cure" the problem, the termination of the destructive behaviors undergirds further progress.

The lawyer for the AP has a difficult role. The AP has collected evidence and invested time and energy in his or her role and has rectitude and certainty on his or her side, or so he or she believes. The AP wants badly for the lawyer, the mental health professional, and the system to agree with him or her.

The lawyer has been hired, however, for his or her knowledge and judgment. Both attorneys should cooperate with each other, with the guardian ad litem or other counsel for the child when one has been appointed, and with mental health professionals working on the case. The interests of the client will be served best when there is a commitment from both parents to the benefits of the children having a healthy relationship with both of them.

When an attorney (or nonattorney ombudsman), such as a guardian ad litem, has been appointed to represent the interests of the child, a special opportunity arises for coordinating the collaboration among the other professionals. This attorney needs to avoid being swept up in the seductive process of PAS and remain neutral, with a focus on concrete evidence. The AP cannot be rewarded for hysteria or histrionic claims, nor can the TF be permitted to play the role of victim. The child's advocate can serve as the focal point for information, obtaining and disbursing information to the professionals involved and potentially to the court, and can advocate appropriate treatment steps. The lawyer in this role must be active to constructively slow or stop the cancerous growth of the process.

Role of the Psychologist

If the initial interventions of the attorney do not turn the family to a more constructive route, the next step is to involve a mental health professional who is familiar with divorce, custody assessment, and PAS in a family assessment. It is crucial that the attorneys collaborate on the choice of a professional and that efforts be made to avoid bringing in hired guns for each side of the issue. The psychologist must look first to identify whether the case truly is PAS, since in some families, the rejection of a parent by a child is not the result of PAS. The evaluation must go beyond the identification of PAS to the motives of all of the family members, the defense factors or functions of PAS in the family, the specific techniques employed, and the patterns involved.

There are several reasons for so thorough an evaluation. First, progress will not be made without treating the factors and motives underlying the PAS. If the family has organized itself around maintaining the fragile mental health of the AP, for example, pressuring for change likely will lead to more defensiveness, not less, or may put the AP at undue risk of a mental breakdown or even suicide. The AP, in our example, must be given collateral supports and perhaps counseling before pressure for change can be applied. The techniques used to accomplish the alienation can also be good clues as to interventions that are likely to work. For example, if denying the existence of the TP is one of the techniques, a corrective intervention may be for the AP to go to great lengths to acknowledge the importance of the TP to the child.

Collaboration

Once the evaluation is complete, the mental health professional and the attorneys involved must collaborate on a plan. Each plays an important role in this process. This should be an open process, since the process itself models for the family a healthy problem-solving approach. The intervention plan must be based on the factors in the individual case, though in all cases there will be some similarities in approach, including but not limited to the following steps:

1. Establishing the benefits of ongoing contact between the children and the TP. Some of these are inherent in the parent/child relationship. Others may be family specific (e.g., "My father may be more willing to contribute to my college expenses if he has ongoing contact with me"). With all family members contributing to the process of identifying the benefits of contact, they begin to incorporate a family culture of valuing the contact rather than disputing it. The family also needs to identify any drawbacks to contact between the child and the TP, but these ought to be reframed as obstacles to be overcome rather than as reasons for elimination.

2. 2. Establishing structure around the contact. This may include behavioral contracts regarding concerns and problematic behavior. Frequent telephone calls by the AP to the child, for example, may prevent the child from having an independent experience with the TP. Contracting to a certain number of calls at certain times may reduce the anxiety. If the TP makes bothersome statements to the child, contracting can include limiting these. The structure, particularly initially when the system is fragile, must have a reliable system of reporting and enforcement.

3. 3. Avoiding the use of placement as a corrective tool. In most cases, the child's relationship with the AP is important. In many instances, the AP has played the role of primary caregiver, and the threat of breaking that attachment may drive the destruction deeper into the family system. However, frequent contact with the TP provides counterbalancing influences to the PAS process and may also provide the child reliable contact with other people (for example, grandparents) who are respected by and important to the child. If necessary, therefore, placement may be a tool to provide corrective experiences for the child.

4. Encouraging the TP to have expert counseling in approaching the child with sensitivity, cool patience, and loving persistence. The TP, often the weak link in the destructive system, may be required to provide delicate explanations of the situation to the child without denigrating the AP. Drawing the TP out of the family process first provides the child with some sense of relief from the pressures.

5. Eliciting some permission, even if insincere, from the AP for the child to love and be involved with the TP. If the AP is on record as giving such permission, the child may have the courage to progress. This may also provide some reassurance to the child at times, in that others can point out that while the AP may in part be reluctant, there is at least some wish for the relationship between the child and the TP to be successful.

6. Having an outside professional take a strong role in protecting the child by giving a powerful message that the TP is nor a bad person, directly opposing the message of the AP. This must fit the real experiences of the child, however. If the TP has misbehaved, this should not be ignored or glossed over.

7. Conveying a clear, strong message to the family that the alienation process is harmful to the child. In some instances, it may be wise to identify PAS as a form of psychological abuse and to indicate that the courts will not tolerate its continuance. Not all cases require a court order; in some, this may be counterproductive or an exercise in futility. Some cases absolutely cannot proceed without the external authority of the court order, but only if the court is willing to enforce. The judge or family court commissioner, therefore, must be included in the collaborative assessment of the family and the recommended plan of intervention.

8. Developing a clear picture of the benefits to the child in maintaining contact with the TP. These include both the general benefits (e.g., the biological needs of the child for the parent; benefits to the identification process; maintaining a reality foundation for the child's fears [no contact will almost always lead to an irrational increase in the fear level, and the fantasies about the TP almost always become irrational]; and prevention of the loss of a love object [which most often leads to self-resentment by the child and guilt, regardless of the cause of the loss]) and the specific benefits given the AP, the TP, the TP's associates, and family. A clear picture of these benefits will help the collaborating professionals take the unambiguous approach required. Any ambivalence regarding the benefits will feed the polarization in the family. If there are no clear benefits to the child, given the nature of the family, treatment may prove fruitless.

9. Realizing that confrontation rarely helps. For example, if the issue is loss, focusing on reducing the loss is more likely to help than confronting the alienation and bringing on the threat of more loss.

10. Providing emotional support. The AP may need a great deal of emotional support for correction to take place, as the breakdown of the alienation may bring to the surface serious problems for the AP.

CORRECTION, WHEN POSSIBLE, TAKES TIME

The probability of successful intervention is moderately poor (informal estimates range between a third and a half of these cases resolving well). This may be more of a statement about the state of the art in dealing with the more difficult issues in high-conflict divorces such as those involving PAS, however, than the tenacity of this particular type of conflict. The approaches identified in this article, for example, are relatively new, based on our increasing body of knowledge about high conflict in divorce. It is our responsibility to continue to study and work at these high-conflict cases. Even with the best of approaches, however, the dynamics underlying PAS are resistant to an easy fix and require hard work over a sometimes long period of time to provide the relief all of the family members, including the AP, are likely to experience, and for which each secretly hopes.

ENDNOTES

1. Throughout this article we will refer to a child in the singular, although in most instances. the same could be applied to the plural, children.

2. R. Gardner, Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation Between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse (Cresskill, N.J. 1987).

3. Clawar & Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children (American Bar Association 1989).

4. Gardner, supra note 2. at 109.

5. C.L. Wood, Notes and Comments: The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Dangerous Aura of Reliability, 27 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1367 (Spring 1994).

6. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). superceded by Fed. R. Evid. 702, construed in Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).

7. Wood, supra note 5, at 1411-12

8. Karen "PP" v. Clyde "OO", 574 N.Y.S. 2d 267 (Fam. Ct. 1991), aff d sub nom., Karen "PP" v. Clyde "OO", 602 N.Y.S. 2d 709 (App. Div. 1993).

9. In the interest of T.M.W., 333 So. 2d 260 (Ra. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

10. In re Rosenfeld and Rosenfeld. 524 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).

11. (Hornby) Simms v. Hornsby (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist., 1992)

12. In re Marriage of Wiederholt v. Fisher, 485 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992).

13. E. Ferri, Growing Up in a One-Parent Family (NFER 1976); J. Santrock, & R Warshak, Father Custody and Social Development in Boys and Girls, 35 J. Soc issues 112 (1979); M. Shinn, Father Absence and Children's Cognitive Development, 85 Psychol. Bull. 295 (1978); C. Marino & R. McCowan, The Effects of Parent Absence on Children, 6 Child Study J. 165 (1976); E. Heatherington, Effects of Paternal Absence on Personality Development in Adolescent Daughters, 7 Developmental Psychol. 313 (1972); R. Sears, E. Maccoby & H. Levin, Patterns in Childrearing (Row Peterson 1957); J. Santrock. Infuence of Onset and Type of Paternal Absence on the First Four Ericksonian Crises, 3 Developmental Psychol. 273 (1970); W. Hedges, R. Wechsler, & C. Ballantine, Divorce and the Pre-school Child, 8 J. Divorce 33 (1979); J. Vess, A. Schwebel, & J. Moreland, The Effects of Early Parental Divorce on the Sex Role Development of College Students, 7 J. Divorce 83 (1983).

14. W. Hedges, Interventions for Children of Divorce: Custody Access, and Psychotherapy (New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1991); R. Gelles, Child Abuse and Violence in Single-Parent Families: Parent Absence and Economic Deprivation, 59 Am. I. Orthopsychiatry 492 (1989).

15. Ferri, supra note 13; S. Kellam, M. Ensminger, & F. Turner, Family Structure and the Mental Health of Children: Concurrent and Longitudinal Community-wide Studies, 34 Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1012 (1977); J. Santrock & R. Tracy, The Effects of Children's Family Structure Status on the Development of Stereotypes by Teachers, 70 J. Educational Psychol. 754 (1979); Hedges, supra note 14; E.E. Maccoby & R.H. Mnookin, Dividing the Child (Harvard Univ. Press 1992); F. Furstenberg & C. Nord, Parenting Apart: Patterns in Childrearing After Marital Disruption, 47 J. Marr. & Fam. 483 (1985); M. Bowman & C. Ahrons, Impact of Legal Custody Status on Father's Parenting Post-divorce, 47 J. Marr. & Fam. 483 (1985); M. Kline et al., Children's Adjustment in Joint and Sole Physical Custody Families, 25 Developmental Psychol. 297 (1989); N. Coyish et al., Parental Post-divorce Adjustment in Joint and Sole Physical Custody Families, 10 J. Fam. Issues 52 (1989); J. Arditti, Differences Between Fathers with Joint Custody and Noncustodial Fathers, 62 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 186 (1992); J. Wallerstein & J. Kelly, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce (Basic Books 1980).

Authors

Kenneth H. Waldron, Ph.D., is a psychologist in Madison, Wisconsin, with a practice focused on divorce. His practice includes divorce mediation, coparenting counseling, custody assessment, parent education, and consultation to courts and court-connected mediation and investigation services.

David E. Joanis practices law with the Madison, Wisconsin, firm of Boushea, Segall & Joanis. His practice focuses exclusively on family law

Parental Alienation Disorder Needs Your Help - Calling All Counselors

2010-03-03T05:00:00.000-08:00

Calling all Counselors

The American Counseling Association (ACA) recently asked its members to provide feedback on a draft of the DSM-V– which the ACA will consolidate and forward to the DSM-V Task Force. As many of you know, the DSM is the mental health profession’s bible — the final authority on symptoms and syndromes and the definitive diagnosis on legitimate mental health conditions. The newest edition of the DSM will be released in 2013.

More than 60 international experts — academics, authors and mental health professionals — recently submitted a proposal to include parental alienation in the DSM-V. Many groups and individuals are working diligently to make the DSM Task Force aware of the huge number of parents and children currently struggling with the emotional heartbreak of parental alienation. It is also vitally important that all ACA members lobby their organization to include parental alienation in the next edition of the DSM.

Including any new diagnosis in the DSM is a long, complex, and some say, political, process. However including parental alienation in the DSM as an Adjustment Disorder should not be difficult. While special interest groups with their own agendas are fighting to keep parental alienation out of the DSM, mental health professionals see Adjustment Disorders related to depression and anxiety all the time. Why is it so hard to believe that a parent with unresolved emotional issues, going through the strain and emotional upheaval of a divorce or separation (the adjustment issue), could put his or her unhealthy emotional needs above the needs of his or her child? Further, why is it so hard to believe that these unhealthy needs might somehow damage, and in some cases destroy, the child’s relationship with the child’s other parent? And finally, why is it so hard to believe that the targeted parent might actually object to these events and turn to mental health professionals to help address an issue that has its roots in mental and emotional health?

The deadline for ACA members to provide feedback is March 22, 2010. The member’s ACA ID number is required with the submission. ID numbers can be found on the back of the Journal of Counseling and Development, or on the ACA website after logging in or contacting member services. To contribute, go to http://www.counseling.org/dsm/comments.html.

Tags: Advocacy, American Counseling Association, DSM, Parental Alienation

Round 2 of Campaign to Ask DSM to Include Parental Alienation—We’ve Made Progress, but Need You to Act Again

2010-02-28T19:30:00.000-08:00

February 15th, 2010 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director

Fathers & Families wants to ensure that the DSM-5 Task Force is aware of the scope and severity of Parental Alienation. To this end, in December we asked our supporters to write the Task Force to urge them to consider including Parental Alienation Disorder in DSM-5. As usual, your response was overwhelming. It also helped lead to progress–while as expected the newly-released draft version does not specifically include Parental Alienation Disorder, the DSM-5 Task Force has now listed Parental Alienation Disorder among the “Conditions Proposed by Outside Sources…that are still under consideration by the work groups.”

The Task Force says it “welcome[s] your comments on whether available evidence indicates that the following [disorders] should be included in DSM-5.” Fathers & Families is asking its supporters to write to the Task Force and again emphasize that Parental Alienation Disorder is a large-scale problem–to do so, please click here.

As in Round 1, Fathers & Families will print out your letter and send it by regular US mail to the three relevant figures in DSM-V: David J. Kupfer, M.D., the chair of the DSM-V Task Force; Darrel A. Regier, M.D., vice-chair of the DSM-V Task Force; and Daniel S. Pine, M.D., chair of the DSM-V Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence Work Group.

This isn’t easy–as Dr. Kupfer recently told the media, ”The door to get in [the manual] is pretty hard.” But Parental Alienation Disorder does merit serious consideration.

Many observers have noted that hundreds of mental health professionals, doctors, educators, family law professionals and prominent citizens endorsed our campaign. If you belong to one of these groups and would like to be publicly listed as an endorser, please see our endorsement statement in the right-hand column and submit your name, title, city and state to us at GlennSacks@FathersandFamilies.org.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article Mental health professionals getting update on definitions (2/15/10) details the DSM-V process:

[There are] many questions that scores of mental health professionals wrestled with for nearly a decade, as they conducted their periodic update of the neuroses of an evolving society.

The result of their work was unveiled by the American Psychiatric Association last week, as a draft version of the new “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.”

Known as the DSM-5, because it represents the fifth edition of this exhaustive bible for psychiatrists, psychologists and others, it attempts to catalog [disorders]…

The first update since 1994 also includes descriptions of depression, sleep disorders, alcohol abuse and other common maladies, but everything gets a fresh look because of the volume of new research and science affecting how they’re all regarded, said David Kupfer, the University of Pittsburgh psychiatry professor who chaired the DSM-5 task force.

The final product will go into the offices of all sorts of health professionals — from psychiatrists to family practitioners — while also influencing treatment payments by insurance companies, drug development by the pharmaceutical industry and future research by government and academia.

Dr. Kupfer, the longtime head of Pitt’s psychiatry department before stepping down in October, said the manual remains a work in progress, with revisions based on public and professional reaction before final publication in 2013.

“We weren’t out to make major changes, but so much has happened that we needed to address, that some may accuse us of being overambitious,” he said…Dr. Kupfer…said there is intense discussion during every update about what problems merit entering the manual for the first time…

“The door to get in [the manual] is pretty hard,” Dr. Kupfer said. “Once you’re in the club, it’s then hard to get out. All of us are a little tight about admitting people in the club.”

Again, write to the DSM-5 Task Force by clicking here.

Together with you in the love of our children,

Glenn Sacks, MA
Executive Director, Fathers & Families

Ned Holstein, M.D., M.S.
Founder, Chairman of the Board, Fathers & Families

Bookmark This Post:

This entry was posted on Monday, February 15th, 2010 at 10:29 pm and is filed under Fathers & Families Advocacy Group, Parental Alienation/PAS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Capitol Weekly: Preventing courts from considering Parental Alienation will harm kids

2010-02-27T19:00:00.000-08:00

By Glenn Sacks, Michael Robinson | 02/25/10 12:00 AM PST

Email Print

In “Parental Alienation must be excluded” (Capitol Weekly, Feb. 8), Preston Thymes, the head of public relations for the domestic violence service provider Shelter Outreach Plus, criticizes efforts by Fathers & Families and others to promote recognition of Parental Alienation. While Thymes and Shelter Outreach Plus often do noble work in aiding battered women, Thymes misunderstands several key aspects of Parental Alienation and child custody battles.

The Family Law Section of the State Bar of California explains that alienation tactics often include:

“[C]ancel[ing] the other parent’s visit without telling the child that the visit has been cancelled, creating a ‘let down’ for the child when that parent does not ‘show up’ for the visit. Threats could also be made against the child for wanting to have visitation with the other parent - ‘Fine, if you want to see [your other parent] tonight, then you are grounded for the rest of the week.’

Guilt can also be used to influence a child to avoid visitation - ‘I’m not feeling well and I wish you would stay here with me, but if you have to see [your other parent] I will understand.’ Rewards can also be used - ‘Sure, you can see [your other parent] today, but I thought we would go play laser tag with your friends today.’”

Parental Alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon that is the subject of numerous studies and articles in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 “high conflict” divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PA were present in the vast majority of the cases studied.

At Fathers & Families, we receive thousands of heart-wrenching calls and letters from parents whose children have been taught to fear or hate them. Both mothers and fathers can be perpetrators of Parental Alienation, but the true victims are always the children.
Thymes asserts that recognizing Parental Alienation as a legitimate issue in custody cases would endanger abused children. But in genuine cases of domestic violence or child abuse, all sides agree that courts need to protect children from abusive parents. Yet there is a large body of evidence which shows that false accusations of domestic violence are a major problem in child custody cases.

Unfortunately, Shelter Outreach Plus, like many domestic violence service providers, displays a troubling lack of awareness of this problem. Thymes writes:
“At Shelter Outreach plus, we render any claims of Parental Alienation invalid…we absolutely do everything we can to keep [the father alleged to be abusive] away from those children [including] our legal advocates through restraining orders…”

Thymes apparently feels that a mere accusation equals the truth, and that judges should not even consider whether an accuser is misleading the court.
Thymes and Shelter Outreach Plus favor AB 612, a bill to bar litigants or custody evaluators from making any reference to Parental Alienation in family court. This deeply-flawed bill, which will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee this spring, is opposed by practically all organizations which represent the professionals who work in the family law field.

Those listed as opposed include: the Judicial Council; the California Judges Association; the Family Law Section of the State Bar; the California Psychological Association; the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists; the Association of Family Conciliation Courts; and numerous others.

The California Psychological Association writes that the bill ignores the “significant scientific and agreed-upon knowledge base of the last 30 years on children who are alienated” and describes AB 612 as a “scientifically inaccurate measure [which] assumes the truth of any accusation of abuse.”

The Assembly analysis explains that AB 612 is so extreme that if it is passed, in court “something as simple as a child not wanting to visit a parent cannot, potentially as a matter of law, be caused by the other parent.”
The analysis notes:

”[A]ny broad restriction on the information the court can consider could well unintentionally compromise the court’s ability to make determinations that are in children’s best interests, and could inadvertently compromise child safety.”

Certainly there are fathers (and mothers) who have alienated their children through inept parenting, narcissism, drug or alcohol problems, or abuse, and who attempt to shift the blame to their exes by falsely claiming Parental Alienation. Sometimes, as research by Janet R. Johnston Ph.D. of San Jose State University confirms, Parental Alienation exists but is only one of several factors causing a deterioration of the parent-child bond.

Sometimes parental alienators are unaware of their harmful actions.

Nevertheless, Parental Alienation is a serious problem. When fact-finding in custody cases, judges and custody evaluators must be able to properly consider all available evidence. When abuse is alleged, the accusation merits serious consideration.

When Parental Alienation is alleged, the accusation merits serious consideration, too.

« Done

Capitol Weekly: Preventing courts from considering parental alienation will harm kids.

Parental Alienation Destroys Lives.... Forever

2010-02-27T11:30:00.000-08:00

Parental Alienation Destroys Lives.... Forever

The damage done from parental alienation will last throughout a child's life. The one person who was most important to them has been defamed not only by the custodial parent... but by the child as well. What a heavy burden for one to carry throughout their lives. That they not only lost their father/mother for life... but they played a part in removing that person from their life. My guess is that any child who goes through parental alienation will go through their life incomplete, anxiety ridden, and with many misplaced feelings.

Gary's own daughter will turn eighteen this year. She's been doing a series of vlogs on youtube, and to me they are quite interesting. She's no longer slamming him and burning his picture hoping that he burns in hell. No. She doesn't even mention his name. It's as though he never existed. She's all happy and everything... or so she seems. But I can see through her facade. This kid will have problems all of her life. Her dad was a wonderful father, and she lost him at 13 and she played a part in that alienation.... something she will either some day have to face, or go through her life living with a lie that will affect every aspect of her life. I feel sorry for her.

Posted by chambrayblue

Alec Baldwin is not Alone: Parental Alienation Destroys Lives.... Forever.

Solutions for Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 2

2010-02-26T07:30:00.000-08:00

Solutions for Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 2
by Martyn Carruthers

Would you like to benefit from our experience?

We offer private and telephone coaching and training on systemic coaching,
quality relationships, family chaos and resolving parenting stress.

PAS Part 1 - Before Adolescence . Emotional Incest

Parental Alienation Part 2 - After Adolescence

Often, children perceive their parents in a black or white world. They may generally perceive one parent as rejecting, and the other parent as rejected.

During and after adolescence, children become biologically ready for partnership and parenthood. Adolescents who accept unhealthy relationship habits as normal may feel unable fulfill these needs. Instead, teenagers may withdraw or express emotional outbursts. The consequences can include:

desperate search for adult role models
delayed emotional maturity - perhaps for years
emotional bonding to same-sex parent (homosexuality)
emotional bonding to opposite sex parent (e motional incest)
chronic anger, d epression, anxiety and / or l earning disabilities
high motivation to dissociate (alcohol, drug abuse or other addictions)
teenage-onset schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder or passive aggression

Emotional Maturity

Before emotional adolescence (which may be delayed), an adult child is likely to accept and express the rejecting parent's qualities. On gaining emotional maturity, the young adult may start accepting the rejected parent in a number of ways, including:

lives with the rejected parent (may avoid the rejecting parent)
identifies with the qualities of the rejected partner (Identification)
oscillates between mother's and father's behavior (Identity Conflict)
partners a person who has qualities of the rejected parent (Transference)
suffers trauma, depression or breakdown and retreats from reality (Lost Identity)

If ignored, this unpleasant drama may well continue into subsequent generations. The rejecting parent, the rejected parent and the adolescent children can benefit from our coaching, which we can provide individually or simultaneously (systemic family coaching).

Parental alienation affects the sense of life of children. People affected by PAS may become unable to feel joyously connected to their friends, partners, families, humanity and to their God. If human connectedness can be replaced by depression and suffering, then PAS is a deeply spiritual issue.

Systemic Family Coaching . Systemic Couple Coaching . Private Coaching

Chronic Anger

A symptom set commonly associated with Parent Alienation is Victim Identification. If the child perceives one parent as a victim, the child may identify with that parent and express anger or rage to the other parent (the victimizer), often explosively and inappropriately. After adolescence, the same child may identify with the rejected parent (now seen as the real victim) and express anger to the rejecting parent (now seen as the real victimizer).

Chronic Conflict

If a child tries to remain loyal to both parents, and those parents are in conflict, the child will likely be in conflict. The side of the child that supports the father will object to the side of the child that supports the other parent. The result is identity conflict. We can coach you to resolve these issues.

My ex-partner played a victim role very well, gained the sympathy of the judge and was awarded custody of our two children ... our older child is now perpetually angry, and the younger suffers from endless inner conflict.

Emotional Incest . Identification . Learning Disabilities . Stress Disorders

Power & Privilege

Emotional blackmail is a common strategy for gaining and maintaining the benefits of child custody, even though a mother who disrupts father-child contact defined by court order may be acting illegally.

The best interests of the child, in a court of law, rarely mean the child’s best interests. Parents can vote, parents can file lawsuits and parents can pay lawyers. The child’s interests and rights are usually subordinate to the parents' interests. Children of divorce are rarely represented in court, and may be emotionally crushed during their parent's childishness, rivalry and power games.

Divorce . Children of Divorce . Parent Coaching

Pleasure may be senseless for parents who have hurt or damaged their own children. Many people, fter alienating a once-loved partner, seem to depress their lives. Some common symptoms are:

Ignore personal hygiene
Avoid completing essential tasks
Avoid keeping track of finances

Ignore important problems
Consider self-harm or suicide
Do things that create problems

Typical PAS Scenario

Either parent can initiate a sequence of events leading to Parental Alienation Syndrome.

A separated parent states that a child does not wish to visit the other parent
A social worker confirms that the child does not wish to visit the other parent
The custodial parent and social worker report to a court
A court limits the child's contact with the other parent
The child and rejecting parent bond by their rejection of the other parent
The child and rejected parent lose contact until the child is adolescent
After adolescence, the child returns to and bonds to the rejected parent

Many people who suffered PAS as children told us that they could not cope with this situation as children, and avoided, rather than hated, the other parent. If the rejecting parent continues to reject the qualities of the rejected partner, the adult child may come to avoid or even hate the rejecting parent.

The toxicity of PAS is not only in the description of the syndrome but also in the solutions chosen by courts. Sometimes, if PAS is diagnosed, the hated parent is given custody of the child, against the child's own will. This is becoming common in America. TM, Therapist

Emotional Maturity & Child Abuse

Children may suffer from the sometimes vicious tactics that immature parents may use to punish each other. Although immature parents express depression, anger, and aggression by withdrawing love, alienating a child's parent is child abuse. Our systemic coaching can dissolve the consequences of:

betrayal of one partner by the other
physical, emotional or sexual abuse
instilling children with false memories
using children as 'dependent hostages'
emotional incest & passive aggression
court ordered suffering - custody by the hated parent

Spirituality seems to be about acquiring virtues - and people often develop virtues under challenging conditions. If you experience danger, you can develop courage, and if you experience lack, you can develop generosity. If you experience guilt you can develop purity, and if you experience depression, you can develop compassion. What can you develop if you experience parental alienation?

Would you like to benefit from our experience?

Resolve Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 1

2010-02-25T10:00:00.000-08:00

Resolve Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 1
by Martyn Carruthers

Would you like to benefit from our experience?

We offer coaching and training on family coaching, relationship happiness,
dissolving emotional incest and resolving parenting stress.

Parent Alienation 1: Before Adolescence

Parent Alienation 2: After Adolescence . Emotional Incest

When Children Hate Parents

Although it is a crime to 'incite hatred on the basis of color, religion, or creed', inciting hatred is common in dysfunctional families. A family member may be manipulated to hate another family member. A parent who incites a child to hate the other parent is guilty of Parental Alienation (PAS) - sometimes called emotional blackmail. Children are abused so that a partner can gain an advantage.

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is often accompanied by emotional incest, in which a parent or guardian seems to be too close to a child. Often, the resulting relationship bonds cannot be rationalized and changed without help.

Many consequences are immediate, and some are delayed for years. Later in life many abused people experience intense buried emotions and limiting beliefs from this damage, although they rarely identify the root cause. Common consequences of PAS are mentor damage, chronic conflict and identification with a victim.

Parents who deliberately hurt children may feel a diminished relationship with their community, with their God and with humanity. (This diminished sense of life seems to be equally true for agnostics and atheists.) By Sense of Life I refer to the sense of purpose and meaning you ascribe to your life.

Our systemic coaching can help prevent partnership breakdown, dissolve its consequences and prevent recurrence. PAS is not gender-based - both fathers and mothers play and lose this terrible game.

My Child Hates Me! / I Hate My Father!

There are systemic causes and consequences when a child rejects a parent. Both the family and the community (and courts) often respond emotionally, usually to support the weaker parent, regardless of any manipulation used to incite the child's rejection or to make the other partner seem somehow bad.

In extreme cases, a child victim of parental alienation may commit abuse and violence against a parent. A child, especially during adolescence (which may be delayed) may attack or abuse the hated parent.

Who Gets Hurt?

Children are intelligent and sensitive to family relationships. Although many adults may consider children to be stupid and naive - children may be unable to communicate their observations using adult language, and be may ignored or ridiculed if they try. Children often communicate with symptoms.

A child may be manipulated by a parent who wants to punish the other, or for custody
A child may be simultaneously manipulated by both parents to reject each other
A child may be guided by family, community or cult members to reject their parents
Adopted children may be encouraged to dislike or reject their birth parents

A child who rejects a parent, the rejected parent and the supported parent will show predictable, often severe emotional consequences. The suffering associated with these consequences is often ignored.

Parent Alienation Syndrome may include emotional incest. If so, later in life, the emotionally entangled or enmeshed adult child may suffer partnership problems and sexual dysfunction.

Coaching Children . Mother-Son Entanglement . Father-Daughter Bonds

Parents who Alienate Children

Parental alienation predicts common behavior patterns that we often see during marriage counseling, family therapy and couple coaching, especially concerning separation and custody of children. However, most families, communities and courts seem to support biological mothers and deny support or custody to biological or substitute fathers, regardless of facts.

Parental Alienation Syndrome

Either parent can initiate a sequence of events leading to PAS.

A custodial parent of pre-adolescent children rejects the partner
The children are loyal to that parent by rejecting their other parent
The custodial parent asks the children to tell the truth
The children support their custodial parent and reject their other parent - with lies
The rejection of the other parent may include false memories implanted by the custodial parent
Following emotional maturity, alienated children may reject their custodial parent and turn to their rejected parent

Sequence of Parental Alienation

The parents of children experience a partnership crisis that they cannot resolve
Instead of getting help, they become emotionally entangled in their crisis
One or both parents neglect the consequences on their children
One parent consciously rejects the partner's qualities (behavior, beliefs and / or values)
That parent also rejects the partner's qualities in the child (e.g. don't act like your father!)
The child denies or suppresses qualities similar to those of the rejected parent
The child identifies with the rejecting parent, who is often perceived as a victim
The child dislikes and represses the dangerous qualities of the rejected parent
The child dislikes people who have similar qualities to the rejected parent
The child rejects the rejected parent - privately or publicly

Part 2: After Adolescence

Immaturity & Child Abuse

emotional incest
physical, emotional or sexual abuse
instilling children with false memories
abusing children as dependent hostages
betrayal or abandonment of one partner by the other
court ordered suffering - child custody by the hated parent

Legal Solutions for PAS ... Your Next Step

Would you like to benefit from our experience?

Kids Aiding Parental Alienation Awareness Organization

2010-02-24T18:30:00.000-08:00

KAPAAO was created as a place for adult children of alienation to come together, help each other, and also help PAAO in how to be able to help children going through Parental Alienation (PA) now and in the future.

To read stories from adult children, click here.

What Is PA? (Parental Alienation) click here

Parental Alienation Syndrome — The Parent/Child Disconnect

2010-02-24T17:30:00.000-08:00

By Amy J. L. Baker, PhD
Social Work Today
Vol. 8 No. 6 P. 26

Divorce and separation can breed bad blood between parents and children when one partner uses the children to target the other partner.

Among the many areas of concern for social workers working with divorced or separated couples with children are two related problems: parental alienation, or the efforts on the part of one parent to turn a child against the other parent, and parental alienation syndrome, or a child’s unwarranted rejection of one parent in response to the attitudes and actions of the other parent. Social workers may encounter these problems in a number of settings, such as family service agencies, schools, and family court, as well as in private practice working with high-conflict divorcing couples, parents who believe that the other parent has or will turn the children against them, alienated children refusing to see a parent, adults who are still alienated from a parent, or elders who have “lost” their children to parental alienation.

While some social workers may be unaware of the name for this particular phenomenon, they have probably dealt with it over the course of their careers. For example, clients may enter individual therapy presenting with anxiety, depression, or relationship problems and later reveal that they have been cut off from one parent by another parent. These clients may be unaware of the meaning of the lost relationship and may even minimize its effect on their growth, development, and current mental health concerns.

Children referred to a school social worker for acting out or experiencing academic problems may casually reveal that they have no contact with a “hated” parent. When questioned about the absent parent, these children may vehemently denounce the parent as “good riddance to bad rubbish.” The family of such a child may be maneuvering behind the scenes to exclude the other parent from the child’s school life by misrepresenting that parent’s intentions to school staff, withholding information from that parent to create the appearance of a lack of interest, and removing contact information from school records.

A third scenario is represented by clients who enter therapy consumed with fear that the other parent is turning the children against them. Such parents will be desperate for advice and guidance about how to cope with the chronic provocation of the other parent. These parents live with anxiety, depression, and helplessness, as well as feelings of victimization by the other parent, the child, and myriad systems (legal, mental health, school) that are not always responsive to the needs of targeted parents.

In all these cases, social workers may formulate a hypothesis that one parent has engineered the child’s rejection of the other parent. However, unless the social worker is familiar with parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome, he or she is missing a useful conceptual framework for understanding how one parent is able to poison a child’s relationship with the other parent in the absence of just cause.

Parental alienation is a set of strategies that a parent uses to foster a child’s rejection of the other parent. Parental alienation syndrome develops in children who come to hate, fear, and reject the targeted parent as someone unworthy of having a relationship with them. Richard Gardner, PhD, who coined parental alienation syndrome, described in The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Professionals that there are eight behavioral components that have been validated in a survey of 68 targeted parents of severely alienated children (Baker & Darnall, 2007).

Eight Manifestations of Parental Alienation Syndrome

1. A Campaign of Denigration
Alienated children are consumed with hatred of the targeted parent. They deny any positive past experiences and reject all contact and communication. Parents who were once loved and valued seemingly overnight become hated and feared.

2. Weak, Frivolous, and Absurd Rationalizations
When alienated children are questioned about the reasons for their intense hostility toward the targeted parent, the explanations offered are not of the magnitude that typically would lead a child to reject a parent. These children may complain about the parent’s eating habits, food preparation, or appearance. They may also make wild accusations that could not possibly be true.

3. Lack of Ambivalence About the Alienating Parent
Alienated children exhibit a lack of ambivalence about the alienating parent, demonstrating an automatic, reflexive, idealized support. That parent is perceived as perfect, while the other is perceived as wholly flawed. If an alienated child is asked to identify just one negative aspect of the alienating parent, he or she will probably draw a complete blank. This presentation is in contrast to the fact that most children have mixed feelings about even the best of parents and can usually talk about each parent as having both good and bad qualities.

4. The “Independent Thinker” Phenomenon
Even though alienated children appear to be unduly influenced by the alienating parent, they will adamantly insist that the decision to reject the targeted parent is theirs alone. They deny that their feelings about the targeted parent are in any way influenced by the alienating parent and often invoke the concept of free will to describe their decision.

5. Absence of Guilt About the Treatment of the Targeted Parent
Alienated children typically appear rude, ungrateful, spiteful, and cold toward the targeted parent, and they appear to be impervious to feelings of guilt about their harsh treatment. Gratitude for gifts, favors, or child support provided by the targeted parent is nonexistent. Children with parental alienation syndrome will try to get whatever they can from that parent, declaring that it is owed to them.

6. Reflexive Support for the Alienating Parent in Parental Conflict
Intact families, as well as recently separated and long-divorced couples, will have occasion for disagreement and conflict. In all cases, the alienated child will side with the alienating parent, regardless of how absurd or baseless that parent’s position may be. There is no willingness or attempt to be impartial when faced with interparental conflicts. Children with parental alienation syndrome have no interest in hearing the targeted parent’s point of view. Nothing the targeted parent could do or say makes any difference to these children.

7. Presence of Borrowed Scenarios
Alienated children often make accusations toward the targeted parent that utilize phrases and ideas adopted from the alienating parent. Indications that a scenario is borrowed include the use of words or ideas that the child does not appear to understand, speaking in a scripted or robotic fashion, as well as making accusations that cannot be supported with detail.

8. Rejection of Extended Family
Finally, the hatred of the targeted parent spreads to his or her extended family. Not only is the targeted parent denigrated, despised, and avoided but so are his or her extended family. Formerly beloved grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are suddenly and completely avoided and rejected.

In a recent study (Baker & Darnall, 2007), targeted parents rated their children as experiencing these eight behavioral manifestations in a way that was generally consistent with Gardner’s theory. Parents reported that their children exhibited the eight behaviors with a high degree of frequency. One exception was alienated children being able to maintain a relationship with some members of the targeted parent’s extended family, which occurred in cases where that relative was actually aligned with the alienating parent. This suggests that the context of the contact with the targeted parent’s extended family (that relative’s role in the alienation) needs to be understood prior to concluding whether this component is present in the child.

Study of Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome
Gardner identified parental alienation syndrome only 20 years ago. However, researchers and clinicians have been concerned about these cross-generational alliances for much longer. For example, divorce researchers such as Wallerstein and colleagues (2001) have noted that some children develop unhealthy alliances with one parent while rejecting the other. Family therapists have observed that, when a child is “taller” than a parent (i.e., able to look down on), it is usually because he or she is standing on the shoulders of the other parent (i.e., being supported by).

Although this problem has long been of concern to mental health practitioners, little research has been conducted on the specific problem of children rejecting one parent due to the overt or covert influence of the other. In contrast to the dearth of research, demand for knowledge about parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome is overwhelming. There are several Web sites devoted to this problem, many of which receive tens of thousands of visits each year. The few books on divorce that discuss this problem are best sellers, and there are several Internet chat groups comprised of anxious parents who fear that the other parent of their child is turning their child against them. Saddest of all are the parents who have already lost their child to parental alienation syndrome and want to know whether they will ever get the child back.

This is the question that guided the current study on parental alienation syndrome of adults who as children had been turned against one parent by their other parent (Baker, 2007). In order to participate in the study, the individuals needed to have been alienated from one parent as a child and had to believe that the alienation was at least in part due to the actions and attitudes of the other parent. Forty adults participated in in-depth, semistructured telephone interviews. A content analysis was conducted. Some of the major themes and research findings relevant to the work of social workers are the following:

Findings

Different Familial Contexts
Parental alienation syndrome can occur in intact families, as well as divorced families, and can be fostered by fathers, mothers, and noncustodial and custodial parents. The prototypical case is a bitter ex-wife turning the children against the father in response to postdivorce custody litigation. That is one but not the only pattern. Mental health professionals should be aware that other familial contexts exist within which parental alienation syndrome can occur so as to avoid ruling out parental alienation syndrome as an explanation because the family context does not fit the prototype.

Emotional, Physical, and Sexual Abuse
Many of the interviewees revealed that the alienating parent had emotionally, physically, or sexually abused them. These data should help put to rest the prevailing notion that all children (in their naive wisdom) will ally themselves with the parent better able to attend to their needs. The people interviewed appeared to side with the parent on whom they had become dependent and whose approval they were most afraid of losing, not the parent who was most sensitive or capable.

Apparent Psychopathology
A related finding is that many of the alienating parents appeared to have features of narcissistic and/or have a borderline or antisocial personality disorder, as well as being active alcoholics. Thus, social workers providing individual therapy with a client who may have been alienated from one parent by the other should be aware of the importance of exploring these other abuse and trauma factors in the client’s early history.

Cult Parallels
Cults offer a useful heuristic for understanding parental alienation syndrome. Alienating parents appear to use many emotional manipulation and thought reform strategies that cult leaders use. Awareness of this analogy can help individuals who experienced parental alienation syndrome (and their therapists) understand how they came to ally with a parent who was ultimately abusive and damaging. The analogy is also helpful for understanding the recovery and healing process.

The research and clinical literature on recovery from cults offers useful ideas for therapists working with adult children of parental alienation syndrome. For example, the way in which a person leaves a cult has ramifications for the recovery process. Cult members can walk away from a cult, be cast out of a cult, or be counseled out of a cult. Those who walk away (come to the realization on their own that the cult is not healthy for them) and those who are counseled out (those who are exposed to a deliberate experience designed to instigate the desire to leave) tend to fare better than those who are cast out (those who are rejected from the cult for failing to meet its regulations and strictures) (Langone, 1994).

Regardless of how the cult is abandoned, leaving represents only the beginning of the recovery process. Considerable time and effort is required (usually in therapy) to process the experience and undo the negative messages from the cult that have become incorporated into the self. The same may be true of adult children of parental alienation syndrome.

Different Pathways to Realization
There appear to be many different pathways to the realization that one has been manipulated by a parent to unnecessarily reject the other parent. Eleven catalysts were described by the interview participants. This represents both good and bad news. The good news is that there are many different ways to evolve from alienation to realization. The bad news is that there is no silver bullet or magic wand to spark that process. For some participants, it was a matter of time and gaining life experience. For others, it was the alienating parent turning on them and, for others, it was becoming a parent and being the target of parental alienation from their own children. For most, the process was just that—a process.

There were a few epiphanies, but most experienced something like a slow chipping away of a long-held belief system, a slow awakening to a different truth and a more authentic self. Most gained self-respect and a connection to reality and were grateful to know “the truth.” At the same time, they acknowledged that this truth was hard won and quite painful. Once they were aware of the parental alienation, they had to come to terms with some painful truths, including that the alienating parent did not have their best interest at heart, that as children they had probably behaved very badly toward someone who did not deserve such treatment, and that they missed out on a relationship that may have had real value and benefit to them.

Long-Term Negative Effects
Not surprisingly, the adult children with parental alienation syndrome believed that this experience had negative long-term consequences for them. Many spoke of suffering from depression, turning to drugs and alcohol to numb the pain, failed relationships and multiple divorces and, most sadly, becoming alienated from their own children later in life. In this way, the intergenerational cycle of parental alienation syndrome was perpetuated.

Wide Range of Alienation Tactics
The adult children with parental alienation syndrome described a range of alienating strategies, including constant badmouthing of the targeted parent, chronic interference with visitation and communication, and emotional manipulation to choose one parent over the other. These same strategies were confirmed in a subsequent study of close to 100 targeted parents (Baker & Darnall, 2006). More than 1,300 specific actions described were independently coded into 66 types, 11 of which were mentioned by at least 20% of the sample. There was considerable but not complete overlap in the strategies identified by the targeted parents with those described by adult children.

Working With Targeted Parents
Social workers counseling parents who are facing parental alienation need to offer support, education, and guidance. The social worker’s primary role is to help the client become educated about parental alienation (what are primary behaviors that turn a child against the other parent) and parental alienation syndrome (what are the behavioral manifestations of an alienated child) so the parent can determine whether this is in fact the problem. These clients must be encouraged to look at themselves and their relationship with their children prior to blaming the other parent for their difficulties.

If the conclusion is that parental alienation is at work, the targeted parent should be taught a series of responses to parental alienation that can allow the targeted parent to maintain the high road while not becoming overly passive or reactive. Such parents need ongoing validation and support in dealing with the pain and suffering associated with parental alienation.

Working With Alienated Children
Social workers who come into contact with children currently alienated must be self-reflective and aware so that they do not ally with the child against the targeted parent. A second concern is avoiding becoming intimidated or manipulated by the alienating parent. The child should be helped to develop critical thinking skills in order to enhance his or her ability to resist the pressure to choose sides. The targeted parent and the child’s relationship with that parent must be validated for the child. The social worker can be a role model who values and respects the targeted parent in order to counter the ongoing message that this parent is inadequate and someone to be discarded.

In private practice, family service agencies, and school settings, social workers may work with clients affected by parental alienation. Some of these individuals may even be unaware of the source of their pain and suffering and/or uninformed about the name and nature of this phenomenon. Familiarity on the part of the social worker is the first step in providing the client with information, guidance, and hope when dealing with this complicated and painful issue.

— Amy J. L. Baker, PhD, is director of research at the Vincent J. Fontana Center for Child Protection in New York City and author of Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties That Bind.

Resources for Targeted Parents
Amy J. L. Baker, PhD: Information about Baker’s book and e-paper, as well as links for Internet and face-to-face support groups for targeted parents and a free 45-minute video, www.amyjlbaker.com

Custody Calculation: Web site with information about a program designed to help parents have input into the creation of custody orders, www.custodycalculations.com

Divorce Support: Web site with information about divorce, www.divorcesupport.com

Parental Alienation Awareness Organization: Web site with information about parental alienation, www.parental-alienation-awareness.com

The Rachel Foundation for Family Reintegration: Organization offering reintegration programs and services for targeted parents and alienated children, www.rachelfoundation.org

References
Baker, A. J. L. (2007). Adult children of parental alienation syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind. New York: W. W. Norton.

Baker, A. J. L. & Darnall, D. (2006). Behaviors and strategies employed in parental alienation: A survey of parental experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 45 (1/2), 97-124.

Baker, A. J. L. & Darnall, D. (2007). A construct study of the eight symptoms of severe parental alienation syndrome: A survey of parental experiences. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 47(1/2), 55-75.

Gardner, R. (1998). The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.

Langone, M. (ed) (1994). Recovery from cults: Help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. New York: W. W. Norton.

Wallerstein, J., Lewis, J., & Blakeslee, S. (2001). The unexpected legacy of divorce: The 25-year landmark study. New York: Hyperion.

Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness

2010-02-20T15:35:00.000-08:00

Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness Tuesday, January 12, 2010

filed under: divorce logic

If you're tempted to put your kid in the middle of your conflicts with your ex, don't do it -- it could lead to serious mental illness.

Getty Images

Dr. Michelle Golland: Children who are caught in the severe emotional struggle of divorcing parents may not only be suffering emotionally, but may now fall under a new definition that is being proposed for the American Psychiatric Association reference tool, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The DSM may include a new mental illness classification: "Parental Alienation." Through his research, Dr. Bernet of Vanderbilt University has defined PA as a form of brainwashing that occurs in a small number of highly contentious divorces. Children experiencing PA develop this condition by subtle or explicit signals the alienating parent sends a child.

Parental Alienation involves mental manipulation or bullying of children, which results in the destruction of a loving or warm relationship with the other parent. Parental Alienation and Hostile Aggressive Parenting deprives children coping with divorce of the stable and loving relationships they need when dealing with the divorce of their parents, and in their life in general.

Children experiencing the emotional bullying by one parent against the other can develop a severe opposition to contact with one parent and/or overt hatred for one parent when there is little and often no logical reason to explain the child's behavior. During the crisis of a divorce, it is key to keep the peace between the parents so as to ensure the children do not feel put in between the conflict. Let's face it -- the couple is divorcing each other, but they should not be divorced from the children.

The healthy and reasonable parent wants to keep their children feeling emotionally safe with both parents. The desire should be to strengthen the bonds between both parents even through the divorce. A healthy parent encourages visits with the other parent, does not talk negatively about the other parent in the presence of the children, and honestly tries to set aside their own hostile feelings to help their child feel less distress. The healthy parent is sensitive to the child's feelings and needs and encourages positive feelings toward the other parent because they know it is paramount to their well being, now and in the future.

The Alienating Parent may seek emotional comfort from their child (and want validation for their pain and anger against their ex-spouse) by trying to get the child to align against the other parent. They speak negatively of their ex and subtly communicate their anger in front of the children. Alienating parents often learn how to manipulate and use their children to hurt the other parent on purpose -- and with a vengeance. The parents who are actively alienating their ex may do such things as telling the children the other parent doesn't love them or doesn't want to see them. They may destroy or hide communication from the other parent. They may give into the child's desire to avoid the parent and actually encourage such behavior rather than encourage them to have a healthy relationship with their ex.

Some Signs of Parental Alienation

• Children perceive one parent as causing financial problems for the other parent
• Children have knowledge of the divorce details or legal procedures
• Children show sudden change in attitude toward a parent, which is hostile and negative
• Child is not being delivered for court-ordered visitation and is being allowed to "choose" if they go to visit the target parent
• Child makes false allegations of abuse
• Parent asks the child to choose one parent over the other
• Parent reminds and reinforces anger and negativity toward target parent
• Parent gives the impression to the children that if they have a good time with the target parent on a visit, it will hurt them
• Parent asks the children about the other parent's personal life
• Parent "rescues" the children from the other parent when there is no danger

The APA will announce on January 20, 2010, what proposed changes will be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. If they are considering including Parental Alienation, they will begin three years of field studies, which will enable them to decide the diagnostic relevance and accuracy of Parental Alienation.

I believe it is important to realize the damaging negative emotional consequences of PA on children in high-conflict divorce. It is why I advocate for divorce therapy for any of my divorcing clients who have children. My goal is to avoid this type of harmful behavior and educate my clients on ways to create a peaceful and less stressful experience for their mutual children.

Dr. Michelle Golland is a USC graduate and a licensed Clinical Psychologist (PSY#16974). She works with adults, teens and is an expert in the field of marriage and relationships. Dr. Michelle Golland has given her expert advice on CNN, HLN, MSNBC, ABC, and Fox news. She lives in Los Angeles with her husband and two wonderfully exhausting children.

Study finds obvious "Personality Disorders" in PAS parents

2010-02-20T11:00:00.000-08:00

Study finds obvious "Personality Disorders" in PAS parents

American Journal of Forensic Psychology

by Jeffrey C. Siegel, Ph.D. and Joseph S. Langford, Ph.D.

MMPI-2 validity scales of two groups of parents going through child custody evaluations, parents who engage in parental alienation syndrome (PAS) behaviors and parents who do not, were compared.

It was hypothesized that PAS parents would have significantly higher L and K scales and a significantly lower F scale than parents who do not engage in these behaviors.

It was concluded that parents who engage in alienating behaviors are more likely than other parents to use the psychological defenses of denial and projection, which are associated with this validity scale pattern. Implications of this finding regarding possible personality disorders in PAS parents are discussed.

Parental alienation syndrome is a term coined by Gardner (1, 2) for the phenomenon in which a child from a broken marriage becomes alienated from one parent due to the active efforts of the other parent to sever their relationship.

Rand (3) recently provided an extensive review of the literature relevant to this phenomenon, broadening the scope to include writing which described the same or similar Concepts without using Gardner's term.

Gardner and others (4, 5) have described numerous behaviors the alienating parent may engage in to harm the child's relationship with the other parent, many of which have been described as "programming" or "brainwashing." For example, the alienating parent is likely to make accusations about the other parent in front of the child, describe the other parent as dangerous or harmful, tell the child that the other parent does not love him or her, and greatly exaggerate the other parent's faults (whether real or imagined). More extreme alienating behaviors include making false accusations of sexual or physical abuse and programming the child to believe that the abuse occurred.

According to Gardner, the child becomes aware that the alienating parent wants him or her to hate the other parent and, out of the need to please the alienating parent and to avoid abandonment or rejection, the child joins in the denigration of the other parent.

Such dynamics are very familiar to clinicians who work with broken families and who perform custody evaluations.

However, little empirical research has yet been reported. A number of questions need to be addressed through research. For example, how prevalent is this phenomenon?

Is it correlated with certain personality traits or psychological disorders? What are the short-term and long-term effects on children who are subjected to it? How does a clinician recognize it? Can psychological testing help the clinician discern when it may be present?

Opinions have been expressed about many of these questions by Gardner and others, but they have not yet been subjected to hypothesis testing.

The present study is an attempt to gain understanding of parents who engage in alienating tactics through a statistical examination of their MMPI-2 validity scales. It was reasoned that if any patterns emerge in the test results of alienating parents, a better understanding of their behaviors might be gained, as well as a psychometric tool to help in the identification of the phenomenon.

In this study, the MMPI-2 profiles of divorcing parents exhibiting characteristics of parental alienation syndrome were compared with the standard MMPI-2 normative sample and with the profile of divorcing parents who do not exhibit characteristics of the syndrome.

It was reasoned that persons who try to alienate their children from the other parent are likely to have a higher degree of the behaviors associated with high L and K scores and a low F score, including a wish to be seen as near flawless, a heavy use of denial defenses (12), a tendency to be rigid and moralistic, and a low degree of awareness of the consequences of their own behavior to other people (narcisstic) (13).

METHOD

Subjects

The subjects for the study were 34 females who completed the MMPI-2 in the course of child custody evaluations. Thirty of the subjects were evaluated in the authors' practice, while four were contributed by another psychologist who frequently serves as an expert witness for the family courts of Dallas, Texas. All of the subjects were involved in child custody litigation and were referred by their attorneys or by the court for psychological evaluation to assist the court in determining the best interest of the children.

Classification Into Groups

The PAS criteria were as follows:

1.Personally involved in, or involving others in, malicious acts against the other parent

2.Engages in excessive litigation for the purpose of limiting the other parent's access to their children

3.Attempts to obstruct regular visitation with the other parent

4.Obstructs the other parent's participation in the children's school life and extracurricular activities by lack of notification or untimely notification

5.Lying to the children

6.Lying to others (including, but not limited to, child welfare and child abuse workers, school personnel, medical and psychological professionals)

7.Violations of law (court orders, enforceable agreed orders regarding access, etc.)

8.False allegations of physical, emotional, and/or sexual abuse (falsehood determined by collateral information from child protective service agencies, physicians, psychologists, or other reputable sources)

Sixteen subjects met the criteria for classification as PAS parents (age range: 30 years old to 45 years old, mean = 38.1 years), while 18 subjects did not and were placed in the non-PAS subject pool (age range: 27 years old to 44 years old, mean = 36.9 years).

Procedure
Gardner (2) and Turkat (4), who report that the majority of persons exhibiting alienation behaviors are female.

RESULTS

The study's hypothesis was confirmed for two of the three validity scales. Results of the t-tests indicate that mothers exhibiting PAS behaviors had significantly higher scores on the K scale and significantly lower scores on the F scale than both the standard MMPI-2 normative sample and the sample of divorcing mothers who do not engage in parental alienation. There was no significant difference in L scale scores between the alienating and nonalienating groups, although both were higher than the published normative sample. The results of these statistical analyses are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Figure 1 presents the results in T-scores as they would appear on a typical MMPI-2 profile.

Table 1. Comparison of Validity Scales of Suspected PAS Mothers In Custody Suits With Standard MMPI-2 Norms

Scale PAS Subjects Standard MMPI-2 Norms*
M SD M SD t
L 5.69 2.8 3.47 1.98 3.17***
F 2.25 1.92 3.39 2.64 -2.375**
K 22.44 3.48 15.34 4.47 8.161***

* Caucasian normative group from Butcher J et al. (15)
** p<.01 *** p <.005 Table 2. Comparison of Validity Scales of Suspected PAS and Non-PAS Mothers in Custody Suits Scale PAS Subjects Non-PAS Subjects M SD M SD t L 5.69 2.8 5.46 2.41 .329(ns) F 2.25 1.92 3.23 3.39 -2.042* K 22.44 3.48 18.92 4.25 4.046** * p<.01 ** p<.005 Figure 1. Comparison of Validity Scale Profiles of Suspected PAS Mothers, Non-PAS Mothers and MMPI-2 Normative Group DISCUSSION This study shows that females who exhibit parental alienation syndrome behaviors are likely to produce extremely defensive MMPI-2 profiles. They appear to respond to the MMPI-2 items in such a way as to appear highly virtuous and without emotional problems or difficulties.

The finding that parental alienators answer the test items even more defensively than other parents in custody suits may shed light on their personality tendencies and may be diagnostically useful.

Gardner (2) has written that parents who make false allegations of child abuse, perhaps the most extreme expression of parental alienation, are likely to exhibit characteristics of histrionic, borderline, or paranoid personality disorders. Although they did not use the term parental alienation, Wakefield and Underwager (16) found, in a comparison of parents making false allegations in custody disputes with parents not making such allegations, that those making false allegations were more likely to have a diagnosis of a personality disorder, consistent with Gardner's (2) assertions.

The findings of this study lend further empirical support to Gardner's belief that PAS may be associated with certain personality disorders and their associated patterns of psychological defense. A highly defensive MMPI-2 validity scale pattern, as was found among PAS parents, suggests psychological defenses which are typically used by people with the externalizing personality disorders (histrionic, borderline, narcissistic, and paranoid).

The tendency to see oneself as "all good" (expressed on the MMPI-2 through high L and K scales and a low F scale) suggests the use of splitting, projection, and denial. People with K scales as high as those produced by the parental alienators in this study are generally described as psychologically unsophisticated, as using denial heavily, and employing defensive distortions (12, 13).

In the context of a divorce and custody dispute, a person who produces a profile like those in this study would appear to be denying any personal responsibility for the divorce or family problems, seeing themselves as flawless, presumably a victim of the ex-spouse.

A person with a more mature defensive structure would be likely to see the matter in more reasonable terms, having less need to deny any responsibility, and be better able to modulate their emotions and give less extreme, more honest answers to the MMPI-2 questions.

Ehrenberg et al. (17) have found that parents with narcissistic personality disturbances were less likely than other parents to cooperate with the ex-spouse after the divorce and to be able to focus on their children's needs.

It may be that parents who exhibit parental alienation syndrome are unable to cope with their personal hurt and disappointment about the dissolution of the marriage through a more mature grieving process and finding new ego supports. It is likely that they cope with their hurt and anger by villainizing the ex-spouse and, perhaps unwittingly, by enlisting their children to help repair their damaged sense of self by having the children join in the splitting and projection of responsibility onto the other parent. Johnston (18) has written that parents who are narcissistically vulnerable are more likely to use the more immature defenses of denial and externalization.

In child custody related psychological evaluations, the clinician should use multiple sources of data to arrive at conclusions (19). When parental alienation syndrome is a diagnostic possibility in mothers, a highly elevated K scale with a depressed F scale may be evidence of the defensive distortions which are associated with the syndrome. This MMPI-2 pattern may alert the clinician to the possible presence of the syndrome, which should be further evaluated through interviews, observations, examination of collateral sources, and other test data. An examination of the MMPI-2 profiles of fathers who exhibit parental alienation tendencies is needed to determine whether they show the same pattern.

REFERENCES

1. Gardner RA: The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sexual Abuse. Creskill, NJ, Creative Therapeutics, 1987

2. Gardner RA: The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guide for Mental Health and Legal Professionals. Creskill, NJ, Creative Therapeutics, 1992

3. Rand DC: The spectrum of parental alienation syndrome (part 1). American Journal of Forensic Psychology 1997; 15:3:3-52

4. Turkat D: Child visitation interference in divorce. Clinical Psychology Review 1994; 14:8:737-742

5. Clavar SS, Rivlin BV: Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed and Brainwashed Children. Chicago, American Bar Association, 1991

6. Cartwright GF: Expanding the parameters of parental alienation syndrome. American Journal of Family Therapy 1993; 21:3:205-215

7. Dunne J, Hedrick M: The parental alienation syndrome: an analysis of sixteen selected cases. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 1994; 21:3-4:21-38

8. Lund M: A therapist's view of parental alienation syndrome. Family and Conciliation Courts Review 1995; 33:3:308-316

9. Blush GJ, Ross KL: Investigation and case management issues and strategies. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations 1990; 2:3:152-160

10. Johnston JR, Campbell LE: Impasses of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of Family Conflict. New York, The Free Press, 1988

11. Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)

12. Greene RL: The MMPI-2/MMPI: An Interpretive Manual. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 1991

13. Graham JR: MMPI-2: Assessing Personality and Psychopathology. New York, Oxford University Press, 1993

14. Siegel JC: Traditional MMPI-2 validity indicators and initial presentation in custody evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 1996; 14:3:55-63

15. Butcher J, Dahlstrom G, Graham J, Tellegen A, Kaemmer B: MMPI-2: Manual for Administration and Scoring. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1989; 105-106

16. Wakefield H, Underwager R: Personality characteristics of parents making false accusations of sexual abuse in custody disputes. Issues in Child Abuse Accusations 1990; 2:3:121-136

17. Ehrenberg ME, Hunter MA, Elterman ME: Shared parenting agreements after marital separation: the roles of empathy and narcissism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1996; 62:4:808-818

18. Johnston JR: Children of divorce who refuse visitation, in Nonresidential Parenting: New Vistas in Family Living. Edited by Depner CE, Bray JH. London, Sage Publications, 1993

19. Guidelines for Child Custody Evaluations in Divorce Proceedings. American Psychologist 1994; 49:7:677-680

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jeffrey C. Siegel, Ph.D. is a forensic and clinical psychologist in private practice in Dallas, Texas. He is a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Psychology.

Joseph S. Langford, Ph.D. is a forensic and clinical psychologist in private practice in Dallas, Texas. He recently relocated to Texas from Atlanta, Georgia, where he was in practice for several years.

Custody and Parental Alienation in Divorce - Immediate Actions to Take and Prevent It

2010-02-20T09:00:00.000-08:00

Custody and Parental Alienation in Divorce - Immediate Actions to Take and Prevent It

Custody and Parental Alienation in Divorce - Immediate Actions to Take to Prevent It
By Dianne Ophelia

The most important thing you can do to prevent Parental Alienation in your Divorce or Custody Case is to Act Quickly. Whatever actions you decide to take, don't wait. Every day that passes takes you further and further away from your Children.

Actions You can Take Through the Court System:

1. Document everything, absolutely everything. What occurred, what the other parent said, what you said, any statements and behavior of the children, every day.

2. Take your documentation to your attorney and explain to them that you don't want to wait to obtain custody relief from the court. Often attorneys will want you to wait 60 to 90 days or longer, which could then be too late for the children.

3. Ask for very specific Child Custody Court Orders about disparaging the other parent in front of the children; that the other parent shall encourage and see that the children exercise their time with you; and, that therapy commence immediately for the children and the parents to assist everyone in understanding how detrimental parental alienation is to children now and for years to come.

4. Make certain the aforementioned Child Custody Court Orders have "teeth." You want swift and specific remedies if the order is violated, such as a loss of time with the children by the violating parent, change of primary custody and/or mandatory therapy.

5. If the Court has the facilities for a "Case Coordinator" or "Case Management" ask that this is implemented so that you have someone you can directly report to about the activities that are taking place and they can then report directly to the court to obtain immediate remedial orders.

6. Continue to return to custody court with each violation of a court order by the opposing party. You need to establish right from the beginning, that you are not going to sit back and passively allow this type of behavior to continue.

7. Ask for primary custody in each instance, explaining that the more time the children spend with the obsessive parent, the more likely the alienation will worsen to the point that it will be irremediable.

Actions You can Take Personally

1. Keep the children out of the conflict and be certain not to engage in ANY of the behaviors of the other parent;

2. Never blame the children for their behavior. They are innocent victims and don't
understand what is being done to them. This is often difficult when they "act out."

3. Keep communication with the children open at all times. Purchase a cell phone for them to call you whenever they feel like it.

4. Stay interested in the Childrens' lives, their activities, friends, what they are interested in, movies, magazines etc. Let them know you want to be and are part of their life.

5. Send or give the children pictures, small presents or other reminders of you often.

6. Go to as many activities as possible. Even if it is a hostile environment, just show up and stay in the background, so the children can see that you are there, yet stay far away enough so that the children and/or the other parent cannot start a fight or have an emotional outburst.

7. Never play the victim, even though you are being victimized. Stay upbeat with the children and let them know they can feel totally comfortable with you.

8. Make certain the children know that you are not blaming them for their bad behavior, when the behavior is a direct result of the alienation. You don't want the children to avoid being with you because they feel guilty about prior bad behavior. They have to know that they have been and will continue to be forgiven. Be compassionate, but do set firm boundaries.

AND, MOST IMPORTANT, DON'T GIVE UP! Your children will appreciate all of your efforts, if not immediately, than once they mature and look back at the situation.

Your efforts will not go unrewarded; you may just have to be very patient waiting for the reward.

Click Here For More Information about FATHERS WINNING CUSTODY.

Dianne R. Ophelia is a Certified Family Law Specialist and is known as THE 30 YEAR DIVORCE EXPERT. She has been litigating custody and divorce cases for over 30 years, having obtained her Juris Doctorate Degree in 1977. She is considered a leader and innovator in her field.

It is Ms. Ophelia's goal to assist anyone going through the divorce or custody process by empowering them with the knowledge and ability to protect their interests both inside and outside of the Judicial System. Ms. Ophelia's writings, whether in her books, ebooks, articles or blogs, are always comprehensive, informative and easy to understand.

Click Here For Information About The Ebooks Listed Below On DIVORCE AND CUSTODY

Those Books currently available include:

Community Property
Divorce, A Survival Guide, 3rd Edition (For US Residents)
Divorce, a Survival Guide (For California Residents only)
Fathers Winning Custody
Several New Titles will be Released Soon.

Dianne also provides Family Law Divorce and Custody Mediation Services anywhere in the United States and Canada.

Article Source: [http://EzineArticles.com/?Custody-and-Parental-Alienation-in-Divorce---Immediate-Actions-to-Take-to-Prevent-It&id=2270778] Custody and Parental Alienation in Divorce - Immediate Actions to Take to Prevent It

Parental Alienation Syndrome - The Problem

2010-02-19T20:00:00.000-08:00

Parental Alienation Syndrome - The Problem

By Reena Sommer, Ph.D.

Family Life Consultant

Submitted January, 2002

Parental alienation syndrome (PAS) has only recently been recognized in the literature as a phenomenon occurring with sufficient frequency and with particular defining characteristics as to warrant recognition. Today, PAS is attracting the attention of clinicians, researchers, social service agencies, parent groups and the legal community. As well, it is an issue that has fuelled considerable debate with respect to the validity of its existence. In spite of the divisiveness that has evolved around this topic, one issue that few will debate is the fact that too many children are caught in a "tug of war" between their separated parents.

Parental alienation syndrome has been variously defined. Based on my background in family studies as well as my observations of client families, I have developed the following definition:

"..the deliberate attempt by one parent (and/or guardian/significant other) to distance his/her children from the other parent and in doing so, the parent engages the children in the process of destroying the affectional and familial bonds that once existed"

Parental alienation develops over time and the distancing that occurs, includes some or all of the following features:

A parent speaks badly or demeans the other parent directly to the child(ren)
A parent speaks badly or demeans the other parent to others in the presence (or within audible distance) of the child(ren)
A parent discusses with the child(ren) the circumstances under which the marriage broke down
A parent exposes the child(ren) to the details of the parents' ongoing conflict, financial problems and legal proceedings
A parent blames the other parent for changes in life style, any current hardships, his/her negative emotional state and inability to function as before
Child(ren) come to know that in order to please one parent, they must turn against the other parent
Allegations of sexual, physical and emotional abuse of a child(ren) are often made.

These features exemplify the denigrating diagnostic criterion set out by Dr. Richard Gardner in his discussion of PAS. In addition, a key feature of PAS is that it is almost exclusively associated with a separation/divorce situation. Similarly, allegations of abuse made following separation also have no prior history, nor upon investigation are they found to have any basis.

Children exposed to the ongoing conflict and hostility of their parents suffer tremendously. The guilt children experience when their parents' first separate, is exacerbated by the added stress of being made to feel that their love and attachment for one parent is contingent on their abandoning the other. Although they are powerless to end the struggle between their parents, they come to believe that if they turn against one in favour of the other, the unhappiness they experience on an ongoing basis will also end.

The challenge for counsellors and family services workers is to find ways of sparing children the emotional pain and stress that result when they are caught in their parents' crossfire. It involves helping parents understand the harm being done to their children through their actions, helping them find peace and reassurance in leading a life separate from each other and helping them develop effective ways of co-parenting. The challenge for lawyers is to discern whether the actions taken and allegations made by a client are based on genuine concerns for their child(ren)'s safety and well-being, or motivated by revenge, leverage for child support, fear of losing his/her children and the role of father/mother.

Copyright © 2002 Reena Sommer. All rights reserved. No portion of this article may be reproduced without the express written permission of the copyright holder, except as follows: You may link this article to your website, either directly or through an ExpertLaw Library index page, provided your link does not depict this article, its author, or expertlaw.com in a negative manner.

About the Author: Dr. Reena Sommer is a family life consultant with a private practice in Winnipeg. Telephone: (204) 487-7247.

Dr. Phil.com - Shows - The Fight over Your Child

2010-02-10T11:00:00.000-08:00

This afternoon took on another case of a child being alienated from the non-custodial parent. It is sad that parents are unable to accept the consequences of their divorce and move on.

“Let me take a moment to read a few lines of a heartbreaking letter of a 10-year-old boy caught in the middle of an ugly, ugly custody battle between his parents,” Dr. Phil says. He reads, “‘I’m bawling my eyes out with the tears of sadness. Dad, I never thought I would say this, but I always think that you’re with another girl or sleeping with another girl. Question for dad: Mom says she still loves you and misses you. Do you still love her? Put a check in one of the boxes: Yes or no.’”

Dr. Phil addresses his audience. “You guys know how I feel about children being pulled into adult matters. If you’re getting a divorce, if you’re in a custody battle, if you know someone who is, please stop what you’re doing, sit down, and listen and watch what we’re going to talk about today. I’m doing this show today because I want to be the voice of the silent victims in the dissolution of marriage, and that’s the children.”

Dr. Phil.com - Shows - The Fight over Your Child

Is Parental Alienation a Form of Trauma?

2010-02-06T11:00:00.000-08:00

Published February 04, 2010 by:

Chrissy Chrzanowski

View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites

Save

If you have gone through any type of trauma in your life you know it can leave you bewildered for an extended amount of time. The effect trauma has on an individual varies but most often the traumatic ramification will be apparent in everyday activities and relationships. International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies states "The impact of trauma has an effect on relationships and often the trauma extends past the individual and interferes with their important family, friends, or work relationships." Many individuals are still trapped within the trauma and it hinders their ability to live a healthy life. The question we ask here is Parental Alienation a form of trauma? What is "Parental Alienation" and what is "trauma"?

Parental Alienation- Is when a child expresses an intense unwarranted anger and hatred for one of their parents. Generally this happens as a result of a divorce or separation in which one parent influences a child with negative comments about the other parent, such as lack of warmth and love. The parent will have the child align with their emotion and anger towards the rejected parent. There are two fundamental structures describing alienating behaviors, direct and indirect. Direct alienating behaviors occur when one parent actively undermines the other parent, such as making derogatory remarks about the other parent or telling the child that the other parent is responsible for the separation or the cause of financial difficulties. Indirect alienation behaviors occur when one parent fails to support access or contact with the other parent, or tacitly accepts the child's negative behavior and comments towards the other parent.

Trauma- Is the Greek word for "wound" (and for "damage or defeat") Trauma has a definition for both a medical and psychiatric occurrences. Medically, the definition refers to any serious bodily injury or shock. In a psychiatric setting the definition has an alternative meaning. "Trauma" in this regard is an experience that is emotionally painful, distressful, or shocking and which may result in lasting mental and physical effects.

Psychiatric Trauma is a natural response to an agonizing event. It entails the creation of emotional memories about the extreme event that are stored in structures deep within the brain. In general, it is believed that the more direct the exposure to the traumatic event, the higher the risk for emotional harm.

Parental alienation has effects on both the children and rejected parents. As parental alienation progresses the bond becomes severed and the child becomes overburdened with negative emotions. The parent becomes traumatized by the actions of the child and the other parent. Some of the emotions are loss, grief, anger, guilt, rage, regret, confusion, fearfulness, shame and hopelessness just to name a few. Children are likely to feel these same emotions with an increased amount of confusion. A number of these children will lose their ability to form independent thinking skills. Frequently the rejected parent is in a state of shock because of the once warm bond they had with the children becomes shattered. The breakdown of compassionate communication turns into the child parroting words of hatred. The child's new extreme actions of rage make the wounds deep and painful.

Children that are conditioned to hate their other parent are more likely to have long lasting effects of emotional damage. With the belief that the more exposure to the traumatic events or lies the greater the risk for emotional harm. It is painful for a child's memory process to be robbed of the love of the other parent. Sometimes years go by before there is a correlation between the truth and the destructive fantasy realm that they were lead to believe. In cases where the child becomes aware of the truth and remembers the real memories they begin to live a new traumatic event. They now have to deal with what they have done and why this took place in their life. The new emotion of betrayal becomes apparent in their life and the focus on what has been done to them plays a vital role of who they have become.

The trauma that occurs in children may be suppressed because of their own behaviors or avoid the rejected parent altogether. Traumatized children often relive the painful emotions repeatedly in their lifetime when the trauma has occurred from a parent or caregiver. Furthermore this theory goes into further details about the parenting style they have learned from their dysfunctional parent. Children who later on become parents that have had trouble relationships or attachment issues with their own parents will be vulnerable to having complications raising their own children. Parents that have lived through the trauma of Parental Alienation as a child will avoid actuality of their own emotions which may become troublesome in acknowledging their own child's emotional state.

A website named Helpguide.org included in the effects that individuals experience when dealing with traumatic events in their life. .

Symptoms of Emotional Trauma

Physical
Eating disturbances (more or less than usual)
Sleep disturbances (more or less than usual)
Sexual dysfunction
Low energy
Chronic, unexplained pain

Emotional
Depression, spontaneous crying, despair and hopelessness
Anxiety
Panic attacks
Fearfulness
Compulsive and obsessive behaviors
Feeling out of control
Irritability, angry and resentment
Emotional numbness
Withdrawal from normal routine and relationships

Cognitive
Memory lapses, especially about the trauma
Difficulty making decisions
Decreased ability to concentrate
Feeling distracted
ADHD symptoms

Possible Effects of Trauma.

Common personal and behavioral effects of emotional trauma:
substance abuse
compulsive behavior patterns
self-destructive and impulsive behavior
uncontrollable reactive thoughts
inability to make healthy professional or lifestyle choices
dissociative symptoms ("splitting off" parts of the self)
feelings of ineffectiveness, shame, despair, hopelessness
feeling permanently damaged
a loss of previously sustained beliefs

Common effects of emotional trauma on interpersonal relationships:
inability to maintain close relationships or choose appropriate friends and mates
sexual problems
hostility
arguments with family members, employers or co-workers
social withdrawal
feeling constantly threatened

In conclusion looking at the connections between the two terms and the emotional effects that occur in parental alienation there is a parallelism and should be studied further. There is enough evidence and similarities to justify the statement that parental alienation is a form of psychological trauma for the child. The definitions of trauma and parental alienation as well as their long-term effects, left untreated, can lead to other medical and physical apparitions in the course of the affected person's lifetime. While looking at the complex components of Parental Alienation, the concept of trauma should be introduced as an important element in similar treatment for health and recovery.

Sources

1. Complex Trauma in Children and Adolescents

Alexandra Cook, Joseph Spinazzola, Julian Ford, Cheryl Lanktree, et al. Psychiatric Annals. Thorofare: May 2005. Vol.35, Iss. 5; pg. 390

2. The International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies http://www.istss.org

3. Help guide.org Healing Emotional and Psychological Trauma

Share Print Save Flag

Resources Did You Know

Family Court Values

Parental Alienation on the Joy Behar Show

Parental Alienation by Joel R. Brandes

First New York Court

Parental Alienation Syndrome: A 'Hidden' Facet of Custody Disputes

Parental Alienation is Accepted as Real in CA Family Courts

Parental Alienation is a gender-neutral mental illness, and it's existence is denied only by left-leaning feminist organizations like NOW. Why is this?

In California, PA is recognized as very real by The Family Law Executive Committee of the California State Bar (FLEXCOM) and The California Psychologist Association (CPA).

Parental Alienation And False & Malicious Domestic Violence Allegations

More Children Lost to Parental Alienation - A Mom's story

Little Boys Lost

April 25 is Parental Alienation Awareness Day

How To Deal With Parental Alienation: An Interview With PA Expert Dr. Richard Warshak

The Evils of Parental Alienation

Monday, March 29, 2010

0 comments:

Links to this post

Canadian TV5 Exposes Cases of Parental Alienation

W5 investigates: Children on the frontlines of divorce

CTV News Video

Photos

Parental Alienation Syndrome - from a Woman's Rights Advocate

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Jessica Click-Hill and Dalton Lucas: two case studies in parental kidnapping

Jessica Click-Hill and Dalton Lucas: two case studies in parental kidnapping

Understanding Parental Alienation

Another blogger has started an online posting of days of alienation by his ex and the brainwashing of his children.

Parental Alienation Disorder Needs Your Help - Calling All Counselors

Calling all Counselors

Round 2 of Campaign to Ask DSM to Include Parental Alienation—We’ve Made Progress, but Need You to Act Again

Capitol Weekly: Preventing courts from considering Parental Alienation will harm kids

Parental Alienation Destroys Lives.... Forever

Solutions for Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 2

Solutions for Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 2by Martyn Carruthers

Parental Alienation Part 2 - After Adolescence

Emotional Maturity

Chronic Anger

Chronic Conflict

Power & Privilege

Typical PAS Scenario

Emotional Maturity & Child Abuse

Resolve Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 1

Resolve Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 1by Martyn Carruthers

Parent Alienation 1: Before Adolescence

When Children Hate Parents

My Child Hates Me! / I Hate My Father!

Who Gets Hurt?

Parents who Alienate Children

Parental Alienation Syndrome

Sequence of Parental Alienation

Immaturity & Child Abuse

Kids Aiding Parental Alienation Awareness Organization

Parental Alienation Syndrome — The Parent/Child Disconnect

Parental Alienation, Divorce, and Mental Illness

Study finds obvious "Personality Disorders" in PAS parents

Custody and Parental Alienation in Divorce - Immediate Actions to Take and Prevent It

Parental Alienation Syndrome - The Problem

Parental Alienation Syndrome - The Problem

By Reena Sommer, Ph.D.

Submitted January, 2002

Dr. Phil.com - Shows - The Fight over Your Child

Is Parental Alienation a Form of Trauma?

Please log in to flag content

Solutions for Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 2
by Martyn Carruthers

Resolve Parental Alienation (PAS) Part 1
by Martyn Carruthers